Narrative:

The atcscc (air traffic control system command center) instituted the ewr wind routes. These routes as published to the users are ill advised and are riddled with problems in the en route environment. The ewr 1; 2; 3; 4 routes as published over the webor intersection creates unsafe conflictions by having to criss-cross these ewr flights with the entire jfk stream. It also causes extra workload in those sectors by having both ewr and jfk traffic in the same sectors at the same time. Current choke point routes segregate this traffic into two different areas and sectors. ZAU objected to these routes being published and provided alternatives that met the needs of the user community while maintaining the integrity of a safe en route environment. These routes were also to be limited in scope to the northwest pacific area; namely ZSE; but have been made available to most western en route centers. These routes were designed as cost saving routes for the users. What it has created is a non standard mix of choke point routes; nrs routes; and other routes that the controllers need to mesh into one to provide a safe and orderly flow for sequencing onto ewr. It was this same uncontrolled hodge-podge of routes that led to the current choke point routes we have in use today. Four aircraft were on these routes today and caused problems for the ZAU controllers. To make matters worse not all of the users are able to file these wind routes which causes many different routes being filed by the users; where as during choke point route times all aircraft filed the same route making the flow of traffic safe; orderly and expeditious. Alternatives to these routes have been submitted and should be considered for use. The current ewr wind routes as published should cease and desist. Recommendation; wind route implementation needs to be delayed until the correct routes can be published and all users have the capability to file these routes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAU controller voiced concern regarding the Systems Command Center EWR 'Wind Routes'; claiming the new procedures create unsafe criss-crossing of EWR and JFK traffic; adding because not all user aircraft are equipped to fly the new routes even more confusion is created.

Narrative: The ATCSCC (Air Traffic Control System Command Center) instituted the EWR wind routes. These routes as published to the users are ill advised and are riddled with problems in the en route environment. The EWR 1; 2; 3; 4 routes as published over the WEBOR Intersection creates unsafe conflictions by having to criss-cross these EWR flights with the entire JFK stream. It also causes extra workload in those sectors by having both EWR and JFK traffic in the same sectors at the same time. Current choke point routes segregate this traffic into two different areas and sectors. ZAU objected to these routes being published and provided alternatives that met the needs of the user community while maintaining the integrity of a safe en route environment. These routes were also to be limited in scope to the Northwest Pacific area; namely ZSE; but have been made available to most Western En route Centers. These routes were designed as cost saving routes for the users. What it has created is a non standard mix of choke point routes; NRS routes; and other routes that the controllers need to mesh into one to provide a safe and orderly flow for sequencing onto EWR. It was this same uncontrolled hodge-podge of routes that led to the current choke point routes we have in use today. Four aircraft were on these routes today and caused problems for the ZAU Controllers. To make matters worse not all of the users are able to file these wind routes which causes many different routes being filed by the users; where as during choke point route times all aircraft filed the same route making the flow of traffic safe; orderly and expeditious. Alternatives to these routes have been submitted and should be considered for use. The current EWR wind routes as published should cease and desist. Recommendation; wind route implementation needs to be delayed until the correct routes can be published and all users have the capability to file these routes.

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.