Narrative:

The chsly arrival into clt has had issues in the past with aircraft descending below required window altitudes. This has started to become a problem once again. With that in mind the area ops manager requested 30 days of pdar's [performance data analysis and reporting system] data. We parsed out the data that we felt relevant to the problem and then used falcon with voice to confirm or deny suspected deviations. During the course of this time we found 15 suspected deviations and others that may have been deviations but was too time consuming and would have just been redundant. This issue is unlike previous issues associated with the airbus as we have had numerous aircraft above FL300 descend through the altitude window. When we looked at the data we only looked at the airbus believing that was the only problem we removed the other aircraft that fly the arrival. Right now I don't know what to think to do. I do not want to suspend the procedure as that causes more work than actually running the [deviation]. I would like to know if this is somehow related to the logic in the airbus FMS and if so would like to see someone push airbus to correct the problem sooner rather than later. The FMS and the issue of dropping windows is a dangerous game that the airlines continue to play while waiting on a fix. We use the dependent windows and crossing restrictions for separation and if reliable and predicable path cannot be guaranteed then we need to make a decision on what procedure to remove; the chsly or the lwood departures from rdu.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Washington Center Controller reported problems with aircraft on the CHLSY arrival again descending below a required window.

Narrative: The CHSLY arrival into CLT has had issues in the past with aircraft descending below required window altitudes. This has started to become a problem once again. With that in mind the area Ops Manager requested 30 days of PDAR's [Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System] data. We parsed out the data that we felt relevant to the problem and then used FALCON with voice to confirm or deny suspected deviations. During the course of this time we found 15 suspected deviations and others that may have been deviations but was too time consuming and would have just been redundant. This issue is unlike previous issues associated with the Airbus as we have had numerous aircraft above FL300 descend through the altitude window. When we looked at the data we only looked at the Airbus believing that was the only problem we removed the other aircraft that fly the arrival. Right now I don't know what to think to do. I do not want to suspend the procedure as that causes more work than actually running the [deviation]. I would like to know if this is somehow related to the logic in the Airbus FMS and if so would like to see someone push Airbus to correct the problem sooner rather than later. The FMS and the issue of dropping windows is a dangerous game that the airlines continue to play while waiting on a fix. We use the dependent windows and crossing restrictions for separation and if reliable and predicable path cannot be guaranteed then we need to make a decision on what procedure to remove; the CHSLY or the LWOOD departures from RDU.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.