Narrative:

Phl has recently started using RNAV departures. There is one for north departures; one for south departures for both east & west flow; for a total of 4 RNAV departures. There are also several types of aircraft that cannot take these departures. A321s cannot accept them because they cannot meet the climb requirements. Others cannot accept them due to a technical issue (FMS-related; I believe). Of course; no props; and of course; no non-RNAV aircraft can be given the departures. During every runway change; every RNAV departure must be re-issued the appropriate departure procedure. Basically; clearance delivery (clearance delivery) has become a difficult position; and flight data (FD) is rarely split from clearance delivery. I relieved the clearance delivery position. As I was monitoring; prior to receiving the briefing; I heard the current atcs; a developmental; issuing one of the RNAV departures for a runway 27 operation; but I observed that traffic was utilizing a runway 9 operation. When I queried the controller on position; the controller realized the mistake and also realized multiple aircraft had been issued the incorrect departure procedure. We alerted ground control and the flm to the issue. All aircraft either called clearance delivery were issued the correct departure; or ground control issued the correct departure when the aircraft called for taxi. No separation was lost nor did any aircraft fly the incorrect departure. I see very little benefit to these RNAV departures; when I have observed nd & sd (from other radar positions or the tower); almost never do they leave the aircraft on the departure. The only benefit is that nd & sd no longer have to say 'climb and maintain 10;000 ft' on initial contact. However; the hand off altitudes over at least 2 of our 5 center departure fixes are higher than 10;000 ft; so at some point they will have to issue a higher altitude anyway. Given that every time the runway configuration changes ground control and clearance delivery have to reissue the departure to all RNAV aircraft; and that there are so many aircraft that are excluded from accepting the RNAV departure; simply removing six words from nd & sd's workload does not seem to be enough of a benefit. In addition; since we are not permitted to assume that 15 degrees divergence exists from an RNAV departure to a succeeding aircraft on a heading and therefore we must provide longitudinal separation between every RNAV to non-RNAV departure; efficiency has actually decreased (and workload has increased) through use of these departures. I would suggest a few possible solutions: 1) eliminate having 2 north and 2 south departures which are runway dependent. Why isn't it possible to have one north departure where; just like the arrival; the pilot inputs the assigned runway to their FMS to receive the proper RNAV route? If we did this; then the aircraft could file the correct departure and there would be no need to reissue departures to all RNAV aircraft. 2) obtain a waiver for using 1 mile separation & 15-degree divergence for back-to-back RNAV to heading aircraft under certain wind conditions. 3) eliminate the RNAV departures altogether. They have; as mentioned above; very little operational benefit; with many pitfalls.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PHL Controller voiced concern regarding the newly implemented RNAV departure procedures; claiming that the procedures increase workload and complexity; while providing minimal benefits to the controllers and users.

Narrative: PHL has recently started using RNAV departures. There is one for North departures; one for South departures for both East & West flow; for a total of 4 RNAV departures. There are also several types of aircraft that cannot take these departures. A321s cannot accept them because they cannot meet the climb requirements. Others cannot accept them due to a technical issue (FMS-related; I believe). Of course; no props; and of course; no non-RNAV aircraft can be given the departures. During every runway change; every RNAV departure must be re-issued the appropriate departure procedure. Basically; Clearance Delivery (CD) has become a difficult position; and Flight Data (FD) is rarely split from CD. I relieved the CD position. As I was monitoring; prior to receiving the briefing; I heard the current ATCS; a Developmental; issuing one of the RNAV departures for a Runway 27 operation; but I observed that traffic was utilizing a Runway 9 operation. When I queried the Controller on position; the Controller realized the mistake and also realized multiple aircraft had been issued the incorrect departure procedure. We alerted Ground Control and the FLM to the issue. All aircraft either called Clearance Delivery were issued the correct departure; or Ground Control issued the correct departure when the aircraft called for taxi. No separation was lost nor did any aircraft fly the incorrect departure. I see very little benefit to these RNAV departures; when I have observed ND & SD (from other RADAR positions or the Tower); almost never do they leave the aircraft on the departure. The only benefit is that ND & SD no longer have to say 'climb and maintain 10;000 FT' on initial contact. However; the hand off altitudes over at least 2 of our 5 center departure fixes are higher than 10;000 FT; so at some point they will have to issue a higher altitude anyway. Given that every time the runway configuration changes Ground Control and Clearance Delivery have to reissue the departure to all RNAV aircraft; and that there are so many aircraft that are excluded from accepting the RNAV departure; simply removing six words from ND & SD's workload does not seem to be enough of a benefit. In addition; since we are not permitted to assume that 15 degrees divergence exists from an RNAV departure to a succeeding aircraft on a heading and therefore we must provide longitudinal separation between every RNAV to non-RNAV departure; efficiency has actually decreased (and workload has increased) through use of these departures. I would suggest a few possible solutions: 1) Eliminate having 2 North and 2 South departures which are runway dependent. Why isn't it possible to have one North departure where; just like the arrival; the pilot inputs the assigned runway to their FMS to receive the proper RNAV route? If we did this; then the aircraft could file the correct departure and there would be no need to reissue departures to all RNAV aircraft. 2) Obtain a waiver for using 1 mile separation & 15-degree divergence for back-to-back RNAV to heading aircraft under certain wind conditions. 3) Eliminate the RNAV departures altogether. They have; as mentioned above; very little operational benefit; with many pitfalls.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.