Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AVP.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVP; Tower AVP
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the planning phase; I misread the aircraft configuration chart; thinking that the aircraft had dual FMS's. It only has one; thus requiring a non-FMS route. I had filed them on the specificed route; which was not suitable. The Captain caught this and called to request new route.  A new; non-FMS; route was calculated; fuel increased; and flight plan sent and amendment 1 was issued for the new route. I filed the route with ATC and added a remark for non-FMS; but did not cancel their original filing. I re-sent the ATC filing with the flight plan; assuming that the new; non-FMS route was sent to ATC. When the crew received their amended flight plan and picked up their clearance; they were 'cleared as filed' by clearance delivery. The crew had the new flight plan in hand showing the new route; so they did not request full route clearance. Once airborne; either ATC or the crew (not sure which) realized they were not flying the route as filed and inquired. It was then discovered that ATC had the original route on file and not the non-FMS route. ATC and crew worked out the mistake and they were rerouted onto non-FMS route. The crew and ATC were not on the same page; route-wise. ATC was issuing clearances and instructions based on a different route. Luckily; the discrepancy was noted quickly and corrected. The Tower Supervisor called to inquire if there had possibly been a technical problem with the filing not going through. At the time that I talked to him; I hadn't researched the flight. Having done so; the answer is no. There was no technical problem within the ATC computer system. During task saturation; it is critical to ignore ringing telephones; etc. and focus on finishing one flight before picking up the phone; even if only to place them on hold; or addressing other flights. Had I not gotten distracted; I would have canceled their original filing and the new one would have gone through. I had two [unplanned] flights that had been added to my desk relatively last-minute that were requiring my attention; as well as the normal desk load. Also; our flight planning computer system is not transparent as to what has been transmitted. When I looked at Message Control; it showed what time the ATC filing had been sent but not what filing went out. As far as I know; there is no way to determine what the last info sent was. I know we can look up in Flight Ops to see what the crew has in hand; and we can look up ACARs log for their PDC. Suggesting that the crew request Full Route Clearance would have prevented this; as well.




Synopsis: When the flight crew reminded the Dispatcher that their single FMS aircraft wasn't qualified to use the FMS routing of their original flight plan the Dispatcher sent an appropriate version to the flight crew but the change was not transmitted to ATC and a track deviation resulted but was quickly resolved.  The Dispatcher cited the lack of transparency of 'what' has been transmitted to ATC by the company's flight planning software.