ZDV CTLR SUGGESTS THAT A PLT'S FLT PLANNING SVC PROVIDER IS 'CREATING ITS OWN WAYPOINTS' BECAUSE THE PLT SAYS HE IS UNFAMILIAR WITH A ROUTING ASSIGNED BY ATC.

Narrative

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS; WE GET IFR FLT PLANS THAT PLTS HAVE FILED THROUGH DUATS. FREQUENTLY; THE PLT HAS FILED A DIRECT RTE AND THE RTE OF FLT THE PLT HAS ENTERED IN HIS FLT PLAN IS NOT THE RTE OF FLT THAT ATC SEES PRINTED ON THE FLT STRIP. EVIDENTLY; DUATS IS OPERATING ITS OWN WAYPOINTS AND INSERTING THEM INTO THE FLT PLAN. ONE RECENT EXAMPLE IS A GPS EQUIPPED ACFT FILED FROM CMA DIRECT TO 00V. THE RTE THAT IS GIVEN TO ATC IS: CMA./.GCN 330 022..PGA 150017..DUL 150015..ETL 150015..HBU 150015..3856/10434.00V. THE PLT IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE WAYPOINTS IN HIS RTE OF FLT. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE A DANGEROUS SIT PLUS THE PLT HAS NOT RECEIVED A VALID CLRNC. IF FIXES ARE ENTERED INTO THE RTE OF FLT; THEN THE PLT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A 'FULL RTE CLRNC' -- WHICH HE DID NOT GET. IF WE SHOULD NEED TO TURN THIS ACFT FOR TFC OR WX; THEN TELL HIM TO RESUME OWN NAV TO HIS ETL WAYPOINT; HE WON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE HE IS TO GO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ATP-320 STATES THAT A COMMERCIAL SVC PROVIDER CANNOT; AND IS NOT AUTH TO; MAKE INDEPENDENT CHANGES TO A FLT PLAN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL FROM THE REQUESTER. THE COMMERCIAL PROVIDER SOFTWARE REJECTS SEGMENT ELEMENTS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO FAA FLT PLANNING GUIDELINES OR FLT PLANNING PROCS. THEREFORE; IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBMITTER TO RESOLVE FLT PLANNING REJECTS.