Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 4
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Aircraft X was filed on the KKILR3 arrival. Due to dispatch filing error the extra NAV information was filed incorrectly and En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) showed Aircraft X unable to fly the KKILR3 RNAV STAR. So the Route was shown..KAMMA..XXX.KKILR3.KMSP. The Clearance Delivery controller at [the departure airport] issued this. Only when the ZAU HARLY sector questioned the flights ability to fly the KKILR3 was the XXX questioned by the pilot. The aircraft was issued corrected routing and continued with no issue. ERAM will not hand off aircraft with XXX in their route to adjacent facilities so the equipment must be changed in the flight plan menus in the EDST. I am uncomfortable changing this information because I don't know this information. We are taught a work around to make this work. I would rather put in Non-RNAV routing that ERAM shows he can fly and coordinating with the adjacent facility. If there is an incident I don't want to have to explain why I changed equipment information on a flight.Training for the clearance delivery controller so they don't issue XXX routing. A way to override the XXX so it hands to adjacent facilities and I can coordinate with the receiving controller I verified with the pilot that they are able to fly the RNAV SID/STAR.
We routinely see aircraft that are able to fly the advanced RNAV into MSP but show up on the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) as unable (with XXX in the routing). We were told to just amend their flight plan to [indicate the correct equipment suffix] for the departure; enroute; and arrival portion. I do not like to do this as I'm not 100% sure what I'm actually changing. If they were to crash; someone may come back to me asking why I changed those values. My answer would always be; 'I don't know.' So instead; I ask the pilot if he is able to fly the advanced RNAV arrival (the KKILR) into MSP. If he says yes; I change his route to the BAE.EAU9.MSP routing. That way the BAE sector can handoff the aircraft without having to do a manual handoff. I asked the aircraft if he was able to fly an advanced RNAV; more importantly the KKILR; and he replied yes. Then the pilot said he had a question about his route. He told me that he was cleared to MSP via the SID out of [the departure airport] to KAMMA..XXX.KKILR3.MSP. He questioned the 'XXX' fix. I then let him know that the 'XXX' was not an actual fix and that was our computer's way of telling us that his aircraft wasn't able to fly the advanced RNAV. I recleared him to the MSP airport via after KAMMA the KKILR3 arrival. Then I let the BAE controller know that he was really flying the KKILR arrival; but couldn't get it to accept it and that's why it showed he was on the EAU9. I recommend first and foremost to stop making it a requirement to change things in the URET about an aircraft's equipment if we aren't sure what exactly we are doing. It could be affecting more than we know. Second; because it should no longer be a requirement to change the equipment values; I think there should be a manual override so we can allow the flight plan to pass to another facility without having to change the equipment. Third; I would recommend skill enhancement for whoever cleared the aircraft to the MSP airport via KAMMA..XXX.KKILR3.
Chicago Center Controllers reported a problem associated with incorrect routing and being told of a fix they do not like to use for it.