Narrative:

Small aircraft X, a C172, had a flight plan filed to cak from roa. There were 2 flight plans, 1 showing airways with some errors in it, and the second was direct to some latitudes/longitudes (presumably cak) direct cak. This strip had a notation of frc indicating that the route was not what the pilot filed and that we should issue a full route clearance. The aircraft was not equipped with RNAV, so the direct routing was not feasible. Although not the subject of my report, it should be noted that our friends at flight service, if unable to get a flight plan into the computer, will do exactly what was done on the second strip -- put it in direct to the destination and put frc in the remarks. Sometimes they forget to put the frc in, resulting in a PF one route, and the controllers believing that another route is being flown. In this case, I was familiar with the routing due to experience gained at another facility. I looked up the route on a chart to verify it and showed it to the clearance delivery person before the aircraft called. As I came back up after a break, I noticed that clearance had amended the flight plan and issued the clearance to X. I noticed that the routing was different than I had suggested and contained an airway going to a VOR that was not on that airway. I brought this to the attention of the clearance person, who said 'the computer took it, so it's all right.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WRONG RTE ISSUED TO SMA X.

Narrative: SMA X, A C172, HAD A FLT PLAN FILED TO CAK FROM ROA. THERE WERE 2 FLT PLANS, 1 SHOWING AIRWAYS WITH SOME ERRORS IN IT, AND THE SECOND WAS DIRECT TO SOME LATITUDES/LONGITUDES (PRESUMABLY CAK) DIRECT CAK. THIS STRIP HAD A NOTATION OF FRC INDICATING THAT THE RTE WAS NOT WHAT THE PLT FILED AND THAT WE SHOULD ISSUE A FULL RTE CLRNC. THE ACFT WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH RNAV, SO THE DIRECT ROUTING WAS NOT FEASIBLE. ALTHOUGH NOT THE SUBJECT OF MY RPT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT OUR FRIENDS AT FLT SVC, IF UNABLE TO GET A FLT PLAN INTO THE COMPUTER, WILL DO EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE ON THE SECOND STRIP -- PUT IT IN DIRECT TO THE DEST AND PUT FRC IN THE REMARKS. SOMETIMES THEY FORGET TO PUT THE FRC IN, RESULTING IN A PF ONE RTE, AND THE CTLRS BELIEVING THAT ANOTHER RTE IS BEING FLOWN. IN THIS CASE, I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ROUTING DUE TO EXPERIENCE GAINED AT ANOTHER FACILITY. I LOOKED UP THE RTE ON A CHART TO VERIFY IT AND SHOWED IT TO THE CLRNC DELIVERY PERSON BEFORE THE ACFT CALLED. AS I CAME BACK UP AFTER A BREAK, I NOTICED THAT CLRNC HAD AMENDED THE FLT PLAN AND ISSUED THE CLRNC TO X. I NOTICED THAT THE ROUTING WAS DIFFERENT THAN I HAD SUGGESTED AND CONTAINED AN AIRWAY GOING TO A VOR THAT WAS NOT ON THAT AIRWAY. I BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTN OF THE CLRNC PERSON, WHO SAID 'THE COMPUTER TOOK IT, SO IT'S ALL RIGHT.'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.