Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working 36/37 D side with developmental controller checked out on the sector working the R side. Descend Via suspended. Aircraft X issued cross UROWT at and maintain 11 thousand at 250 knots; runway 22L transition; and given a current altimeter setting. Aircraft read back the clearance as 270 knots which is the charted speed on the STAR. Developmental controller caught the read back error and corrected it to 250 knots. Aircraft then requested direct UROWT. Aircraft was still in Athens (38) airspace so R side did not issue the direct; and discussion ensued in the aisle as to why the aircraft would request direct UROWT since it was a straight line from his current route. I asked to use the frequency and queried Aircraft X as to why he was requesting direct UROWT. He responded he was looking for relief on the charted speed and altitude restrictions on the STAR. I reminded the pilot that since he was issued a crossing restriction and not descend via the charted altitudes did not apply. He said something about it had been a long day and I replied back that there was no issue; we as a facility were having issues with the procedure and I was just gathering information for the safety report.Suspending descend via; especially while still trying to issue runway transitions; is workload intensive at best and a safety hazard to the NAS with anything more than light traffic. Pilots are not expecting to be issued crossing restrictions on a descend via STAR. Experienced; professional flight crews like this one are not understanding what ATC is clearing them to do; and are either descending via and stopping at 11;000 as this crew did; or worse changing the UROWT restriction to 11;000 and then continuing to descend via. This is an accident waiting to happen as prop aircraft are shipped to A90 directly below jets at 9000. ZBW controllers are powerless to rectify the situation as the A90 LOA requires ZBW to use the RNAV STAR for all aircraft that are equipped to fly it and to issue runway transitions; regardless of the status of descend via.The A90 LOA needs to be changed to eliminate suspending descend via and changing crossing restrictions on RNAV STARs. Aircraft need to be either cleared to descend via; descend via except maintain 11;000; or they need to be taken off the QUABN RNAV STAR and placed on the standard GDM STAR if A90 workload precludes descend via.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reported about a problem with aircraft descend via being suspended. Controller working R side issued and aircraft a clearance; pilot read back a speed error which R side caught and corrected. Aircraft then requested direct a fix; controllers thought this odd due to it being in a straight line. Controller asked pilot why. Pilot responded he was looking for relief on the charted speed and altitude restrictions. Pilot was not assigned descend via so a discussion ensued correcting pilot. Reporter then discussed the problems the facility is having with a LOA with another facility.