DCA ELDEE Arrival = Pilot Deviations
 

Here's a letter posted on an ATC blog site. The Potomac Current and Undertow



November 13, 2008

If you fly into Washington-National Airport (DCA) then you need to read this letter. I am an air traffic controller at the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) in Warrenton, Virginia and I write to you anonymously in fear of retribution from my employer, the Federal Aviation Administration, for disclosing a serious safety issue that FAA management is knowingly turning a blind eye to.

On December 20, 2007, the FAA implemented a new procedure for aircraft approaching Washington-National Airport from the west. This procedure, called the ELDEE Arrival, directs aircraft, by way of their onboard flight computer, to fly a predetermined route and descend at set points from 65 miles west of DCA all the way to the airport, with minimal controller input. Conceivably, the concept of this procedure reduces workload for air traffic controllers and pilots while improving fuel efficiency for the airlines.

However, as soon as the ELDEE Arrival procedure was implemented airline pilots began complaining over the radio to air traffic controllers that they could not maneuver their aircraft to comply with the altitude crossing restrictions dictated by the procedure. On February 26, 2008, the FAA tried to address the problem by publishing a Notice To Airmen[1] (NOTAM) directing pilots to override their onboard flight computer by manually reprogramming several altitude crossing restrictions on the ELDEE Arrival. This “reprogramming” is done a couple hundred times every day by many flight crews trying to navigate by the ELDEE Arrival.

Here is the problem: The increase in flight crew workload created by the NOTAM requirements are causing airplanes to descend lower than the altitudes prescribed in the ELDEE Arrival procedure. And what is lower? Other airplanes! Airplanes that air traffic controllers are supposed to keep separated from one another. The FAA’s answer to this defective procedure—created by the FAA—is to take action against the pilot by filing a ‘pilot deviation report.’

Evidence to substantiate my claim is found in the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System database. This program, called ASRS for short, is used by pilots and air traffic controllers, to report—anonymously—deficiencies and discrepancies in the National Aviation System. The reports are forwarded to the FAA. Between March and June, 2008, there have been 10 ASRS reports from flight crews about being confused by the NOTAM and consequently flying their airplanes lower—hundreds of feet lower—than they are supposed to be on the ELDEE3 Arrival. Read the reports at this website: ASRS ELDEE3

Ten ASRS reports are but a small fraction of how many times EVERY DAY pilots make this mistake. (In other words, the majority of the occurrences are not even reported by pilots or air traffic controllers as required by existing rules.)

FAA management has tried to lay the blame on pilots for this flawed procedure and the NOTAM that has compounded the problem. FAA management can fix what they broke and they can do it TODAY by canceling the NOTAM that modifies the ELDEE Arrival and direct air traffic controllers to stop issuing “descend via” clearances on the ELDEE Arrival.

FAA management does not listen to air traffic controllers who raise safety concerns. FAA management ignores pilots who report safety concerns. Will the FAA listen to the people that fly on the airplanes into DCA? Airplanes, people, pilots, air traffic controllers: All set up for failure by the FAA. Why does the FAA make air traffic control a game of chance? Maybe they’ll answer the question to someone other than pilots or air traffic controllers.

The longer this safety issue is ignored the clearer it is to me that safety is not priority number one with the FAA at Potomac TRACON.

[1] A notice containing information (not known sufficiently in advance to publicize by other means) concerning the establishment, condition, or change in any component (facility, service, or procedure of, or hazard in the National Airspace System) the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations.

Thanks for the info. I haven't done this one yet but is nice to know.

What if a pilot is given that and refuse the clearance, what action do you guys on the ATC end have set up for that. Do you just give us an hard altitude to descend to or penalty vectors. I would much rather have penalty vectors than have a deviation...

Thanks

Chart
 

It's a mess. The crossing restrictions on the original were difficult at best to meet. The NOTAM deleted some and changed others from "at" to "at or above."

This, in theory, took the aircraft performance limitations into account, but required, as the man said, manual reprogramming of the FMS. It also required a pretty thorough and detailed (time consuming) study of the NOTAM. Jepp recently issued a revision to the ELDEE3 that reflects the NOTAMed changes, but the NOTAM is still included in the release package.

