Narrative:

We were operating on runway 33 this day. Tower requested a left turn departure for air carrier X because a flight of two military jets were ready for departure right behind them. I told tower to turn air carrier X left on a 210 heading. Tower held on to air carrier X for a couple minutes on departure climb while the flight of two military jets departed behind them on runway heading. Shortly thereafter; air carrier X came over to departure climbing out of 034 above the MVA for that area I told them to proceed direct hanaa. [I] then told the following military jet flight to turn left direct laggs. I performed coordination for the handoff of the military jet flights to boston center then switched them. My trainer alerted me that air carrier X appeared to be off course. I immediately told air carrier X to turn left direct hanaa. This appeared to do nothing; so my trainer keyed up and said turn left heading 220 and called traffic because air carrier X was now a direct conflict with the pair of military jets at their 12 to 1 o'clock around 3 to 4 miles and decreasing rapidly within a few hundred feet of each other. Air carrier X was issued a safety alert and reported the traffic in sight and was told to maintain visual separation. I'm not sure if the pilots of air carrier X saw both military jets or just one. The second military jet did not have it's transponder on so it was hard to tell how much of a factor there was between air carrier X and the second military jet. It is my understanding that air carrier X was in direct conflict because when I told them to proceed direct hanaa; they accidentally put in hanna. I've been told that this happened before. I believe that a name change should be initiated for this fix or a removal altogether to avoid future mistakes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A loss of separation event occurred when pronunciation of navigational fix HANAA was apparently incorrectly entered in the FMS as HANNA by the flight crew and an unexpected turn was initiated.

Narrative: We were operating on Runway 33 this day. Tower requested a left turn departure for Air Carrier X because a flight of two military jets were ready for departure right behind them. I told Tower to turn Air Carrier X left on a 210 heading. Tower held on to Air Carrier X for a couple minutes on departure climb while the flight of two military jets departed behind them on runway heading. Shortly thereafter; Air Carrier X came over to Departure climbing out of 034 above the MVA for that area I told them to proceed direct HANAA. [I] then told the following military jet flight to turn left direct LAGGS. I performed coordination for the handoff of the military jet flights to Boston Center then switched them. My trainer alerted me that Air Carrier X appeared to be off course. I immediately told Air Carrier X to turn left direct HANAA. This appeared to do nothing; so my trainer keyed up and said turn left heading 220 and called traffic because Air Carrier X was now a direct conflict with the pair of military jets at their 12 to 1 o'clock around 3 to 4 miles and decreasing rapidly within a few hundred feet of each other. Air Carrier X was issued a safety alert and reported the traffic in sight and was told to maintain visual separation. I'm not sure if the pilots of Air Carrier X saw both military jets or just one. The second military jet did not have it's transponder on so it was hard to tell how much of a factor there was between Air Carrier X and the second military jet. It is my understanding that Air Carrier X was in direct conflict because when I told them to proceed direct HANAA; they accidentally put in HANNA. I've been told that this happened before. I believe that a name change should be initiated for this fix or a removal altogether to avoid future mistakes.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.