Aire koln dusseldorf

Final Report for the SJU October 16th 2011

Performance of flight trials validating solutions for the reduction of CO2 emissions - AIRE Call Reference N째: SJU/LC/0039-CFP Lot 2

Contract Number SJU/LC/0098-CTR

Flight Trials for less CO2 emission during transition from en-route to final approach Proposal Reference N째: LH-AIRE-JS-04

Phase 2 Deliverables

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

2/ 103

Table of Contents

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 5 Description of the validation exercise.......................................................................................... 7 Preparation Trial ................................................................................................................... 12 Main Trial .............................................................................................................................. 14 Technical and operational feasibility assessment ..................................................................... 17 Airside................................................................................................................................... 17 Groundside ........................................................................................................................... 18 Validation preparation and execution........................................................................................ 20 Preparation Trial ................................................................................................................... 20 Main Trial .............................................................................................................................. 25 Efficiency analysis..................................................................................................................... 32 Main Trial .............................................................................................................................. 35 Deployment scenarios .............................................................................................................. 46 Scenario 1............................................................................................................................. 47 Scenario 2............................................................................................................................. 47 Copy of all communication material .......................................................................................... 48 Lufthansa Policy letter 2010.................................................................................................. 49 Lufthansa Sustainability Report 2011.................................................................................... 50 Lufthanseat article 2010........................................................................................................ 52 Germanwings Magazine 2010 .............................................................................................. 53 DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Transmission magazine 2010 ............................................... 54

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

3/ 103

Annexes.................................................................................................................................... 58 Germanwings pilot’s bulletin Preparation Trial ...................................................................... 59 DFS Controller’s bulletin Preparation Trial ............................................................................ 62 Pilots questionnaire Preparation Trial ................................................................................... 63 Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC DKAE .................................... 64 Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC PADH .................................... 65 Main Trial NOTAM ................................................................................................................ 66 Germanwings pilot bulletin Main Trail ................................................................................... 67 Questionnaire Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways.......................................................... 69 Questionnaire Controllers – Main Trial.................................................................................. 73 List of participating aircraft types – Main Trial ....................................................................... 74 List of participating airlines – Main Trial ................................................................................ 75 Departure aerodromes of participating flights – Main Trial .................................................... 76 Postflight Report Example..................................................................................................... 77 Flighttracks – Main Trial ........................................................................................................ 78 Phase 1 Deliverables ............................................................................................................ 80

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

4/ 103

Executive Summary The “Flight Trials for less CO2 emission during transition from en-route to final approach” AIRE project’s objective is to perform Integrated Flight Trials and Demonstrations using the concept of Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), with the aim of reduction of CO2 emission and optimization of the fuel consumption in several possible segments of the Cologne (EDDK) airport approach phase.

Understanding The trials are considered as an integrated pre-operational validation for ATM concepts that present the potential to reduce CO2 emission. The pending outcomes of the validation project intent to ensure transition into operations and accelerate the pace of change. Its aim is to demonstrate the environmental, operational and economical benefits that the adoption of this validation project will bring to ATM and highlight the solution advantages with respect to the unsatisfactory solution currently used.

Partners: Deutsche Lufthansa AG DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH German Wings GmbH Project description The main aim was the optimization of the vertical profile of Cologne arrivals from the southeast while not impairing other traffic in that area (e. g. arrivals to Dusseldorf or departures from Frankfurt).

The trials have been carried out in the operational area of Fulda, Giessen, Hersfeld, Paderborn and Cologne and performed during September 2010 (Preparation Trial) and June/July 2011 (Main Trial) around the clock with commercial revenue flights of different aircraft operators.

The data collected for the environmental analyses were obtained from Germanwings (4U) commercial low fare fleet. Flight deck feedbacks from Germanwings, Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways pilots as well as controller feedbacks of the Deutsche Flugsicherung were considered.

The trials showed a good potential for CO2 emission reduction but also a lot of obstacles for deployment. The very ambitious trial in 2010 saved up to 650kg CO2 (200kg fuel) per flight. But it made aware that some specific measurements for traffic separation - though decreasing efficiency - are necessary for a smooth and safe operation as well as for sufficient capacity. Therefore in 2011 a different solution was tested with a shallower profile. Under consideration of wind differences it showed possible CO2 savings of about 110kg (35kg fuel) per flight, for some runway constellations even up to 200 kg CO2 (65kg fuel).

Even though there is still work to do for a successful deployment of this procedure, the project made clear that efforts for increasing efficiency and thus CO2 emission reduction are worth trying and can finally enhance the solution used today. It also helped to enforce communication between the stakeholders “air traffic control” and “airlines” and to understand the problems and daily challenges of the partners.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

5/ 103

Preparation Trial facts: Aircraft type: Airline: Trial period: Reference period: Number of flights: Daily trial time: CO2 saving:

A319 Germanwings (4U) 18.-24. September 2010 25.-29. September 2010 90 24h up to 650kg (200kg fuel)

Main Trial facts: Aircraft type: Airlines: Main Trial period: Reference period: Daily trial time: Number of flights: Flight data: CO2 saving:

mainly A319, but altogether 25 different types including A320, B737-800, MD11, B747, A310, Fokker 100/ 70, B757 GWI (48,7%), UPS (9,2%), AUA incl. Tyrolean (8,9%), Condor (5,2%) altogether 24 different airlines 11.-24. June 2011 25. June - 08. July 2011 24h 272 152 flights, 106 trial + 46 reference flights, all GWI additionally 12 questionnaire’s feedbacks, 4 Austrian , 8 Tyrolean ca. 110kg (35kg fuel)

SESAR relevance The described activity is in line with SESAR’s objectives to get experience for the future developments and Quick wins for all air space users.

The proposed Flight Trials are a step in the context of SESAR Project 05.06.07, QM-7 – Integrated Sequence Building/Optimisation of Queues, as well as Project 10.09.02, Multiple airport arrival/departure management, and may therefore accelerate the pace of achieving results in this topic area.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

6/ 103

Description of the validation exercise The airports of Cologne, Dusseldorf and Frankfurt are counting more than 40% of the total aircraft movements at German main airports1 but are located within only 100 nautical miles next to each other.

Therefore there is a high interdependency of the traffic flows. Currently the traffic flows of the three airports are vertical and lateral segregated leading to inefficient flight trajectories.

Especially arrivals from the southeast into Cologne (EDDK) and Dusseldorf (EDDL) have similar trajectories and are therefore using similar airspaces. In addition departures from Frankfurt (EDDF) and other smaller airports cross these arrival flows.

Arrivals EDDL Over-Flights Arrivals EDLV, EDDG Departures EDDF

Departures EDDL

Arrivals EDDK

Arrivals EDDL

Arrivals EDDK southeast Departures EDDK

Departures EDDG, EDLW

picture 1 – The flight trial area is a complex structure of departing and arriving traffic (route facility chart)

The following air traffic control sectors are affected: DFS Upper Centre Karlsruhe, “Rhein Radar”: Fulda (FUL) Frankfurt (FFM)

DFS Centre Langen, “Langen Radar”: Hersfeld (HEF) Giessen (GIN) Paderborn high (PADH) Paderborn low (PADL) Cologne arrival (DKAE)

table 1 – affected air traffic control sectors

1

LIZ-Buletin of DFS, calendar weeks 1 to 37.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

7/ 103

Arrivals into Cologne and Dusseldorf use the same airspace until the sector of Fulda (FUL). T o ensure traffic separation and reasonable controller workload in the above mentioned2 sectors – the traffic of Cologne afterwards flies as slightly more easterly routing than Dusseldorf and it is forced in an early descent: Flights to Dusseldorf fly via Frankfurt (FFM) and Paderborn High (PADH) to the Dusseldorf arrival sector (DLA), while the flights into Cologne fly via Hersfeld (HEF), Giessen (GIN) and Paderborn low (PADL) to the Cologne arrival (DKAE).

This means the traffic will be separated vertically leading to a very inefficient flight profile far away from the optimum continuous approach. For the Cologne flights this results in much higher CO2 emissions comparing to no restriction case.

picture 2 – current lateral routing for southeast approaches to Cologne, radio facility chart

The segregation starts at the waypoint “DEMAB” (50° 32' 28N; 009° 57' 21E), 10 nautical miles east of the German city Fulda in FL250. Today the further routing goes via the waypoints DEMAB-GEVTA-SODNA-RUNER-GETNI to KOPAG, where the standard arrival routes (STAR) for the different runways in EDDK start.

The routing has not only a longer distance than the great circle distance, but also includes very restrictive flight level (FL) restrictions to ensure the vertical separation mentioned above: SODNA at FL 130 RUNER at FL 110 GETNI at FL100 This leads to a situation far away from an optimal 3° or Continuous Descent Approach.

In day to day business the lateral routing is being shortened very often by tactical direct routing or radar vectors, therefore a much higher potential is seen in optimizing the vertical profile.

2

see table 1

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

8/ 103

picture 3 – Today the descent starts ca. 300 nautical miles prior touch down much earlier than for an optimized profile (left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path); LIDO flight planning tool

The main idea for this validation exercise was to rearrange the traffic flows in such a manner, that the Cologne traffic can stay in higher altitudes after DEMAB.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

9/ 103

Background The idea of the trial has its seeds in an analysis of Germanwings from 2009 called “Operational disadvantage of EDDK as a base - A look at descent profiles for Flights to Cologne/Bonn – Airport”.

Major findings were: • • • •

DFS handover procedures dictate early descents for most flights with destination EDDK Descent profiles are much shallower than to most other large aerodromes in Germany Flights spend more time in lower airspace, resulting in higher fuel burns and consequently higher CO2 emissions Passenger comfort affected due to increased risk of flights traversing bad weather areas

For the analysis hypothetical vertical flight paths were created not considering any restrictions due to airspace structure, other traffic etc. and compared with the current state.3 Therefore the results are not achievable goals but give a clear indication on optimization possibilities.

