Narrative:

I was working an A319 on the KOOLY4 arrival; who was following another air carrier aircraft on the KOOLY4 arrival into phx. The first air carrier was direct squez for sequencing; the A319 was still on the arrival. The first air carrier had been issued a speed for sequencing; but the A319 was being stair stepped down for traffic out of tus and had not yet been issued a descend via clearance. Just north of tus (restriction if FL260 and 280 KTS); I turned the A319 direct squez to stay out in front of another aircraft on the itemm transition. I noticed an 80 KT overtake with the A319 on company in front; and asked him to verify they were at 280 KTS (per the tus restriction on the STAR). The pilot replied negative; they hadn't been given the arrival yet (they had filed for it). I told them that the speeds were mandatory unless otherwise issued by ATC; the pilot replied that they hadn't been given descend via. This seems to be a common misperception among pilots that the speeds are only compulsory when descend via has been issued. We were trained that the speeds are mandatory on an RNAV procedure unless otherwise issued; regardless of the clearance status. We often cannot issue descend via because of turboprop traffic stacked underneath the jet traffic on the arrival; therefore the pilots might believe that they don't ever have to comply with the speeds. I think a fresh set of training needs to be issued; both for pilots and controllers; as to what RNAV procedure rules are. I'm wondering how much the conflict with international rules has lead to confusion; especially on pilots (like this air carrier pilot) who fly international. It would probably be best for the RNAV work group to reach a consensus as to where the rule making should go to avoid confusion since these procedures will become more ubiquitous.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAB Controller expressed concern regarding the apparent misunderstanding of published speeds on RNAV arrival procedures; suggesting a new round of training for both pilots and controllers might be in order.

Narrative: I was working an A319 on the KOOLY4 arrival; who was following another Air Carrier aircraft on the KOOLY4 arrival into PHX. The first Air Carrier was direct SQUEZ for sequencing; the A319 was still on the arrival. The first Air Carrier had been issued a speed for sequencing; but the A319 was being stair stepped down for traffic out of TUS and had not yet been issued a descend via clearance. Just north of TUS (restriction if FL260 and 280 KTS); I turned the A319 direct SQUEZ to stay out in front of another aircraft on the ITEMM transition. I noticed an 80 KT overtake with the A319 on company in front; and asked him to verify they were at 280 KTS (per the TUS restriction on the STAR). The pilot replied negative; they hadn't been given the arrival yet (they had filed for it). I told them that the speeds were mandatory unless otherwise issued by ATC; the pilot replied that they hadn't been given descend via. This seems to be a common misperception among pilots that the speeds are only compulsory when descend via has been issued. We were trained that the speeds are mandatory on an RNAV procedure unless otherwise issued; regardless of the clearance status. We often cannot issue descend via because of turboprop traffic stacked underneath the jet traffic on the arrival; therefore the pilots might believe that they don't ever have to comply with the speeds. I think a fresh set of training needs to be issued; both for pilots and controllers; as to what RNAV procedure rules are. I'm wondering how much the conflict with international rules has lead to confusion; especially on pilots (like this Air Carrier pilot) who fly international. It would probably be best for the RNAV work group to reach a consensus as to where the rule making should go to avoid confusion since these procedures will become more ubiquitous.

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.