Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Oceanic; Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: At the time that I took over the sector; the sector que was already filled with many flight plans from Gander Control that all had routing issues due to Gander putting in the wrong track information. I had to spend a lot of time rerouting aircraft because the routes sent to us were not correct. I received a call from Gander about a flight that they couldn't send over and had to be done manually. I took the information and looked at the route and saw that they were filed from Gander to my oceanic to Moncton center and back down to my oceanic again.  I moved the route over to the right column and fixed it. But then I clicked accept manual instead of negotiate manual. That saved the previous route and didn't save the new route that I had gander issue the aircraft. At the time I was made aware that I had possibly been involved in the loss of separation between two aircraft both at 40000 feet.Slowing down and making sure that the blue data is same as what was coordinated. Also having Shanwick and Gander Control's not truncate routings. If they take them off of their original track to tie them back into a point on their routing after landfall fix. That will reduce the reroutes that need to be given and mistakes.


Second narrative: I just sat down to work sectors 23 and 24 which had two day time west bound tracks. One track was not busy and the other was busy. The problem was that there was weather and the aircraft wanted higher. There was also a couple weather deviations. The problem was when I went to coordinate with Moncton Center I noticed the routes needed to be fixed. So while I was fixing the routes and getting the coordination done; that's when Aircraft X had logged in CPDLC (Data Link) and I got an ARP message. When I checked it; I noticed the route didn't look right. I thought I would go back to it. It was a matter of only 10 - 15 mins from the ARP Message to when he passed over 44n50w and turned south which put him merging with another aircraft at 40000 feet. Just prior to the aircraft reaching 44n050w I took a break. The controller that got me up then checked the ARP as the aircraft passed 44n and started to take action on fixing the issue. The routes should have been fixed prior to entering our airspace. And maybe an east west split. The way we split the ocean sectors needs to be looked at. And the problem with the ocean is staffing. It seems when we really need to split sectors we can't because of staffing. So when you staff to a number to handle let's say moderate to a little busy traffic; what do you do when it's really busy and complex traffic. We cross our fingers and hope nothing goes wrong. I feel like its playing hot potato. Also I see that people that work heavy traffic are not serving the aircraft in a timely fashion or not at all.


Synopsis: ZNY ARTCC Controller aircraft on an oceanic track routing was issued a new route. The new route was not entered into the system and a conflict with another aircraft resulted.