Assessment of potential savings by using optimum vertical profiles Possible descrease of Tripfuel per Flight operated with opt. vertical Profile

Number of flights annually

Annual Tripfuel reduction

Annual decrease in costs

Annual decrease of CO2-emissions

S

109

2884

314.356 kg

160.322 €

993,4

NE

115

4675

537.625 kg

274.189 €

1698,9

NW

157

223

35.011 kg

17.856 €

110,6

SE (Only EDDM-EDDK)

99

1513

149.787 kg

76.391 €

473,3

SE

197

3755

739.735 kg

377.265 €

2337,6

W

0

2839

0 kg

0€

0,0

13.050

1.776.514 kg

906.023 €

5613,8 Tonnes

Approach direction (to EDDK)

Costs of forthcoming emission-trading not included.

Optimization of lateral routing promises further potential for cost- and emission-reduction.

table 2 –Potential decrease of CO2 emission for perfect vertical profiles without any constraints

3

Analysis of current state based on route calculations considering current routings and profiles, average aircraft performance, season average wind-components, average load-factor. Results were compared with model calculations with optimum descent profiles.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

10/ 103

Especially for southeasterly arrivals a high potential for CO2 emission/ fuel burn reduction was found, improving the ecological but also economical situation of the flights, although three of four other arrival directions show similar operational disadvantages und thus optimization potential.

Approach profile to EDDK from south-easterly direction Possible Trip-Fuel reduction

197 kg

Current routing and profile (2009):

ANELA/F360 UL604 BAMAS/F300 UL604 GORKO/F260 UL604 DEMAB/F200 T842 SODNA/F120 T842 RUNER T858 KOPAG

Top of descent:

ANELA (203NM ahead of EDDK)

Optimum:

ANELA/F360 UL604 DEMAB T842 SODNA T842 RUNER T858 KOPAG

Top of descent:

9NM after GEVTA (110NM ahead of EDDK)

Since the southeasterly arrivals have the biggest discrepancy from a “perfect world” optimized solution to the current state, they were used for the offer “Flight Trials for less CO2 emission during transition from en-route to final approach”.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

11/ 103

Preparation Trial The first solution was a new westerly routing via the waypoints DEMAB-ARNIX-EKSAK-KULIX-GETNI, in which the flights could stay in FL 250 until EKSAK. Afterwards they had to descent until GETNI down to FL 140.

The eye-catching “corner” at KULIX was introduced for several reasons. First, caused by existing traffic flows and procedures (e.g. Z841), a direct routing EKSAK-GETNI is only possible, when traffic on Z841 does not affect the required airspace for descend. In addition, it is to ensure that the flight crews are able to descent these 11.000 feet with acceptable descent rates4.

picture 4 – route facility chart of First Trial

It was assumed that it is probably only a “fly-by” point, enabling crew and controller to choose a direct routing EKSAK-GETNI, if traffic allows and the distance is sufficient for the descent. GETNI is located 30 nautical miles east of Cologne airport (51° 7' 6N; 007° 57' 17E), so FL140 is a good altitude to enable 3° approach for most RWYs in Cologne.

Analysis with LIDO flight planning tool for a sample flight from Belgrade to Cologne shows a possible CO2 reduction of ca. 390kg per flight by applying this new procedure (equivalent of ca. 120 kg fuel saving).5 The calculation is shown in picture 5. Please note that you have to compare the final fuel burn at EDDK, since for the trial a higher position at DEMAB than for the standard case is assumed.6

4

see also Technical and operational feasibility assessment, page 16 compare picture 3, page 9 6 The standard case uses less fuel until DEMAB, because it can “save” some energy through the early descent until this point, but needs it later for a longer level flight/ shallower descent to touch down.

5

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

12/ 103

picture 5 – Preparation Trial procedure with a considerable later and therefore more efficient descent starting ca. 180 nautical miles prior touchdown saving ca. 390kg CO2 or 120kg fuel (left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path); LIDO flight planning tool

The first trial took place from September 18th to 29th 2010, while the first week used the new procedure and the second was used as a reference week. During the trial week 90 flights of Germanwings Airbus A319 were able to use the new routing and profile.

The trial showed a possible CO2 saving of up to 600 to 700kg (200kg fuel7) per flight compared to not optimized flights done in the reference week.8 For details please refer also to the Phase 1 Deliverables, page 58.

7 The hole document uses 3,15 kg CO2 per kg fuel as calculation basis.

8

see Efficiency analysis, page 32, please note

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

13/ 103

Main Trial As routing and profiles of the first trial brought additional traffic into the busy sectors FFM (Rhein UAC) and PADH (Langen ACC) with resulting capacity problems, the lateral routing was changed, staying after LAMOB further to the south. This new procedure leaves the routing within the same control sectors (Fulda (FUL) at Rhein UAC, Hersfeld (HEF), Gedern (GED) and Paderborn low (PADL) at Langen ACC) which are responsible today.

RUNER FL 110 or below (64 NM)

KOPAG (39 NM)

GETNI at FL100 (45 NM)

PELUN SODNA (71 NM) at FL130 (82 NM) EBANA (90 NM)

LAMOP (109 NM) GEVTA (117 NM)

COL (20 NM)

DIST to RWY from DEMAB

32 144 NM

14 151 NM DEMAB at FL250 (144 NM)

picture 6 – Today’s standard routing from DEMAB to EDDK and distance to RWYs 32 or 24 (distances in brackets for RWY 32), radio facility chart

The end point of the lateral routing changed and does not end at KOPAG to join a STAR anymore.

Instead the flights head to the VOR COL after EKSAK. In case of RWY 32L/R or 24 in use for landing they continue all the way to COL and then join a standard approach (or get radar vectors to final). If RWYs 14L/R are used, the flights get a tactical clearance after crossing the airway Z841 to proceed direct VOR WYP and join there a standard approach (or get radar vectors to final). For RWY 32 this leads to a 15 NM shorter distance, for RWY 14 a reduction of 6 NM could be achieved.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

14/ 103

EKSAK at FL160 (61 NM)

EBANA (75 NM) GEVTA (102 NM) LAMOP (93 NM)

xZ841 at FL100 (44 NM)

COL (20 NM)

DIST to RWY from DEMAB TRIAL:

32 144 NM 129 NM

14 151 NM 145 NM

DEMAB at FL250 (129 NM)

picture 7 – lateral routing for the Main Trial and distance to RWYs 32 and 24 (standard and trial) (distances in brackets for RWY 32), radio facility chart

But as mentioned earlier, optimization of the lateral routing was not the main aim of the trial, but a higher descent profile. Flights are now allowed to stay in FL160 at EKSAK and then have to be at FL 100 at airway Z841. This profile is less ambitious compared to the first trial but encompasses the conflict problems and has still a high potential for CO2 emission reduction.

picture 8 – vertical profile of the Main Trial (green) compared to current situation (red) and an optimal 3° profile (yellow). The green arrows show the still expected potential of CO2 emission reduction.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

15/ 103

An exact calculation with the LIDO flight planning tool could not be made, because this new routing ends at COL. From COL there is no official STAR at the moment and therefore the system cannot calculate the approach afterwards. Nevertheless to get a very rough impression, a calculation was made assuming a direct routing from COL to touchdown. This calculation shows a difference of ca. 140 kg fuel. This value is too optimistic due to the shortcut after COL, but gives at least a hint, that there is a good saving potential in this trial.

picture 9 – Main Trial procedure with later and therefore more efficient descent (left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path9); LIDO flight planning tool

The Main Trial took place from June 11th to June 24th 2011, while the timeframe from June 25th to July 8th was used as reference period. It was tried, that all flights into Cologne - independently from the airline or aircraft type - used the trial procedure.

To prepare airlines, which are not part of the Consortium, the trial was announced by NOTAM.10 Under consideration of the wind difference during the trial and the reference period the Main Trial showed possible CO2 savings of about 110kg (35kg fuel) per flight. Positive results were especially found for runway 32R (ca. 220kg CO2/ 70kg fuel) and runway 24 (45 to 200kg CO2/ 14 to 62 kg fuel).11

9

Shortly before the trial the routing was slightly changed, going GEVTA-LAMOP-EBANA-EKSAK, while during the preparation it was GEVTA-LAMOP and then already direct EKSAK. 10 see chapter Validation preparation and execution, page 25 11 see Efficiency analysis, page 32

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

16/ 103

Technical and operational feasibility assessment The technical and operational feasibility included mainly the safety and performance analysis of the new procedures. The performance analysis was primarily done by Germanwings using Lido flight planning tools to see the possible benefits of the solutions proposed by DFS. Both, DFS and GWI, made their own safety analysis.

On DFS side this involved possible traffic conflicts and controller workload. For the controller workload analysis it was checked if the new procedure increases controller workload unacceptable and also if the needed information monitoring during the trials (like filling out the questionnaire) can be done without harming the normal operation. For details of the DFS risk analysis see the Phase 1 report which is attached at the end of this document.12 On GWI side the expected sink rates and flight deck workload has been checked. Here also possible additional workload of the new procedure was checked through questionnaires. The workload which was expected during the trials for questionnaires or data storing was decided to be acceptable.

Airside Too high descent rates were the biggest concern on the airside. They would have resulted in higher cockpit workload due to speed brake usage and thus higher monitoring requirements as well as impairing of passenger comfort caused by high cabin altitude sink rates. The latter results from interdependency of the aircraft sink rate and the cabin sink rate:

picture 10 – general correlation of aircraft (a/c) and cabin altitude (z-axis) during a flight, A320 manual

So a high aircraft sink rate can cause higher than normal cabin sink rates, which is 350ft/min.

Calculations with A319 performance data showed, that the profile should be flyable. In addition he first trial routing and profile was flown in an A330 simulator which has the similar gliding performances as the A319. The vertical profile could be flown at an idle descent and showed no unusual sink rates.

However the above mentioned corner at KULUX was used for the Preparation Trial as – in a way – back up procedure to loose altitude.