The FAA has been aware of this for awhile and has made changes to IAD, I am unaware of any changes to National. I've spoken with your Union people about your ASAP program but lost track of it over the past months with our own airline problems. Does ATC now have an ASAP program?

The ELDEE3 was written for performance 2 years ago but with the new fuel costs and the new cost index % slower than when the ELDEE3 was written the speed is slower and shallower. As a controller you've seen it.

We do have a national data base of problems just like this and the problems that get more hits from ASAP get corrected sooner. It's all about reporting safety concerns and with the FAA sitting in the meetings a committee corrective action has to be followed.

I'll try to get the data on the ELDEE3. Fli

Pilot refuses clearance then the ELDEE route is flown and descent clearances are issued to remain in controllers airspace, eventually ending at ELDEE at 8000. No problem at all, no penalty given.

I never had problems with the Eldee prior to the Notams to modify it. As long as you kept up with what was happening you are fine. Of course now it is easier than ever.

Lately, my aircraft has been leading the pack and I have been getting a direct to Eldee at best speed as long as we can to cross Eldee at 8,000. I remember when issues started coming up with this arrival controllers were asking questions on the radio about our performance and if VNAV equipped. The one thing I like is at least they cared!

I fly this arrival a lot, and I'm just your average line pogue, but I don't understand the problem here. The letter states, "Here is the problem: The increase in flight crew workload created by the NOTAM requirements are causing airplanes to descend lower than the altitudes prescribed in the ELDEE Arrival procedure."

Why is that? If new crossing restrictions are issued via NOTAM, don't they supercede the published crossing restrictions? I've put those in the FMS (making the first restriction at, not at or above), and with some prior planning, updated winds, and maybe even a fake initial point 3nm from the first restriction, it seems to have worked fine for me.

What am I missing?

The only problems I have with this, and "descend via" arrivals in general is when ATC decides to randomly change crossing restrictions or speed adjustments I wasn't expecting...especially big speed reductions of 50 kts or more...usually answered with "we'll do our best - which do you need - the speed or the altitude?"

I also do this arrival all the time. When it first was published I remember commenting that "This is a violation waiting to happen". It is an absurd procedure which increases pilot workload quite a bit at a time when a lot is going on.

I am not normally a whiner about procedures because it's part of our job. But this Eldee 3 arrival to DCA stinks and it stinks even worse that they NOTAMed the changes without a permanent change to the chart very quickly.

Still, it can be done safely and properly, but it needs to be briefed and studied before you get to the beginning of the arrival.

It didn't help that it took Jepp about 7 months to change the damn chart. But at least that and the FMC database are now both up to date.

GMAFB,

shortest distance/altitude loss I can find is 2k in 9 miles....and that was before the NOTAM changed most of the restrictions to at or above.

It's only a problem IF-
1. ATC changes the arrival on you end game-
2. You didn't actually look at all the NOTAMs
3. You don't have a copy of the NOTAMs w/you (vaguely remember it)
4. You accept your new clearance

Should be plenty of time for you to progam the FMS, Capt sets the pace. Not ATC and not the company.
If you allow yourself to be pushed into a corner, who's fault is it

I just flew this arrival yesterday for a first time in about 6+ months.

Even with the changes it creates a high workload.

I think it would help if they put 250KIAS speed restriction at Wizard. It would be hard to slow from 300 at Wizard and descend to 8000/210kias at Eldee in 12 miles.

Whoever designed that arrival is a ............

May have missed it, but, wasn't aware that there was a 300 knot restriction at Wizard.

Doesn't really seem that different than the arrivals into LAX, SFO, ORD (hard to believe how many waypoints the Watsn1 has), MSP, NY area.

I'm sure the workload is much higher than going into a smaller airport, but, shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Even with the FMS, still just flying the airplane.
The ASRS reports mostly come down to failing to monitor,
PF input the wrong data or deleted a waypoint and the PM didn't crosscheck it

There isn't a 300KIAS restriction. But who fly's 250KIAS above 10?

It is a LOT different than any of those airport arrivals you listed. Have you flown the ELDEE arrival? It doesn't sound like it if you are comparing it with NYC,MSP and ORD.

Pilots with the situational awareness to recognize that slower speeds can alleviate some of the stress of a high workload environment...especially one that involves crossing restrictions within a short distance.

