Narrative:

Aircraft X showed overdue in our edst (enroute decision support tool); we talked to ZSE10 (where the aircraft would have been before entering ZLC30) they hadn't heard of him. Their supervisor did a spurt (or whatever that search function is called that supervisors trust beyond reason because they're not taught to think for themselves just to look at numbers on a screen that are usually wrong and make knee-jerk and bad decisions based on those numbers) and it showed that we had rs'd (remove strip) the flight plan in our airspace. We had not rs'd the flight plan. I'm pretty sure what happened is that the aircraft was an in/out/in flight with ZSE and erams (enroute automation modernization) flawed flight plan tracking requires the rs of the exiting flight plan so that it doesn't conflict with the entering flight plan. Because of this dangerous requirement of the eram system ZSE10 never received the overdue status and should in fact have obtained the alert before us. Luckily we found the plane (had returned almost immediately to [its original departure airport]) and there was no need for an alnot (alert notice); however; had it been a real emergency and a plane had gone down; the time added to the alnot and search and rescue due to an automatic rs function could have been the difference between life and death.not only was ZSE blissfully unaware of the aircraft that never entered their airspace and they probably should have been worried about; but when we asked about it; they were even more blissfully unconcerned because the computer told the supervisor not to worry and that we were the ones that rs's the flight plan.I wouldn't have paid for eram; but I guess we can't go back and fix one of the most fiscally irresponsible things the FAA has ever accomplished; so going forward I would train supervisors to think about what their job actually is; remind them that probably no action ever accomplished by a supervisor without the concurrence of an actual air traffic controller has ever been a good decision in regards to the NAS (national airspace system); and change eram's 'rs' policy. If it requires so much concurrence from the controller (a logic check) it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow that command to be entered by a computer that obviously has no idea how the NAS actually works.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLC Controller reported of an overdue aircraft notice. Aircraft was found to have returned to the departure airport soon after takeoff. Reporter blamed ERAM and supervisors for not knowing where the aircraft was.

Narrative: Aircraft X showed overdue in our EDST (Enroute Decision Support Tool); we talked to ZSE10 (where the aircraft would have been before entering ZLC30) they hadn't heard of him. Their supervisor did a spurt (or whatever that search function is called that supervisors trust beyond reason because they're not taught to think for themselves just to look at numbers on a screen that are usually wrong and make knee-jerk and bad decisions based on those numbers) and it showed that we had RS'd (Remove Strip) the flight plan in our airspace. We had not RS'd the flight plan. I'm pretty sure what happened is that the aircraft was an in/out/in flight with ZSE and ERAMs (Enroute Automation Modernization) flawed flight plan tracking requires the RS of the exiting flight plan so that it doesn't conflict with the entering flight plan. Because of this dangerous requirement of the ERAM system ZSE10 never received the overdue status and should in fact have obtained the alert before us. Luckily we found the plane (had returned almost immediately to [its original departure airport]) and there was no need for an ALNOT (Alert Notice); however; had it been a real emergency and a plane had gone down; the time added to the ALNOT and search and rescue due to an automatic RS function could have been the difference between life and death.Not only was ZSE blissfully unaware of the aircraft that never entered their airspace and they probably should have been worried about; but when we asked about it; they were even more blissfully unconcerned because the computer told the supervisor not to worry and that we were the ones that RS's the flight plan.I wouldn't have paid for ERAM; but I guess we can't go back and fix one of the most fiscally irresponsible things the FAA has ever accomplished; so going forward I would train supervisors to think about what their job actually is; remind them that probably no action ever accomplished by a supervisor without the concurrence of an actual air traffic controller has ever been a good decision in regards to the NAS (National Airspace System); and change ERAM's 'RS' policy. If it requires so much concurrence from the controller (a logic check) it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow that command to be entered by a computer that obviously has no idea how the NAS actually works.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.