12

see also Risk Management Plan (Phase 1 Deliverables), page 91

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

17/ 103

During the Preparation Trial unusual or problematic sink rates were experienced.

Therefore for the Main Trial – since it has a lower profile – there was no need for further investigation beforehand on this topic.

Nevertheless to get an impression of other flight operator’s view on this new procedure a questionnaire for the Main Trial was developed.13

Groundside The safety analysis was the main point of the feasibility assessment on the groundside.

Safety analysis of DFS A short description of the plan In cooperation with DFS branches Langen and Karlsruhe and as agreed with Germanwings, approaches to Cologne/Bonn will be guided over the waypoint EKSAK at FL 250 for a time period of 5-7 days. This will only be possible for a few pre-selected Germanwings A319 flights. Germanwings pilots have been briefed about this option. The new arrival route leads over existing waypoints and is only available with an individual and coordinated clearance. The transferring controller in Karlsruhe (FUL Sector) shall give individual clearances. At first the FUL controller shall ask the pilot if he is willing to fly the alternative route. If he is willing, the alternative route shall be coordinated with the next sectors FFM (Karslruhe) and PADH (Langen). Since Sector PADH is especially vulnerable to capacity problems, it is essential to obtain acceptance from this sector before giving clearance for the alternative route. Under no circumstances can these individually approved route changes be guaranteed. No one is entitled to these clearances as the sector PADH has to make the decision about each individual clearance at a point in time when it is not possible to make an overall traffic analysis and the resulting consequences are not foreseeable. Due to safety considerations in PADH, the following are among the possible consequences of giving such a clearance: • significantly longer routes (e.g. wide right turn over KULIX) • rapid descent rates (>4000 ft / min) • step-by-step descents • other awkward or uneconomical flight manoeuvres • Depending on the traffic situation, the consequences mentioned here may also affect "normal" flights through this sector (not just flights taking the alternative route).

• Departure delays (e.g. for EDDK, EDDL, EDDG, EDLV and EDLW) to ensure safety in PADH after a clearance has been given for the alternative route.

The goal is to give our customer Germanwings the chance to test the alternative route to see if they can improve performance. This flight profile is technically feasible. Sector PADH is responsible for finding out which traffic situations render this alternative route possible, i.e. safely and without air traffic flow management.

13

see Validation preparation and execution, p. 25

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

18/ 103

System boundary analysis Work group 06 has raised concerns (see minutes of the 2 MAR 2010 meeting) about introducing alternative routings to regular operations. There is an increased hazard potential at traffic flows crossing points PODER-RUNER-GETNI and EKSAK-KULIX at FL 250, which can only be solved by employing individual separation measures. A safety assessment (based on the alternative routing within a trial period) would need to be made before this could be introduced to regular operations in the future.

Prerequisites • During the trial period, pilots and controllers can use this routing voluntarily by employing individual clearances. Just as in all other cases where an individual clearance is given, (e.g. a request and clearance for direct routing), the controller shall base his decision on safety and the amount of traffic. The advantages of using a specified time period and a limited number of participants are that all parties have the same information, which facilitates a better overview of the situation, makes the process easier to comprehend and reduces the amount of verbal communication necessary.

• The trial period is limited (to 5-7 days).

• Alternative routings have been agreed with Germanwings.

• Alternative routings shall only be used for selected A319 flights by Germanwings if their pilots have been briefed on this option.

• The new approach routing uses existing waypoints and is only available if an individual and coordinated clearance has been given.

Conclusion DFS experts have determined that the required individual and coordinated clearances do not pose a change to the ATM functional system pursuant to EU Regulation 2096; rather they are the day-to-day business of a controller.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

19/ 103

Validation preparation and execution The validation preparation included mainly the development of the pilot’s and controller’s information bulletins and questionnaires as well as fuel data collecting measurements. The pilot information bulletins also included the measurements to be taken by the pilot to receive fuel data. Their content will be described in this chapter.

Also the parameter and actions of the validation execution are part of this chapter. They are divided into the Preparation and the Main Trial.

Preparation Trial Preparation The pilot’s bulletin for the Preparation Trial can be found in the annex.14 It gives some background information to the pilots, explains the operational procedure and describes the measurements to be taken to get the fuel data. This data will be developed from a so called “Postflight Report”15, a function of the Multi Control Display Unit (MCDU) which derives the data from the Flight Management System.

The controller bulletin for the Preparation Trial can be found in the annex.16 It describes the purpose, procedure and flight plan handling of the trial.

The pilot questionnaire17 for the Preparation Trial encompassed efficiency and operational questions: a.

“Was the actually flown profile above, below or close to the theoretical optimum?” (CDA)

b.

“To match the vertical profile, did you need special means, like speed brakes, or have there been any impact on the passenger service, like change in cabin service?”

c.

“How often did you have to level off between EKSAK and GETNI?”

d.

“Did you get sink rate orders or other altitude restrictions than the known one?”

14

see annex Germanwings pilot’s bulletin Preparation Trial, page 59 see annex Postflight Report Example, page 77 16 see annex DFS Controller’s bulletin Preparation Trial, page 62 17 see annex Pilots questionnaire Preparation Trial, page 63 15

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

20/ 103

The controller questionnaire18 for the Langen sector DKAE (Cologne Arrival) deals with the procedure for handing over from one controller to the other, the lateral routing clearance and the landing runway and the question, if the aircraft was in a position to perform a landing: 1 The aircraft has been handed over to: • At FL100 • At FL120 • in descent to FL120 • At / descending to FL_________ 2 The aircraft flies: • on the stretch GETNI – KOPAG • directly to KOPAG • directly to WYP • directly to COL • _______________ 3 The aircraft landed on runway: _________ 4 The aircraft: • could be handled normally • has been transferred in a state too high for a reasonable handling • ___________________

18

see annex Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC DKAE, page 64

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

21/ 103

The controller questionnaire 19 for Langen sector PADH (Paderborn High) deals with the possible events and problems that may arise, when handling traffic on the trial-routing: 1 Did the aircraft participate? □ yes □

no (reason):

□ □ □

2 Sector workload when the aircraft entered the sector: □ low □ medium

ATFCM Workload _______________

□

high

3 The following problems occurred when handling the traffic: □ restricting traffic on the same routing □ crossing traffic on Y867 (BADGO – PELUN) □ merging with traffic stream via T858 (RUNER – GETNI) into EDDK required □ restricting traffic on Z841 (GMH – GETNI – SIGEN) □ other separation problems □ unable to hand over the traffic at FL 140 or below overhead GETNI □ negative influence on traffic dest. EDDL / EDDG / EDLV via EKSAK and ARPEG □ _______________________________________ 4 Did other airspace users have disadvantages caused by the trial? □ no □ yes, additional level-offs □ yes, a longer routing due Vectoring □ yes, descend restriction not compatible to pilots requirements (e.g. instruction for.rate of descend, initial descend too early or too late) 5 Routing of participants: □ on the trial-routing EKSAK – KULIX – GETNI □ shorter □ had to be longer 6 Handling of the aircraft was: □ without any problems □ disturbing, but acceptable □ disturbing, very high efforts required to handle the traffic 7 Did the pilot state anything on the frequency? □ yes □ no

19

see annex Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC PADH, page 65

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

22/ 103

Execution The trial considered all flights of Germanwings coming in from south easterly direction into Cologne, including departures in Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, the Balkan region, Greece, Turkey and other. 74% of all possible flights were able to participate20: altogether 90 flights.

A list of flight numbers is available on request.

Aircraft type: Airline: Trial period: Reference period: Number of flights: Daily trial time:

A319 Germanwings (4U) 18.-24. September 2010 25.-29. September 2010 90 24h

All trial days show a significant reduction in fuel burn between the standard procedure and the new optimized one.21 The Preparation trial nevertheless showed a high potential of traffic conflicts on the routing used.

The preparation trial raised several problems in the handling of the traffic on the new routing. Also several questions remained open. From the view of Langen ACC the following remarks are given: • • • • •

•

Main traffic streams in the PADH are arrivals to EDDL / EDDG / EDLV via ARPEG or EKSAK, arrivals EDDK via PODER or WRB and departures EDDK via WRB. A lot of other traffic streams, most of them climbing- or descending profiles, take place in the PADH. The profile tested in the trial increased the complexity of traffic handling significantly, and the PADH often reaches the capacity limit already now.

The actual traffic streams in the PADH cause separation problems in one or two areas, the trial-routing may cause separation problems in up to four areas (see picture 11).

When implementing the routing as a standard, 50 – 60 flights a day have to be considered on the new routing, leading to a significant higher workload in the Fulda sector (FUL) of Rhein UAC and Paderborn high-sector (PADH) of Langen ACC. Major capacity problems already exist in both sectors, the additional traffic will, most probably, lead to more frequent and more restrictive ATFM-regulations.

As the trial was performed by only one company (GWI) with a single aircraft type (A319), a transfer of the results to other companies (e.g. „Passengers Comfort“, Cabin Service, Cost Index, Operational Rules) or to other aircraft types (B747, B767, MD11, A340, A321, CRJ2, E170, F100) has to be verified.

Preparation Trial had to be interrupted between ca. Sep 19th 19:00 and ca. Sep 20th 18:00 due to frequency problems and subsequent capacity impairment.

21 see Efficiency analysis, page 32 20 The

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

23/ 103

picture 11 – Conflicting points in the sector PADH with trial-routing

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

24/ 103

Main Trial Preparation For the Main Trial all airline operators should use the new procedure. This enabled the DFS to better see the implication of their operations. Therefore the new routing was announced via NOTAM, which prepared all flight crews for a tactical re-routing of their flight:22

1A1896/11 ARRIVAL EDDK VIA ATS ROUTE T842 : ,DUE TO VALIDATION OF AN AMENDED ARRIVAL ROUTE TO EDDK FROM THE SOUTH EAST PLANNED VIA T842 PILOTS SHALL BE PREPARED FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TACTICAL SHORTER RE-ROUTING - INSTRUCTED BY ATC LANGEN - VIA LAMOP - EKSAK - COL., (AIP GERMANY, PAGE ENR 3.3-T-22 REFERS) The Germanwings pilot’s bulletin for the Main Trial can be found in the annex. 23 It gives some background information to the pilots, explains the operational procedure including the expected NOTAM and describes the measurements to be taken to get the fuel data. Analog to the Preparation Trial the fuel data will be developed from the Postflight Report24.

