ZDC Controller described a potential adjacent airspace entry event that involved an Airbus aircraft; noting Airbus aircraft execute shallow turns that can easily infringe on closely space airspace boundaries.

Narrative

An A330 departure out of IAD over WOOLY direct BROSS.J42./. - overseas through the SWANN Sector (17) at Washington Center; took an Airbus turn at BROSS that commenced more than 16 miles prior to the fix. The turn did not get close to BROSS and encroached upon the DuPont Sector (18) in transition to the Woodstown Sector (19). I was working Sector 19 and had to point this aircraft out to Sector 18 as the aircraft began its early turn toward their airspace. The Sector 18 controller had a TEB arrival at FL240 overhead; which; by letter of agreement; is required to cross the JAIKE intersection approximately 38 miles away at 130 before exiting their airspace. This normally requires Sector 18 controllers to issue a decent clearance as soon as the aircraft enters the lateral confines of their sector; or shortly thereafter. In this case; the Sector 18 Controller was not able to do so; and their aircraft had to be vectored off course in order to comply with the crossing restriction. Sector 17 departures and Sector 18 arrivals; particularly TEB arrivals; are procedurally separated by airspace boundaries. When aircraft violate those boundaries; evasive action may be required and controller workload is greatly increased. This situation is becoming all too common for international departures Eastbound out of IAD through Sector 17 and highlights the need for corrective action. There were two Air Traffic Bulletins released by the FAA on this issue in 2000 and 2003 respectively. The 2000 bulletin (00-1) addressed High Altitude Turn Anticipation in response to reports of certain aircraft beginning to turn a significant distance from a fix. The bulletin addressed a known issue of Airbus aircraft; specifically; the A319/320/321; making turns greater than 70 degrees above FL180. The A330 was identified with this issue as well. It was found that these aircraft have been designed; for reasons of passenger comfort and aerodynamics; to make what we would consider shallow turns at altitude. This particular turn; from a direct course; WOOLY to BROSS; onto J42; is not a 70 degree or greater turn. The 2003 bulletin (03-5 SPECIAL) went further in depth by explaining aircraft behavior while performing advanced RNAV procedures. One of the benefits of RNAV described to the air traffic workforce was increased flight path predictability and repeatability. This came with the caveat; however; that RNAV databases and equipment are not fully standardized; and there is no firm guidance on how the information is processed by aircraft systems. Further; these track differences should not be significant enough to appear as deviations from the published procedure. This guidance is open to too much interpretation for application within the rigid East Coast airspace structure of the United States. I can say; unequivocally; these flight paths are not predictable; and the track differences are significant enough to be considered as deviations from published procedures. System errors have occurred due to this issue; and will continue to occur if it is not addressed. In the ten years since the FAA issued its first Air Traffic Bulletin covering this topic; these procedures are still not covered in FAA Order 7110.65T.