Narrative:

I was assigned and flew the frdmm arrival into dca for the first time. The weather was nice and there was no severe tailwind. We completed the arrival without any deviation but felt the need to submit a report about the arrival itself. This arrival is not realistic for aircraft not equipped with and approved for VNAV operations for a number of reasons. Due to the close proximity of [many of the] fix[es]; the variations in crossing restrictions (above; between; below); combined with multiple speed restrictions both of us were frantically going back and forth trying to process the information; set the parameters; and fly the aircraft. Also; the arrival 'dumped us out' just as we had to find the river and fly the non standard river visual approach. I think this is unsafe since both of us were completely out of the loop for anything else that was occurring--checklists included. We had no time to monitor the aircraft. Combine this with flight attendant calls; weather/ATIS gathering; radio communications; etc. And this gets out of control rapidly. I understand this arrival was designed to lower controller workload but the revised procedure just transferred that workload to the flight crews. It is unsafe; and is also unduly setting flight crews up for violations. I will attempt to not accept this arrival in the future for these reasons. They should get rid of the frdmm RNAV STAR or [restrict its assignment only to aircraft with appropriately compliant VNAV/autothrottle capability]. If they do keep it at least publish a constant glide angle that we could reference to keep us 'in the middle' of all the required altitudes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An ERJ Captain recounted his concerns regarding the complexity of the FRDMM RNAV STAR to DCA and the capability of his aircraft's RNAV system to comply with the multitude of airspeed and altitude crossing restrictions.

Narrative: I was assigned and flew the FRDMM arrival into DCA for the first time. The weather was nice and there was no severe tailwind. We completed the arrival without any deviation but felt the need to submit a report about the arrival itself. This arrival is not realistic for aircraft not equipped with and approved for VNAV operations for a number of reasons. Due to the close proximity of [many of the] fix[es]; the variations in crossing restrictions (above; between; below); combined with multiple speed restrictions both of us were frantically going back and forth trying to process the information; set the parameters; and fly the aircraft. Also; the arrival 'dumped us out' just as we had to find the river and fly the non standard river visual approach. I think this is unsafe since both of us were completely out of the loop for anything else that was occurring--checklists included. We had no time to monitor the aircraft. Combine this with flight attendant calls; weather/ATIS gathering; radio communications; etc. and this gets out of control rapidly. I understand this arrival was designed to lower controller workload but the revised procedure just transferred that workload to the flight crews. IT IS UNSAFE; and is also unduly setting flight crews up for violations. I will attempt to not accept this arrival in the future for these reasons. They should get rid of the FRDMM RNAV STAR or [restrict its assignment only to aircraft with appropriately compliant VNAV/autothrottle capability]. If they do keep it at least publish a constant glide angle that we could reference to keep us 'in the middle' of all the required altitudes.

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.