The Main Trial used a less ambitious vertical profile. Since the the Preparation Trial feedback of the Germanwings pilots showed no operational problems, the same was expected for the Main Trial.

Therefore it was resigned to do another pilot’s questionnaire for the Germanwings pilots.

Nevertheless to get an impression of other aircraft operators a pilot’s questionnaire was send to Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways. It can be found in the annex.25 It includes information of the lateral and vertical routing to expect, the questionnaire and some additional background information.

The questionnaire part dealt with the following questions: • • • •

attendance to the trial used runway operational problems (high sink rates, speed brake usage,…) qualitative assessment, if the re-routing and vertical profile of the trial is closer to the optimum

22

see also Main Trial NOTAM, page 66 see annex Germanwings pilot bulletin Main Trail, page 67 24 see annex Postflight Report Example, page 77 25 see annex Questionnaire Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways, page 69 23

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

25/ 103

The trial was designed that the flights could stay at EKSAK at FL160 and afterwards descent to FL 100 for the crossing of airway Z841, but be within the same ATC sectors as in the standard case. Therefore the sector Paderborn Low (PADL) had to be lifted to FL 165 in the area of EKSAK, where today its normal upper limit is FL135. For the trial the DFS therefore provided a small “bottom opened tunnel” of PADL airspace from EKSAK to airway Z841, in which the flights into Cologne would follow the new procedure, but were controlled by the same controllers as before.

RUNER FL110 or below

SODNA FL130

picture 12 – A small “tunnel” of PADL airspace was lifted to FL165 at EKSAK (brown) to enable the flights into Cologne to stay at FL160 over EKSAK, but be controlled by the same sector as today. (green: trial routing, yellow: standard routing), route facility chart

On the ATC side a short questionnaire was distributed. It recorded • • • • •

day sector callsign time no problem/ problem o space for free text to further describe any problems

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

26/ 103

Execution Aircraft type: Airlines: Main Trial period: Reference period: Daily trial time: Number of flights: Flight data:

mainly A319, but altogether 25 different types26 including A320, B737-800, MD11, B747, A310, Fokker 100/ 70, B757 GWI (48,7%), UPS (9,2%), AUA incl. Tyrolean (8,9%), Condor (5,2%) altogether 24 different airlines27 11.-24. June 2011 25. June - 08. Juli 2011 24h 272 152 flights, 106 trial + 46 reference flights, all GWI additionally 12 questionnaire’s feedbacks, 4 AUA, 8 Tyrolean

During the Main Trial Period all aircraft of all operators coming into CGN from the southeast used the trial routing, if the air traffic controllers were able to give the clearance. Flight crew feedback was taken from crews from Germanwings, Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways. The efficiency analysis was based on data from Germanwings flights.

Data was derived from 106 flights during the trial and 46 flights during the reference period.

Altogether 272 flights used the Main Trial routing. This equals 60,6% of all Cologne arrivals via DEMAB during the trial period.

picture 13 – participating (green, “Ja”) and not participating (red, “Nein”) flights during the Main Trial

26 27

see annex List of participating aircraft types – Main Trial, p. 74 see annex List of participating airlines – Main Trial, p. 75

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

27/ 103

Most of the not participating flights arrived during the night shift. They mostly had already an even better direct routing due to low traffic density. 10 flights had to fly different routings to avoid weather phenomena.

effected by WX (10 Flights) directs during night shift

Seite 1

picture 14 – non participating flights (red) occurred mainly during low traffic situation in the night

Of the 272 participating flights 101 landed on runway 24, 100 on RWY 32R/L and 71 on RWY 14L/R.

picture 15 – number of participating aircraft per runway

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

28/ 103

picture 16 – runway setup Cologne airport

The evaluation of the controller questionnaires pointed out some problems. Especially the sector of Paderborn Low (PADL) made a lot of comments. A lot of problems had their source in the airspace design used for the trial.

As the airspace used for the trial just covered the minimum required airspace to maintain prescribed distances to sector boundaries, any kind of deviation from the route, even very small ones, were subject to coordination with the adjacent sectors. Also the vertical profile caused additional workload, as the transfer from PADL to the adjacent sector DKAE had to take place at FL100. For a standard descent profile (approximately 300 ft / NM), FL160 overhead EKSAK is too high, so individual descent-restrictions had to be applied to many aircraft on the routing, or an approval to commence descent prior to EKSAK had to be obtained from the previous sector GIN.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

29/ 103

table 3 – problem clusters from evaluation of the controller questionnaires

22 flights had to deviate from the foreseen course after EKSAK to avoid weather phenomena. Since the tunnel after EKSAK was laterally very small, it caused a lot of coordination efforts with the adjacent sectors with a high risk to enter neighbour sectors without coordination due to the short time left.

RUNER FL110 or below

SODNA FL130

picture 17 – Flights that had to deviate from the trial routing after EKSAK (red) are entering the airspace of the Paderborn High (PADH) sector causing a lot of additional coordination efforts by the controllers. (green: trial routing, yellow: standard routing), route facility chart

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

30/ 103

The evaluation of the Austrian and Tyrolean questionnaires did not show any problems and enforced the assumption that this procedure provides fuel/ CO2 saving potential: All 8 Tyrolean and 3 of 4 AUA flight crews stated in their questionnaires that they attended to the trial.

None of them had any operational problems. 8 of the 11 participating flight crews said that from their personally judgment the new procedure saves fuel, while only 1 said it does not. 2 were not able to make a judgment, probably because due to lack of experience with the standard case. 6 flights used runway 32, 2 runway 24 and 3 runway 14.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

31/ 103

Efficiency analysis The efficiency analysis for reduction of CO2 emissions is based on the fuel data and a standard factor of 3,15 kg CO2/ kg Fuel. The fuel data is derived from print outs of the actual flown routing of the Flight Management System of the A319 Germanwings (“Postflight Report).28 The comparison between the standard profile and the trial profile was done from a position (reference point), where both procedure follow a different lateral or vertical profile, until touch down.

Recorded was the fuel on board (FOB) over the reference point and at touchdown. The difference equals the used fuel for this flight portion. We assume that the final approach from the Final Fix to touch down is very similar for every flight, so that the difference in fuel consumption comes only from the transition from en-route segment to the final approach, which is the aim of this trial. This assumption is especially reasonable due to the following facts: • • • • •

28

same aircraft type (A319) same operator and thus same operating procedures final approach profile and distance equal for all flights final approach segment small compared to total distance from reference point until touch down (10NM versus ca. 150NM) similar aircraft weight since fuel on board at touchdown similar for all flight (2,5-3,5 to), similar passenger load factors/ people on board assumed

see annex Postflight Report Example, page 77

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

32/ 103

For the lateral and vertical flight path of the flights the DFS tool “Stanley PC” was used. Stanley PC uses stored radar tracks and associated flightplans to enable interpretation of recent air traffic. In Stanley PC different filter conditions may be used to extract the desired flights for further investigations. Stanley PC is capable to calculate a great variety of figures useful for evaluation purposes.

profile (red: flown blue: RFL)

length of level segment

trial-routing yes/no

Flightplan-routing

Landing runway

flown routing (one update per minute) level at fix

closest distance to fix picture 18 – example of Stanley PC tool

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

33/ 103

Preparation Trial Since the first trial was a preparation one the analysis was rather simple. 90 flights from Germanwings participated in the trial. It proved a possible fuel saving of up to 600 to 700 CO2 (200kg fuel) per flight compared to not optimized (“standard”) flights done in the reference week.

picture 19 – fuel burn (y-axis) for the transition from en-route to final approach (waypoint DEMAB to touchdown) for the Preparation Trial procedure (“optimiert”) and the standard procedure during the reference week per day

The data of the needed fuel from the position DEMAB until touchdown was recorded. The fuel burn was compared between the same weekdays for the trial and for the reference week.

All trial days show a significant reduction in fuel burn between the standard procedure (pointed line) and the new optimized (“optimiert”, long dashed line) one.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

34/ 103

Main Trial For the Main Trial the needed fuel from DEMAB until touchdown was recorded. The pilots were asked to make sure that DEMAB or the position abeam DEMAB (ABDEMAB) stays in the FMS flight plan.

Unfortunately not all post flight reports showed DEMAB as over flown or fly by waypoint. Therefore also the next point LAMOB – where the second routing is still equivalent to the standard routing – was used for fuel comparison to get a broader data basis.

The analysis showed for DEMAB and LAMOB similar fuel burn until touch down (T/D) for the trial (“Trial”) as well as for the reference period (“Comp”).

fuel [kg]

DEMAB Comp Trial 657 655

LAMOB Comp Trial 533 534

table 4 – fuel burn [kg] from DEMAB or LAMOB to touchdown

RWY in use The fuel burn shows changes as a function of the runway in use.

RWY in use 24 14L 14R 32R unknown weighted average29

DEMAB Comp Trial Delta 660 624 -36 700 764 +64 700 641 625 -16 700 657 655 -2

LAMOB Comp Trial Delta 517 500 -17 600 621 +21 600 519 520 +1 500 533 534 +1

table 5 – fuel burn [kg] from DEMAB or LAMOB to touchdown for different runway configurations

The trial procedure shows emission and fuel burn reduction for approaches to runway 24 and 32R but higher emissions for RWY 14L. The reason is probably the lateral difference between the trial and the standard procedure. For RWY 14L the arrival route as part of the transition from en-route to final approach is a downwind northeast of Cologne airport. Since the standard procedure stays already more northern than the trial procedure a radar vectored approach – which is the normal approach type in CGN – can shorten the way for the standard case. Therefore the additional fuel burn for the trial comes from a longer lateral flight path and not from a worse vertical profile.