I fly 250 KIAS above 10k, when it's appropriate. I also fly less than 250 KIAS below 10k, when it's appropriate.

On the ELDEE, the fact that there isn't a speed restriction is exactly my point, guess the sarcasm wasn't strong enough (guess I should have used italics).
Shouldn't be that hard for an ATP card carrying pilot to make it work out, unless of course, you don't know how your particular airplane performs.

Oh, don't tend to fly the max forward airspeed away from where I want to go. Best example is taking off out of Boston. Can't go westbound until you get above 6k or so, so why do 250 KIAS eastbound and get further away from where I want to go.....so I fly best climb speed versus the 250.

I also plan to meet upcoming crossing restrictions, and yes, sometimes that means I'm doing 250 above 10----oh the horror-----versus having to file an ASRS report and hoping I don't get violated and wind up with some time off w/out pay.

Sometimes I even slow to 200KIAS early when I know ATC is likely to drop me below Class B airspace.
But again, that requires planning ahead versus simply reacting.
But, isn't that what we get paid to do?

I think the point here is that the EDLEE arrival is poorly designed. It was implemented to reduce controller workload, ie 'Descend Via'. Many pilots hate it. I wonder how many pilot deviations it has caused?

I think it would be pretty simple for all the aircraft with FMS and auto-throttles. Type if speeds/cross restrictions in and it does it all for you.

Seems to me that all the RNAV departures and arrivals cause problems...

First ever commercial piloting flight going into dca at night and getting close to imc conditions......I felt bad for the capt i was flying with. Anyways atc gave use some directs and we skipped some parts of that arrival. On another flight i was operating to dca, i asked atc what the deal is with the eldee arr. and the controller came back with "we are still trying to figure it out" (something to that effect).

Two problems with the approach, ELDEE cross at 8000ft and 210 knots, means that you have to slow and decend within 2000 feet and 12 miles after meeting the 10000 ft restriction at the previous fix. Considering that you may be well above 300kts+ at the previous fix. Good planning on the part of the PF helps here, but the potential for error is very insidious, especially for a person that only occasionally flies into DCA.

The biggest issue with all descend via arrivals is how the controllers constantly mess with the speed and give late altitude changes with the arrival.

They are much higher workload than the old procedures and it can be very tough to try to figure out what the controller actually wants.

[quote=Jughead;499546]I fly this arrival a lot, and I'm just your average line pogue, but I don't understand the problem here. The letter states, "Here is the problem: The increase in flight crew workload created by the NOTAM requirements are causing airplanes to descend lower than the altitudes prescribed in the ELDEE Arrival procedure."

Why is that? If new crossing restrictions are issued via NOTAM, don't they supercede the published crossing restrictions? I've put those in the FMS (making the first restriction at, not at or above), and with some prior planning, updated winds, and maybe even a fake initial point 3nm from the first restriction, it seems to have worked fine for me.

What am I missing?

,,,,Yes, NOTAM supercedes STAR. Easier said than done at time for some. Like the 10 that filed through ASRS. And there are a lot more that don't file the report (pilots, controllers) and just pretend it didn't happen. This has been going on even before the NOTAM with the problem being multiple crossings with same altitude.

Easy to blame the flight crew. Even easier to fix the procedure with a permanent amendment (ELDEE4 ?)

Whoever designed that arrival is a ............[/quote]


FAA procedures staff (basically, a gal that used to be an air traffic controller at Andrews AFB a few years ago and a fellow that has the title of Support Manager) designed these and every other such procedure in Potomac TRACON's airspace.

They do not work with any other entity (airline reps , ATCers.) At best, whatever complaints they receive after version 1 are considered for version 2.

DAO1:

For yours and the sake of other pilots on this forum, I've got to correct you on this one. What you said is totally wrong! They do work with many other entities to come up with these procedures. The issues with this approach implies to me,that they tried to build the approach while meeting the requirements of many other groups and also the FAA Order. Also, I 've worked with these people in the past, and they are a highly quaified, technically astute group of people. Some of the finest within the FAA. Many are previous controllers but some came up through the Flight Standards and Air Navigation and Flight Inspection Services.

Guys, I think we are beating this thing to death. Solution.....when they tell you to descend via and you can't make it there is one simple response to ATC. It sounds a little something like this..........."unable." So they vector you around, still better than getting violated.