Narrative:

A B747 anchorage departure was nearing entry into zan oceanic sector 10/11 when the sector 10/11 began to receive unusual error messages into the atop sector queue. The messages indicated that there was a problem with the afn login and alerted the previous controller and I to the fact that I may want to check if the flight plan was correct. I called sector 69/63 and asked the controller to query the B747 what his destination was; he currently had control of the aircraft. This seemed to be the easiest way to figure out which of the two flight plans atop had were correct. I should mention that we get many superfluous messages like this and unfortunately; these messages alone are not enough to completely determine a discrepancy and are often ignored. Upon inquiry; the 69/63 controller indicated that pilot claimed ZZZZ1 was destination. The flight plan that was activated was ZZZZ2 and if we had not received the messaging; we would have not been aware that once the B747 left sector 10/11; his route was different and destination was different. The two flight plans were identically until after they left our airspace (10/11) then they changed dramatically. I told the flm who then called anc tower to inquire why the wrong flight plan with a different destination was activated. The person who answered the phone told the flm that he in fact had handled the B747 and had issued the clearance 'cleared to destination airport as filed' while never stating the destination. Upon further investigation; my flm determined that the aircraft had filed six flight plans off of anchorage in a two or three hour time span. I asked the pilot of the B747 about the discrepancy and he said his destination change was a last minute decision based on maintenance issues. As a controller at zan; I have witnessed similar situations several times. In fact; just about one month ago; an almost identical situation happened off of anchorage airport. I was standing behind a sector 5/6 controller who was about to delete an 'extra' flight plan on an anchorage departure. I just happened to look at his scope as he commented that he was going to delete the extra flight plan. Based on my experience with the atop system; I told him to use caution and check with the pilot on full routing. It turned out this situation was almost identical to the situation identified in this instance. He checked with the pilot and it turns out all the routing was the same in zan's airspace for about three hours; but then diverged once he entered tokyo airspace; the controller was about to delete the wrong flight plan and the aircraft would have deviated in tokyo. I mention this situation because if I as just one controller have witnessed this happen twice in a one month time span; there is an issue that must be corrected. In these two instances; we identified the situation and prevented an aircraft from flying a route for which he was not being protected. In the oceanic environment; without radar and large distances between reporting points; the aircraft could have been a hundred miles or more off route before anyone knew that anything was wrong. This is dangerous and certainly not positive control. Suggestions; airline dispatch must cancel flight plans that will not be used. Clearance delivery in the tower must ensure that correct flight plan is issued.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAN Controller described a very confused situation when one aircraft had multiple flight plans on file to different destinations; the reporter suggesting improved company procedures were necessary to preclude future events.

Narrative: A B747 Anchorage departure was nearing entry into ZAN Oceanic Sector 10/11 when the Sector 10/11 began to receive unusual error messages into the ATOP sector queue. The messages indicated that there was a problem with the AFN login and alerted the previous Controller and I to the fact that I may want to check if the flight plan was correct. I called Sector 69/63 and asked the Controller to query the B747 what his destination was; he currently had control of the aircraft. This seemed to be the easiest way to figure out which of the two flight plans ATOP had were correct. I should mention that we get many superfluous messages like this and unfortunately; these messages alone are not enough to completely determine a discrepancy and are often ignored. Upon inquiry; the 69/63 Controller indicated that pilot claimed ZZZZ1 was destination. The flight plan that was activated was ZZZZ2 and if we had not received the messaging; we would have not been aware that once the B747 left Sector 10/11; his route was different and destination was different. The two flight plans were identically until after they left our airspace (10/11) then they changed dramatically. I told the FLM who then called ANC Tower to inquire why the wrong flight plan with a different destination was activated. The person who answered the phone told the FLM that he in fact had handled the B747 and had issued the clearance 'Cleared to destination airport as filed' while never stating the destination. Upon further investigation; my FLM determined that the aircraft had filed six flight plans off of Anchorage in a two or three hour time span. I asked the pilot of the B747 about the discrepancy and he said his destination change was a last minute decision based on maintenance issues. As a Controller at ZAN; I have witnessed similar situations several times. In fact; just about one month ago; an almost identical situation happened off of Anchorage Airport. I was standing behind a Sector 5/6 Controller who was about to delete an 'extra' flight plan on an Anchorage departure. I just happened to look at his scope as he commented that he was going to delete the extra flight plan. Based on my experience with the ATOP system; I told him to use caution and check with the pilot on full routing. It turned out this situation was almost identical to the situation identified in this instance. He checked with the pilot and it turns out all the routing was the same in ZAN's airspace for about three hours; but then diverged once he entered TOKYO airspace; the Controller was about to delete the wrong flight plan and the aircraft would have deviated in TOKYO. I mention this situation because if I as just one Controller have witnessed this happen twice in a one month time span; there is an issue that must be corrected. In these two instances; we identified the situation and prevented an aircraft from flying a route for which he was not being protected. In the Oceanic environment; without RADAR and large distances between reporting points; the aircraft could have been a hundred miles or more off route before anyone knew that anything was wrong. This is dangerous and certainly not positive control. Suggestions; Airline Dispatch must cancel flight plans that will not be used. Clearance delivery in the Tower must ensure that correct flight plan is issued.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.