29 The

“weighted average” takes into account the number of flights, which were conducted under the specific parameter, which is analysed. In this case it is the used runway.

Example: For the trial week fuel data from DEMAB is available for 34 flights for RWY 24, 14 for RWY 14L, 0 for RWY 14R, 16 for RWY 32R and 1 is unknown. This means (34 flights x 624 kg fuel + 14 flights x 764 kg fuel + 16 flights x 625 kg fuel + 1 flight x 700 kg fuel) / 65 flights = 655 kg fuel as “weighted average”. This concept is used throughout the document.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

35/ 103

Wind Unfortunately the winds during the trial weeks and the reference weeks were very different and in favour for the standard procedure.

The wind was taken from the position EKSAK for the trial period and for the position PELUN for the reference period. Those points are about the middle between DEMAB and the airport of Cologne. To distinguish between head- and tailwind, the direct course between DEMAB and KBO VOR at Cologne airport was taken as a reference. It is 281.2°.Head wind is therefore defined as wind with a direction between 192° and 011° while tailwind is 012° to 191 °.

Head-/ Tailwind = – COS(winddirection-281)*wind velocity (Headwind defined negative) Trial date 11. Jun 11 12. Jun 11 13. Jun 11 14. Jun 11 15. Jun 11 16. Jun 11 17. Jun 11 18. Jun 11 19. Jun 11 20. Jun 11 21. Jun 11 22. Jun 11 23. Jun 11 24. Jun 11 weighted average 1st trial week 2nd trial week

DEMAB Wind Fuel -13 600 -24 622 -4 660 -15 550 -20 650 -19 643 -32 657 -26 671 -26 680 -42 767 -40 780 -32 800 -27 567 -22 600 -24 655 -19 631 -31 692

Reference date 28. Jun 11 29. Jun 11 30. Jun 11 1. Jul 11 2. Jul 11 3. Jul 11 4. Jul 11 5. Jul 11 6. Jul 11 7. Jul 11 8. Jul 11 weighted average

DEMAB Wind Fuel -3 750 unknown 700 -20 450 unknown 650 -3 675 -2 650 0 500 -5 650 -13 633 -20 667 -15 750 -8 657

Especially during the 2nd week of the trial strong headwinds were present (headwinds defined negative).

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

36/ 103

To better compare the trial and the reference period, wind cluster of +/- 2,5 knots were introduced. So the wind cluster -10 equals a headwind between 7,5 and 12,5 knots.

cluster30

wind 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 unbekannt weighted average

DEMAB Comp 700 600 700 700 733 600 600

647 657

Trial 700 750 600 620 610 667 750 750 820 700 600 655

LAMOB Comp 500 500 567 600 633 600 400

491 533

Trial 600 625 600 567 500 513 540 550 533 580 500 460 534

table 6 – fuel burn [kg] from DEMAB or LAMOB to touchdown for different wind cluster [kt]

The trial weeks had a wind range between zero wind and -50 knots headwind while the reference period had even up to 5 knots tailwind and only up to 25 knots head wind.

If you compare only wind clusters between zero wind and -25 knots (“comparable winds”), the analysis looks as follows:

wind cluster 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 weighted average

DEMAB Comp 600 700 700 733 600 600 667

Trial 700 750 600 620 610 629

LAMOB Comp 500 567 600 633 600 400 571

Trial 600 625 600 567 500 513 539

Even though data of more 150 flights are available, the amount of flights per wind cluster is too small to make a reliable comparison. This is especially true for the reference period were only 1-3 flights per wind cluster are available. So only for the sum of all “comparable winds” we think a reliable judgement is possible. For DEMAB 12 post flight reports for the reference timeframe and 38 for the trial timeframe and for LAMOB 14 for the reference timeframe and 37 for the trial timeframe are on hand. So if you compare the weighted average within those wind clusters, which were present during the trial and the reference period, you come to the following conclusion:

30

A wind cluster encompasses +- 2,5 kt, so the wind cluster -10 means 7,5 to 12,5 knots headwind.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

37/ 103

Within a comparable wind range the trial routing shows a much better performance with an average saving of CO2 emissions of ca. 110 kg corresponding to fuel savings of ca. 35 kg per flight.

Divided for different runways the picture for looks like this: DEMAB wind cluster

24 Comp Trial

0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 weighted average LAMOB Windcluster* 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 weighted average

600 600 600 605

700

800 750

32R Comp Trial 600 700 700 700 560 600

700

767

657

Trial

14L Comp

Trial 600 650

32R Comp 500 600 600

700 800 600 600 667 24 Comp

14L Comp Trial 700 800

500 700 500 400 525

600 489 514 511

600

600

590

Trial

800 650

700

600 600 517 400

667

588

518

Also in this case the trial routing is favourable for RWYs 24 and 32R but less favourable for RWY 14L. But as well the amount of flights per cluster is too small to make accurate statistics. Only the sum for all flights within the “comparable winds” can give a good indication of the differences between the trial and the standard procedure. Therefore: Within a comparable wind range the fuel burn reduction for RWY 32R can be confirmed (67 to 70kg) and is very likely for RWY 24 (14 to 62 kg). This equals a reduction in CO2 emissions of ca.

220kg for RWY 32 and up to 200kg for RWY 24.

CO2

Fuel

+211 kg

+67 kg

-44 to -195 kg

-14 to -62 kg

32L/R -211 to -221 kg

-67 to -70 kg

14L/R 24

∅

-100 to -120kg

-32 to -38kg

table 7 – CO2 and fuel differences for flights with “comparable winds”

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

38/ 103

Distance/ Average flown routing By using the Stanley PC tool the DFS was able to compare the planned routing and profile of flights with the average flown. In many cases the controllers are able to provide shorter routing than the planned provided the traffic situation permits it. Therefore the average flown distance is mostly shorter than the planned. Please find examples of the flighttracks in the annex.31 For the today standard routing the average flown distance for runway 32 is 13 nautical miles shorter than the official routing, for RWY 14 it is 14 NM.

Average Distance to fix

Dist. DEMAB-RWY Planned route average flown

32 144 131

14 151 137

picture 20 – standard routing vs. average flown, 13NM less for RWY 32 and 14NM for RWY 14

31

see annex Flighttracks – Main Trial, page 78

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

39/ 103

For the trial routing however the average routing is only 8NM shorter than the planned trial routing – independent of the runway. Especially after EKSAK there is no tactical optimization of the routing anymore. This is very understandable since the PADL sector had only the very limited tunnel, trough which it had to bring all the flights.

Dist. DEMAB-RWY Planned route average flown

32 129 121

14 145 137

picture 21 – trial routing vs. average flown, 8NM less for RWY 32 and also 8NM for RWY 14

If you compare the average flown distances of the standard routing with the trial routing, you therefore see, that the average flown difference is less than the planned. Due to the strict routing after EKSAK during the trial there is less tactical optimization possible.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

40/ 103

Especially for runway 14 you can see that the optimized lateral routing completely disappears if you compare the average flown distances.

Dist. DEMAB-RWY Planned route (Trial) average flown (Trial)

32 129 121

14 145 137

Planned route (today) average flown (today) Diff planned Diff actual

144 131 -15 -10

151 137 -6 0

picture 22 – The standard routing can provide more tactical directs than the trial routing, mainly due to the strict routing after EKSAK

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

41/ 103

The high potential of the trial is nevertheless shown when it comes to the vertical profile. The main planned optimization was to be in FL160 (EKSAK) 61NM prior touchdown instead of todays FL110 at 64NM (RUNER).

DEMAB

GEVTA LAMOP EBANA EKSAK DEMAB

RUNER

GEVTA

xZ841

LAMOP

EBANA

COL

SODNA PELUN GETNI KOPAG COL

picture 23 – planned vertical profiles of today’s standard case (red) and the trial case (green)

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

42/ 103

During the real life trial this optimization could be confirmed.

DEMAB

GEVTA LAMOP EBANA EKSAK

DEMAB

xZ841

GEVTA LAMOP

EBANA SODNA RUNER

KOPAG

picture 24 – average flown vertical profiles of today’s standard case (red) and the trial case (green)

The picture 24 clearly shows the optimized vertical profile of the trial procedure.

As planned, the maximum “lifting” of the vertical profile is 5000 feet about 60NM prior touchdown (EKSAK). Additionally FL 250 is left about 10 nautical miles later.

Together with the shown fuel reduction for “comparable winds”, the flight trial validated the potential for less CO2 emissions during transition from en-route to final approach.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

43/ 103

Time/ Traffic Density As stated earlier32 night flights mainly did not participate in the trial because they followed already a more efficient direct routing. The picture 14 (page 28) also shows a very traffic high peak at 12 and small peaks at 8, 10, 11, 15 and 16, while picture 25 gives the associated fuel burn for these day hours.

1000

800

reference week

reference week trial weeks

trial weeks 900

fuel burn

fuel burn

700

800

700

600

500

600

500

400

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

hour

16

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

hour

picture 25 – fuel burn to touchdown depending on the hour of touchdown (left DEMAB, right LAMOP), note: there are no data available for 17-19h (DEMAB) and 18-19h (LAMOP)

A distinct dependency between traffic density and differences in fuel burn during the trial and the reference days cannot be found.

32

see Validation preparation and execution, page 27

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

44/ 103

Speed Speed data was collected for DEMAB waypoint: 30

reference week trial weeks

25

flights

20

15 10

5 0 220

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

IAS at DEMAB

picture 26 – Indicated airspeed overhead DEMAB or abeam point

Most flights were operated between 270 and 300 knots, which correlates to a normal cost index used by Germanwings. The data show no major difference between the trial and the standard case regarding speed.

Weight Statements about the weight cannot be given, since it would allow conclusions of the load factor and thus the business performance of the Germanwings flights.

For the trial it is assumed that the flights have similar load factors and remaining fuel at touchdown according to Germanwings fuel policy. This means in reverse, that the aircraft weight is similar for all flights independent of the trial or reference period.

