Narrative:

I was working both north arrival gates; with light traffic. Landr/sayge had just handed me a string of arrivals over the sayge metering fix; all approximately 5 miles in trail. The last in the line of airplanes was air carrier X. I observed he was between the metering fixes of landr and sayge and attempted to contact ZDV sector to find out what he was doing. I called 3 times with no response and on the fourth attempt; they finally answered. When I asked them what air carrier X was doing (already in my airspace and not on my frequency at this point); they advised he was 'direct eezee' (which is over 5 miles inside my airspace and 15 miles from where transfer of communications is supposed to be affected). I told him that wouldn't work for me; as air carrier X was 150 KTS faster than the aircraft he was following; 5 miles ahead and asked him to turn air carrier X westbound. The ZDV controller advised me he had already sent him to my frequency. I immediately reached out to air carrier X to turn him westbound and keep him separated from the traffic he was rapidly overtaking; and slowed him to 250 KTS. I then called ZDV back to ask him if he realized he gave me air carrier X 5 mit of the preceding aircraft with a 140 KTS overtake; the controllers response was 'he was descending via and should have had the restriction.' I don't understand how he could have had this 'descend via restriction' when air carrier X was instructed by ZDV to join the arrival inside my airspace? Also; even if he was given the restriction; he was way too close and rapidly overtaking the preceding aircraft. Response to this report was that the issue has been resolved by the implementation of RNAV. This could not be further from the truth. ZDV is not even remotely using RNAV as it was designed; and the same problems continue to arise on an hourly (more like minutely) basis. The FAA and airlines have spent millions of dollars on RNAV (nexgen); only to have ZDV race the airplanes to the metering fixes and then give them the 'descend via' often inside D01 airspace; for a very brief few miles; wherein we at D01 usually have to take them off the RNAV route; just to get separation to the runway. The purpose of RNAV was to allow the airlines to float down; saving in fuel costs. How is this being accomplished by forcing aircraft max speed to my airspace boundary; then descend via at the last possible second? My solution is to force ZDV to use the RNAV routes; as designed; and if they need more in-trail spacing to accomplish this; place restrictions on the second tier centers. We are the NAS; national airspace system; and we should be working together to accomplish more effective; safer traffic flows. If this is an unacceptable solution; my second recommendation would be to cease the use of 8 stars into den. It is almost completely ineffective during times of moderate or greater traffic; especially the way ZDV feeds us; as is evident by the lack of use of 8 stars in the rest of the NAS. At best we could feed 4 stars 5-7 mit and use the other 4 as offload stars 25 mit. Although den has 6 runways den tower rarely lets D01 use more than 2 at a time. The 8 STAR arrival system does not work to 2 runways; but we continue to work harder and not smarter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D01 Controller described an over take and potential loss of separation event between DEN arrival aircraft; claiming that ZDV Controllers fail to utilize the RNAV STAR procedure effectively.

Narrative: I was working both north arrival gates; with light traffic. LANDR/SAYGE had just handed me a string of arrivals over the SAYGE metering fix; all approximately 5 miles in trail. The last in the line of airplanes was Air Carrier X. I observed he was between the metering fixes of LANDR and SAYGE and attempted to contact ZDV sector to find out what he was doing. I called 3 times with no response and on the fourth attempt; they finally answered. When I asked them what Air Carrier X was doing (already in my airspace and NOT on my frequency at this point); they advised he was 'direct EEZEE' (which is over 5 miles inside my airspace and 15 miles from where transfer of communications is supposed to be affected). I told him that wouldn't work for me; as Air Carrier X was 150 KTS faster than the aircraft he was following; 5 miles ahead and asked him to turn Air Carrier X westbound. The ZDV Controller advised me he had already sent him to my frequency. I immediately reached out to Air Carrier X to turn him westbound and keep him separated from the traffic he was rapidly overtaking; and slowed him to 250 KTS. I then called ZDV back to ask him if he realized he gave me Air Carrier X 5 MIT of the preceding aircraft with a 140 KTS overtake; the controllers response was 'he was descending via and should have had the restriction.' I don't understand how he could have had this 'descend via restriction' when Air Carrier X was instructed by ZDV to join the arrival inside my airspace? Also; even if he was given the restriction; he was way too close and RAPIDLY overtaking the preceding aircraft. Response to this report was that the issue has been resolved by the implementation of RNAV. This could not be further from the truth. ZDV is not even remotely using RNAV as it was designed; and the same problems continue to arise on an hourly (more like minutely) basis. The FAA and airlines have spent millions of dollars on RNAV (NexGen); only to have ZDV race the airplanes to the metering fixes and then give them the 'descend via' often inside D01 airspace; for a very brief few miles; wherein we at D01 usually have to take them off the RNAV route; just to get separation to the runway. The purpose of RNAV was to allow the airlines to float down; saving in fuel costs. How is this being accomplished by forcing aircraft max speed to my airspace boundary; then descend via at the last possible second? My solution is to force ZDV to use the RNAV routes; as designed; and if they need more in-trail spacing to accomplish this; place restrictions on the second tier Centers. We are the NAS; National Airspace System; and we should be working together to accomplish more effective; safer traffic flows. If this is an unacceptable solution; my second recommendation would be to cease the use of 8 STARS into DEN. It is almost completely ineffective during times of moderate or greater traffic; especially the way ZDV feeds us; as is evident by the lack of use of 8 STARS in the rest of the NAS. At best we could feed 4 STARS 5-7 MIT and use the other 4 as offload STARS 25 MIT. Although DEN has 6 runways DEN Tower rarely lets D01 use more than 2 at a time. The 8 STAR arrival system DOES NOT WORK to 2 runways; but we continue to work harder and not smarter.

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.