An md-80 captain refused to accept the gibzz RNAV STAR to iad because his GPS equipped aircraft was ...

Narrative:

While on the ground prior to our departure we reviewed our assignment of the new iad GIBBZ1 RNAV arrival. We performed the basic math for descent rates; speeds and distances [necessary to comply with the multiple crossing restrictions] and determined that attempting to comply constituted an unsafe operation. As a result we asked center for [and received] a route change onto the DOCCS1 arrival.while en route we were reassigned the GIBBZ1. We informed ATC we could not accommodate the vertical descent profile and they assigned acceptable level offs. Most of the new RNAV arrivals into the dc area include descent rates and speeds compatible with airbus and B-737s but not with MD80s. When the first iteration of the eldee arrival came out it had the same problems; it was changed twice before the distances; altitudes and speeds made operational sense. Please look at typical ground speeds and descent rates for non-FMS aircraft and give us an arrival that will not put our certificates at risk every time we fly. I spoke to the area manager this morning. We both agreed that we loved the eldee arrival. That should provide a good template for reengineering.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An MD-80 Captain refused to accept the GIBZZ RNAV STAR to IAD because his GPS equipped aircraft was not equipped with an FMS with full functional VNAV capability. He cited the complexity of the waypoint crossing restrictions as incompatible with flight safety.

Narrative: While on the ground prior to our departure we reviewed our assignment of the new IAD GIBBZ1 RNAV arrival. We performed the basic math for descent rates; speeds and distances [necessary to comply with the multiple crossing restrictions] and determined that attempting to comply constituted an unsafe operation. As a result we asked center for [and received] a route change onto the DOCCS1 arrival.While en route we were reassigned the GIBBZ1. We informed ATC we could not accommodate the vertical descent profile and they assigned acceptable level offs. Most of the new RNAV arrivals into the DC area include descent rates and speeds compatible with Airbus and B-737s but not with MD80s. When the first iteration of the ELDEE arrival came out it had the same problems; it was changed twice before the distances; altitudes and speeds made operational sense. Please look at typical ground speeds and descent rates for non-FMS aircraft and give us an arrival that will not put our certificates at risk every time we fly. I spoke to the area manager this morning. We both agreed that we loved the ELDEE arrival. That should provide a good template for reengineering.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1029356
Time
Date	201208
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZDC.ARTCC
State Reference	VA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	STAR GIBBZ1
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Person 1
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical

An md-80 captain refused to accept the gibzz RNAV STAR to iad because his GPS equipped aircraft was not equipped with an FMS with full functional VNAV capability. He cited the complexity of the waypoint crossing restrictions as incompatible with flight safety.