Accuracy of Airbus Fuel Data The precision of the data analysis via postflight reports is limited since the recording rounds the fuel to full hundred kilograms. Nevertheless with data of 150 flights the identification of trends is possible.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

45/ 103

Deployment scenarios The aim of the flight trials was to show the possibility to implement this procedure as the normal routing and vertical profile for the southeasterly arrivals into Cologne. Therefore it has to proof: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

ability to fly the profile with descent rates not harming passenger comfort ability to fly the profile with acceptable flight deck workload ability to use the procedure with acceptable controller workload ability to manage the conflicting traffic proof of reduction of CO2 emissions

Points 1 to 4 were fulfilled, while the last and most important point is only fulfilled for runway configuration 24 or 32R/L. For runway 14L/R the present procedure seems to be more valuable. Two deployment scenarios are possible: Scenario 1.

Scenario 2.

Main Trial routing/ profile new standard for runways 24 while present routing/ profile stays standard for runways 14L/R Main Trial routing/ profile new standard for all arrivals from southeast

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

or

32R/L,

46/ 103

Scenario 1 This scenario would maintain the efficient standard arrival for runway 14R/L and introduce the trial procedure as a new arrival for runways 24 and 32L/R. It would be the optimal solution regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions.

The traffic separation would be very early during the transition from en-route for final approach. In fact to realise this scenario STARs have to be developed, which start already at LAMOB. This is more than 100 nautical miles prior touchdown and therefore very different procedures would be used for the different runway setups. Therefore this scenario is very complex.

Prerequisites for implementing the new procedure: • •

New STAR from LAMOB via EKSAK to COL for runways 24 and 32R/L New STAR along the present routing for runway 14L/R

One of the reasons for the unfavourable values for runway 14 was the strict routing after EKSAK due to the used airspace design during the trial. More flexibility for the Paderborn Low sector could bring a better performance of the trial procedure even for runway 14 (see scenario 2).

Scenario 2 This would be good solution for days with operations to runway 24 and 32R/L, but deteriorate the ecological performance for flights to runway 14L/R. The trial showed, that about 74% of all flights use either runway 32 or 24, therefore the used procedure during the trial would be beneficial at least to most of the flights.

Nevertheless it would be a suboptimal solution regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions.

A solution to overcome the less favourable performance of the trial routing for runway 14 would be more flexibility for the Paderborn Low airspace sector.

Prerequisites for implementing the new procedure: • • • •

New airway from LAMOB to EKSAK New waypoint after crossing airway Z841 STAR from this new waypoint via COL for runways 24 and 32R/L STAR from this new waypoint via WYP for runway 14L/R

The DFS is now continuing the study on how to arrange the airspace to give PADL this needed flexibility while not deteriorating all the other traffic in that area. It is convinced to find a solution, but the further analysis and especially authorization of the regulator (Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung, BAF) is very time demanding. The authorization process itself takes at least 230 days.

Nevertheless the Consortium is convinced of having made progress for a solution to reduce CO2 emissions.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

47/ 103

Copy of all communication material

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

48/ 103

Lufthansa Policy letter 2010

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

49/ 103

Lufthansa Sustainability Report 2011

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

50/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

51/ 103

Lufthanseat article 2010

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

52/ 103

Germanwings Magazine 2010 Flugbetrieb Germanwings hat erfolgreich an der Erprobung neuer Anflugverfahren nach Köln/Bonn teilgenommen.

Diese wurden in Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen Flugsicherung (DFS) entwickelt und in der Zeit vom 18. bis 24. September 2010 erprobt. Ziel dieses modifizierten Anflugverfahrens sind deutlich optimierte vertikale Flugprofile zur Reduzierung von Kerosinverbrauch und CO2-Emissionen. Die überwiegende Mehrheit der Germanwings-Piloten bewertete die Anflüge als gut abfliegbar. Eine erste Bewertung ergab, dass pro Flug eine Fueleinsparung von etwa 200kg (in etwa 250 Liter Kerosin) möglich ist.

Hochgerechnet auf ein Jahr ergeben sich Einsparungen im hohen sechsstelligen Euro-Bereich.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

53/ 103

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Transmission magazine 2010

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

54/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

55/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

56/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

57/ 103

Annexes

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

58/ 103

Germanwings pilot’s bulletin Preparation Trial33

33

English translation available upon request.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

59/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

60/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

61/ 103

DFS Controller’s bulletin Preparation Trial

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

62/ 103

Pilots questionnaire Preparation Trial34

34

translation see page 89

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

63/ 103

Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC DKAE35

35

English translation available upon request.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

64/ 103

Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – Langen ACC PADH36

36

English translation available upon request.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

65/ 103

Main Trial NOTAM

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

66/ 103

Germanwings pilot bulletin Main Trail37

37

English translation available upon request.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

67/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

68/ 103

Questionnaire Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airways

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

69/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

70/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

71/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

72/ 103

Questionnaire Controllers – Main Trial

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

73/ 103

List of participating aircraft types – Main Trial

Types A319 A320 B738 MD11 B744 A310 F100 F70 B753 A321 A30B B737 C25B H25B A306 B739 B752 B763 BE40 C25A C510 C560 C56X LJ60 MD82

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

Anzahl 134 26 22 22 12 9 9 9 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

74/ 103

List of participating airlines – Main Trial Company GWI UPS AUA CFG THY FDX TUI GXL SXS CFC IRA keine VIM BER MSX NJE AEE BUC FHY FYJ GAF GMI KKK MNB PHU

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

Anzahl 132 25 24 14 13 11 7 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Anteil 48,7 9,2 8,9 5,2 4,8 4,1 2,6 1,8 1,8 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,1 0,7 0,7 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

75/ 103

Departure aerodromes of participating flights – Main Trial

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

76/ 103

Postflight Report Example

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

77/ 103

Flighttracks – Main Trial 13.06.2011 (Trial – Day 3)

16.06.2011 (Trial – Day 6)

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

78/ 103

26.06.2011 (Reference Week)

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

79/ 103

Phase 1 Deliverables

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

80/ 103

Situation in the year 2009

Situation in 2009: More Fuel consumption per Flight

Average: 197 kg Actual Approachprofil: Top of Descent: Optimum: Top of Descent:

ANELA/F360 UL604 BAMAS/F300 UL604 GORKO/F260 UL604 DEMAB/F200 T842 SODNA/F120 T842 RUNER T858 KOPAG ANELA (203NM vor CGN) ANELA/F360 UL604 DEMAB T842 SODNA T842 RUNER T858 KOPAG 9NM nach GEVTA (110NM vor CGN)

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

81/ 103

Description of the current situation and the solution The airports of Cologne, Dusseldorf and Frankfurt are counting more than one third of the total aircraft movements at German main airports but are located within only 100 nautical miles next to each other.

Therefore there is a high interdependency of the traffic flows. Currently the traffic flows of the three airports are segregated leading to inefficient flight trajectories.

The traffic of Cologne (EDDK) at the moment flies as slightly more easterly routing than Dusseldorf (EDDL) via DEMAB-GEVTA-SODNA-RUNER and it is forced in an early descent with much higher CO2 emissions comparing to no restriction case. This means the traffic will be separated vertically leading to a very inefficient flight profile far away from the optimum continuous approach.

RUNER FL110-

GETNI FL100

SODNA FL130 Standard-Routing

GETNI FL140-

EKSAK FL250

DEMAB FL250

Trial-Routing

Currently the arrival traffic to Cologne is segregated laterally to the East from the one to Dusseldorf (route facility chart)

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

82/ 103

EKSAK FL250

3°Glideslope

DEMAB FL250 Trial-Profile Standard-Profile

GETNI FL140

SODNA FL130

RUNER FL110GETNI FL100

After the lateral separation it is forced in an early descent to “duck” below the Dusseldorf traffic (y-axis: flight level)

The DFS is providing a new procedure coupling the arrival traffic flows of Dusseldorf and Cologne and therefore enable an emission improved approach into Cologne.

Analysis with flight planning tools for a sample flight from Belgrade to Cologne show a possible CO2 reduction of ca. 390kg per flight by applying this new procedure (equivalent of ca. 120 kg fuel saving).

Current Situation: starting the descent ca. 300 nautical miles prior touch down with a total fuel burn of this example flight of 4152kg (left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path); LIDO flight planning tool

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

83/ 103

Proposed new procedure with an equal long routing but with a considerable later and therefore more efficient descent starting ca. 180 nautical miles prior touchdown saving 390kg CO2 or 124kg fuel (left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path); LIDO flight planning tool

A first trial (preparation trial) during Phase 1 was done from September 18th to 24th 2010. This new procedure used a routing for the flights from southeast into Cologne via the waypoints EKSAK-KULIX-GETNI in the air traffic control sector of “Paderborn High”. The vertical profile starts from FL250 at EKSAK to FL140 at GETNI. 90 flights from Germanwings participated in the trial. It proved a possible fuel saving of about 200kg per flight compared to not optimized (“standard”) flights done from September 25th to 29th as a reference week.

Fuel burn (y-axis) for the transition from en-route to final approach (waypoint DEMAB to touchdown) for the new optimized (“optimiert”) procedure during the prepartational trial and the standard procedure during the reference week

All trial days show a significant reduction in fuel burn between the standard procedure (pointed line) and the new optimized (“optimiert”, long dashed line) one.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

84/ 103

Remark: One day (20th of September 2010) due to technical reason on DFS side no trials could be performed.

The preparation trial nevertheless showed a high potential of traffic conflicts on the routing used.

Arrivals EDDL Over-Flights Arrivals EDLV, EDDG Departures EDDF

Departures EDDL

Arrivals EDDK

Departures EDDL

at FL210

new routing FL140

Departures EDDK climbing FL140

new routing at FL250 Departures EDDG, EDLW

The flight trial area is a complex structure of departing and arriving traffic (route facility chart)

The DFS is therefore providing a modified routing for the main trial of Phase 2, which will take place in the second quarter of 2011.

