No Aircraft
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types
General None Reported / Taken
Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
An uncoordinated reschedule for Time Based Metering to EWR was performed by N90. Metering information displayed to ZOB; ZDC; ZNY; and ZBW was changed by N90 without consent or approval. Meter times increased abruptly by as much 6 minutes. N90 called after the reschedule had occurred to advise they needed to change configuration because they had 'been using the wrong configuration for the past 45 minutes'. Runway 4/11 configuration was input into the EWR TBM settings when a circle to Runway 29 was actually in effect. Lack of situational awareness led to this event. A corrupt timeline was produced by N90 due to metering in the wrong configuration. As a result all aircraft that needed to receive delay to accommodate the TBM schedule didn't get assigned any delay until the uncoordinated reschedule occurred. At that point many of the aircraft were too close to hand off to lose any of the delay. This is not an isolated incident; it is an example of a systemic problem that occurs frequently with N90 and PHL TBFM operations. First and most importantly; for any chance at successful TBFM operation; the adaptation; configuration; and settings must be set up correctly to emulate what actually happens. In this situation none of those occurred. It is incumbent upon TBFM operators to constantly monitor and analyze the equipment with extreme vigilance. TBFM is not a; set it and forget it decision support tool; TBFM requires constant attention and human intervention to overcome the inadequacies of the current system. Training and system education is needed immediately; but it seems the FAA has not deemed CAR25 important enough to act on with any urgency; 2+ years overdue with no training on an operational tool says it all. The essential improvement to the safety and stability of TBFM for N90 and PHL is to relocate operations to an En Route environment. All metering (the act of losing time by vectoring and speed control to meet the TBFM schedule) takes place exclusively in the En Route environment by En Route CPC's and TMC's. The relocation of TBFM to the ARTCC's streamlines coordination; improves efficiency; safety; and removes the red tape of dealing with the Terminal line of business to operate an En Route Traffic Management tool. Relocation of TBFM operations to the En Route environment will allow the system to regain credibility. CPC's here have little confidence in the system and ignore the tool often. This is primarily due to the inconsistent operation of TBFM by entities that have consistently demonstrated by word and deed that they still do not comprehend the impact of their actions on the system many years into metering. There have been many discussions; telcons; meetings with representatives from these facilities to no avail; which clearly points to relocation to an ARTCC/'s. Since the equipment already resides at the ARTCC's; relocation would be very cost effective; be highly transparent; and would build a credible tool the CPC's and TMC's could depend on. Any gains in efficiency claimed by TBFM operators at N90 and PHL is strictly the result of the ARTCC's scheduling departures into the system.
ZOB Controller voiced concern regarding N90's manipulation of TBFM data with incorrect runway configuration data causing the need for delay vectoring in close proximity to airspace borders; indicating TBFM actions should be confined to ARTCC's.