The proposed Flight Trials are a step in the context of SESAR Project 05.06.07, QM-7 – Integrated Sequence Building/Optimisation of Queues, as well as Project 10.09.02, Multiple airport arrival/departure management, and may therefore accelerate the pace of achieving results in this topic area.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

85/ 103

Project Organization Lufthansa: The overall coordination will be done from the LH SESAR project office in Frankfurt FRA P/VO-JS. Communication towards the general public will be done in cooperation with the Lufthansa Communication department FRA CI. Nevertheless each consortium members will do communication activities.

Germanwings: Preparation of the flight trials concerning the air side, the execution and afterwards evaluation of fuel/ CO2 savings will be done from the Germanwings operational control department. Procedure preparation and communication to the involved flight crews will be done from the Germanwings fleet operations department. These duties include: -

pilots briefing pilots questionnaire fuel saving analysis “flyability” of new procedure (especially altitude loss) flight deck workload analysis impact on passenger comfort communication activities

Deutsche Flugsicherung: Preparation of the flight trials concerning the ANSP side and communication to the involved air traffic controller will be done by the DFS. These duties include:

- controller briefing • see attached Operational Order ATC 29/10 and FDA 28/10 of the Deutsche Flugsicherung - controller questionnaire - controller workload analysis - communication activities Project Steering: A project steering board with representatives of all stakeholders will be installed and coordinated by FRA P/VO-JS. At this stage the following people are planned to participate: Lufthansa: Manfred Mohr (Coordinator) DFS: Andre Biestmann Germanwings: Frank Dunz Basis for the collaboration is the Consortium Agreement which was part of the offer.

Remark:

The project steering board is not identical with the Steering Committee defined in the Consortium Agreement.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

86/ 103

Phase 2

Phase 1

Project Time Plan 24.08.2010 18.09.2010 to 24.09.2010 25.09.2010 to 29.09.2010 30.09.2010 to 03.11.2010 04.11.2010 16.11.2010 December 2010 4. quarter 2010 and 01. quarter 2011 2. quarter 2011 3. and 4. quarter 2011 4. quarter 2011 or 1. quarter 2012

kick off in Frankfurt preparation trial with already 90 flights

collection of comparison data using the normal procedure

analysis of preparation trial done by GWI and DFS result presenting meeting Phase 1 Deliverables to SJU Phase 2 go ahead by SJU preparation of main trial main trial analysis of main trial acceptance review at the Germanwings head office in Cologne

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

87/ 103

Validation Plan Preparation Trial Period: - 18. to 24. September • all day, i. e. during low and high peak • every day of the week, i. e. weekdays and weekends - routing of GWI from South over the Trial Routing to enlarge number of Trial Flights - 90 Trial Flights of 120 possible ones • 20 flights not able for Trial Routing due to ATC ground transponder problems Second Trial Period: - Planned for second quarter of 2011 • more Germanwings traffic in the summer month, with the intention of providing a broader data basis - inclusion of other companies flying into Cologne will be intended to get a broader view of the implementation for other aircraft types Analysis: -

difference in fuel burned controller workload pilots workload impact on passenger comfort

Contribute of trial for implementation: The aim of the already done and planned flight trials is to show the possibility to implement this procedure as the normal routing and vertical profile for the southeasterly arrival into Cologne. Therefore it has to proof: -

ability to fly the profile with descent rates not harming passenger comfort ability to fly the profile with acceptable flight deck workload ability to use the procedure with acceptable controller workload ability to manage the conflicting traffic proof of reduction of CO2 emissions

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

88/ 103

Data Collection Process and Tools Aircraft: 2. Print of Post flight Report and Analysis of Fuel Values after EKSAK a. Example:

Treibstoffmenge (Fuel on board)

Approach in the Multi Airport Environment

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

89/ 103

Pilot: 3. Pilot Questionnaire a. “Was the actually flown profile above, below or close to the theoretical optimum?” (CDA) b. “To match the vertical profile, did you need special means, like speed brakes, or have there been any impact on the passenger service, like change in cabin service?”

c. “How often did you have to level off between EKSAK and GETNI?” d. “Did you get sink rate orders or other altitude restrictions than the known one?”

Controller: 4. Controller Questionnaire a. Langen / Karlsruhe i. The aircraft has been handed over to: • At FL100 • At FL120 • in descent to FL120 • At / descending to FL_________ ii. The aircraft flies: • on the stretch GETNI – KOPAG • directly to KOPAG • directly to WYP • directly to COL • _______________ iii. The aircraft landed on runway: _________ iv. The aircraft: • could be handled normally • has been transferred in a state too high for a reasonable handling • ___________________

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

90/ 103

Risk Management Plan General risks Operational risks, e.g. bad weather conditions, equipment breakdown etc., can always lead to an interruption of the trials for security reasons.

Risk analysis of the Deutsche Flugsicherung for the preparation trial: A short description of the plan In cooperation with DFS branches Langen and Karlsruhe and as agreed with Germanwings, approaches to Cologne/Bonn will be guided over the waypoint EKSAK at FL 250 for a time period of 5-7 days. This will only be possible for a few pre-selected Germanwings A319 flights. Germanwings pilots have been briefed about this option. The new arrival route leads over existing waypoints and is only available with an individual and coordinated clearance. The transferring controller in Karlsruhe (FUL Sector) shall give individual clearances. At first the FUL controller shall ask the pilot if he is willing to fly the alternative route. If he is willing, the alternative route shall be coordinated with the next sectors FFM (Karslruhe) and PADH (Langen). Since Sector PADH is especially vulnerable to capacity problems, it is essential to obtain acceptance from this sector before giving clearance for the alternative route. Under no circumstances can these individually approved route changes be guaranteed. No one is entitled to these clearances as the sector PADH has to make the decision about each individual clearance at a point in time when it is not possible to make an overall traffic analysis and the resulting consequences are not foreseeable. Due to safety considerations in PADH, the following are among the possible consequences of giving such a clearance: • significantly longer routes (e.g. wide right turn over KULIX) • rapid descent rates (>4000 ft / min) • step-by-step descents • other awkward or uneconomical flight manoeuvres • Depending on the traffic situation, the consequences mentioned here may also affect "normal" flights through this sector (not just flights taking the alternative route).

• Departure delays (e.g. for EDDK, EDDL, EDDG, EDLV and EDLW) to ensure safety in PADH after a clearance has been given for the alternative route.

The goal is to give our customer Germanwings the chance to test the alternative route to see if they can improve performance. This flight profile is technically feasible. Sector PADH is responsible for finding out which traffic situations render this alternative route possible, i.e. safely and without air traffic flow management.

System boundary analysis Work group 06 has raised concerns (see minutes of the 2 MAR 2010 meeting) about introducing alternative routings to regular operations. There is an increased hazard potential at traffic flows crossing points PODER-RUNER-GETNI and EKSAK-KULIX at FL 250, which can only be solved by employing individual separation measures. A safety assessment (based on the alternative routing within a trial period) would need to be made before this could be introduced to regular operations in the future.

Prerequisites • During the trial period, pilots and controllers can use this routing voluntarily by employing individual clearances. Just as in all other cases where an individual clearance is given, (e.g. a request and clearance for direct routing), the controller shall base his decision on safety and the amount of traffic. The advantages of using a specified time period and a limited number of participants are that all parties have the same information, which facilitates a better overview of the situation, makes the process easier to comprehend and reduces the amount of verbal communication necessary.

• The trial period is limited (to 5-7 days).

• Alternative routings have been agreed with Germanwings.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

91/ 103

• •

Alternative routings shall only be used for selected A319 flights by Germanwings if their pilots have been briefed on this option.

The new approach routing uses existing waypoints and is only available if an individual and coordinated clearance has been given.

Conclusion DFS experts have determined that the required individual and coordinated clearances do not pose a change to the ATM functional system pursuant to EU Regulation 2096; rather they are the day-to-day business of a controller.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

92/ 103

Communication Plan The AIRE Trials are a good vehicle to make the whole SESAR project, its chances and scope known to a wider public and also change the current “pollution industry” image of the air transport business to a “green industry” one.

Expected communication results: -

give transparency for public press regarding SESAR and the linked AIRE flight trials show chances of SESAR to the public improve image of aviation industry show specific actions for climate protection show motivation to the public in terms of climate protection give perspectives for further improvements in eco-efficiency show responsibility of all participants (airlines, ANSPs, manufacturer, militaries etc) keep pressure on regulatory institutions for supporting the SESAR goals

During Phase 1 there have been already a bunch of communication activities: - article in Lufthanseat (edition 100.000, employees´magazin, available for press) - article in Lufthansa “Policy Brief” (direct information to politicians, Germany + EU) - Germanwings internal release See all these releases attached to this document For Phase 2 following activities are planned: - detailed article in the Lufthansa “Policy Brief”, Feb. 2011 - event at Luftfahrtpresse Club Frankfurt, beginning of 2011: Discussion with aviation experts, politicians and environmental experts (tbd) about SES and/or environmental activities - information on the ATC global together with the SJU and the other AIRE projects in 2012 - publication in Balance (Sustainability report of Lufthansa), April 2011 - press release in North-Rhine-Westphalia specific media during main trial - press release with final results at the end of the project - ongoing information by Social Media: twitter, facebook etc

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

93/ 103

Total Time and Cost (Phase 1): Effective costs by all consortia partners: DFS PHASE 1

days man-days 4 5 2 6 4 19 6 7 3 6 62

3.920 4.900 1.960 5.880 3.920 18.620 5.880 6.860 2.940 5.880 60.760

hours

days man-days

costs Pilot

Engineer

8 16 24 32

1 2 3 4

1.500 1.500 3.000 4.500

755 755 755

32 16 16

4 2 2

3.000 1.500 1.500

1.510 755 755

4.510 2.255 2.255

40 32

5 4

6.000 4.500

755 755

6.755 5.255

16 16 248

2

1.500

29

28.500

755 1.550 9.100

995

hours

days man-days

costs Pilot

Engineer

travel

1 1 5

1.500 3.000

2.265

8 2

4.500 1.500

3.775 755

3

1.500

1.510

3

3.000

755

2 3

1.500

1.510 1.510

hours Project Phase 1 setup, coordination Validation, communication, risk and safety management Kick-off meeting, preparation and participation Trial preparation, briefings Trial week - headquarter Trial week - ACC Langen (6 days) Trial week - UAC Karlsruhe Trial results - evaluation and reporting AIRE Workshop Dec. 2010 Procedure re-development TOTAL

GERMANWINGS PHASE 1 Air Traffic Coordination and preparation of the trials Creation of the Crewbriefing packages and questionnaires KO Meeting in FRA with DFS and project SESAR Meeting with DFS in Cologne Flight Operations Engineering Acquisiton of statistical data and creation of the presentation Devlopment of a performance comparative calculation Examination of statistical data and its analysis Operations Control Center Preparation of Flightplan-packages Supervision of the trail flight from ... to ...

Adjustment of the trials with the DFS (several accordances by telephone) Final coordination between DFS and DLH TOTAL

LUFTHANSA PHASE 1 (Coordinator) Information phase Prepartion of Technical Information Mtg.2010 AIRE 2 Information Mtg 15th January 2010 Internal Meeting LH and Project group Contract phase Preparation of contract/admin/telcon etc.

Corrections and communication with all members KO Meeting Planning and organisation Simulator Participation Technical Meeting Meeting with DFS and GWI Finalisation of the 1st report for the SJU TOTAL

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

costs

TOTAL travel

other

100 600

300 1.200 2.200

0

travel

other

3.920 4.900 2.060 6.480 3.920 18.620 5.880 7.160 4.140 5.880 62.960

62.960

TOTAL

1.500 2.255 4.655 5.255

900

95

2.350 1.550 38.595

38.595

TOTAL other

755

755 1.650 5.265

150

500 300

300

150 120

8.925 2.675

240 1.260

3.250 1.260 3.755 1.810 3.010 32.355 TOTAL

94/ 103

32.355 133.910

List of Acronyms (SESAR/SES) for the AIRE Project Acronym A/G ACC A-CDA ADD AI AIRE AIRM AIS AMC ANSP AOC APP ARDEP ASAS-SM ATC ATM ATS ATSEP BA BAFO B/M CASE CBA CDA CNS CONOPS CORDIS DFS DoW DSNA Dn EA EAEA EATMS E-OCVM EUROCAE FOC FOIPS GA G/G GWI / 4U ICAO ICOG ID IPn ISRM IS IT

MOHR FRA P/VO-JS Description Air/Ground Area Control Centre Advanced Continuous Descent Approaches Architecture of the Technical Systems Description Documents Aeronautical Information Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions ATM Information Reference Model Aeronautical Information Service Airspace Management Cell Air Navigation Service Provider Airline Operations Centre Approach Analysis of Research & Development in European Programmes Airborne Separation Assurance System - Sequencing and Merging Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Management Air Traffic Services Air Traffic Safety Electronics Personnel Business Aviation Best and Final Offer Business / Mission Computer Aided System Engineering Cost Benefit Analysis Continuous Decent Approach Communication, Navigation & Surveillance Concept of Operations Community Research & Development Information Service Deutsche Flugsicherung (German ANSP) Description of Work Direction des Services de la Navigation AĂŠrienne (French ANSP) Deliverable n (Major Deliverables from the SESAR Definition Phase) Enterprise Architecture European ATM Enterprise Architecture European Air Traffic Management System European Operational Concept Validation Methodology European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment Flight Operations Control Full Operating Capability Flight Object Interoperability Proposed Standard General Aviation Ground/Ground German Wings Airline International Civil Aviation Organization Interoperability Consulting Group Identifier Implementation Package n Information Service Reference Model Industrial Support Information Technology

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

95/ 103

Acronym KPA KPI MCS MET MIR N/A NAF NATO NFR NSA NSOV NSV NTV OAR OASIS OATA OI OMG Ops OSED PDR PIR PMP PSO R&D SAR S/C Ln SEAC SEMP SESAR SJU SJU/IS SOA SOS SOV SV SWIM SWP TV TWR VDR WBS WP

Description Key Performance Area Key Performance Indicator OATA Maintenance and Convergence into SESAR Meteorological Management Initiation Report Not Applicable NATO Architecture Framework North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non-Functional Requirement National Supervisory Authority NATO Service-Oriented View NATO Systems View NATO Technical View Operational Acceptance Review Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture Operational Improvement Object Management Group Operations Operational Service(s) Environmental Description Preliminary Design Review Project Initiation Report Programme/Project Management Plan Project Support Office Research and Development System Acceptance Review Service/Capability Level n (Consortium of six major European Airport Operators ) System Engineering Management Plan Single European Sky ATM Research SESAR Joint Undertaking SJU Industrial Support Service Oriented Approach / Service Oriented Architecture System of Systems Service-Oriented View System View System Wide Information Management Sub WP Technical View Tower Validation Data Repository Work Breakdown Structure Work Package

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

96/ 103

Attachments for the AIRE Project:

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

97/ 103

Flugbetrieb

Germanwings hat erfolgreich an der Erprobung neuer Anflugverfahren nach Köln/Bonn teilgenommen.

Diese wurden in Zusammenarbeit mit der Deutschen Flugsicherung (DFS) entwickelt und in der Zeit vom 18. bis 24. September 2010 erprobt. Ziel dieses modifizierten Anflugverfahrens sind deutlich optimierte vertikale Flugprofile zur Reduzierung von Kerosinverbrauch und CO2-Emissionen. Die überwiegende Mehrheit der Germanwings-Piloten bewertete die Anflüge als gut abfliegbar. Eine erste Bewertung ergab, dass pro Flug eine Fueleinsparung von etwa 200kg (in etwa 250 Liter Kerosin) möglich ist. Hochgerechnet auf ein Jahr ergeben sich Einsparungen im hohen sechsstelligen Euro-Bereich.

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

98/ 103

4U913 4U907 4U967 4U969 4U973 4U975 4U673 4U285 4U677 4U683 4U733 4U929 4U773 4U955 4U277 4U843 4U753 4U949 4U815 4U755 4U789 4U653 4U551 4U757 4U783 4U615 4U795 4U973 4U773 4U493 4U969 4U275 4U753 4U815 4U755 4U789 4U975 4U653

GW I913 GW I907 GW I967 GWI6NA GWI93A GW I975 GW I673 GWI1AS GWI5PH GWI2AC GW I733 GW I929 GWI7H GWI68K GWI4CM GWI8R GW I753 GW I949 GWI49N GW I755 GWI37C GWI41G GW I551 GW I757 GW I783 GW I615 GW I795 GWI93A GWI7H GWI2V GWI6NA GW I275 GW I753 GWI49N GW I755 GWI37C GW I975 GWI41G

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 19.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010 21.09.2010

SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN SUN TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE TUE

TIA ESB PUY SPU ZAG ZAD JMK KLU HER ATH KRK AYT PRG DBV SZG VRN VIE BEG TSF VIE BUD SKG TLV VIE BUD CFU BBU ZAG PRG SJJ SPU KBP VIE TSF VIE BUD ZAD SKG

00:30 00:30 05:50 06:40 07:00 08:05 07:00 09:05 07:20 07:50 09:35 07:45 11:00 10:55 12:20 12:55 14:00 13:50 17:55 18:40 19:25 20:10 22:20 06:55 06:55 06:15 07:30 10:35 11:15 11:45 13:25 13:00 14:20 17:50 18:40 19:25 20:15 20:10

03:00 03:50 07:30 08:40 08:50 09:55 10:15 10:25 10:50 11:05 11:15 11:40 12:20 13:15 13:25 14:25 15:30 16:05 19:20 20:10 21:15 23:00 03:05 08:25 08:45 08:50 10:10 12:25 12:35 13:55 15:25 15:45 15:50 19:15 20:10 21:15 22:05 23:00

CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN

99/ 103

4U907 4U757 4U733 4U683 4U285 4U277 4U773 4U973 4U949 4U843 4U743 4U753 4U815 4U755 4U789 4U653 4U969 4U311 4U935 4U927 4U757 4U783 4U969 4U795 4U973 4U773 4U493 4U275 4U753 4U815 4U755 4U789 4U967 4U653 4U955 4U907 4U757 4U733 4U969 4U929 4U277 4U677 4U285 4U973 4U949 4U773 4U843 4U743 4U753 4U815 4U755 4U789 4U653

GW I907 GW I757 GW I733 GWI2AC GWI1AS GWI4CM GWI7H GWI93A GW I949 GWI8R GW I743 GW I753 GWI49N GW I755 GWI37C GWI41G GWI6NA GW I311 GW I935 GW I927 GW I757 GW I783 GWI6NA GW I795 GWI93A GWI7H GWI2V GW I275 GW I753 GWI49N GW I755 GWI37C GW I967 GWI41G GWI68K GW I907 GW I757 GW I733 GWI6NA GW I929 GWI4CM GWI5PH GWI1AS GWI93A GW I949 GWI7H GWI8R GW I743 GW I753 GWI49N GW I755 GWI37C GWI41G

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 22.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 23.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010 24.09.2010

WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED WED THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU THU FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI FRI

ESB VIE KRK ATH KLU SZG PRG ZAG BEG VRN SOF VIE TSF VIE BUD SKG SPU SAW ADB AYT VIE BUD SPU BBU ZAG PRG SJJ KBP VIE TSF VIE BUD PUY SKG DBV ESB VIE KRK SPU AYT SZG HER KLU ZAG BEG PRG VRN SOF VIE TSF VIE BUD SKG

00:30 06:55 07:20 07:50 10:20 10:35 11:15 11:00 11:25 13:10 12:00 14:20 17:50 18:40 19:15 19:00 20:30 00:25 00:30 00:05 06:55 06:55 07:50 07:30 10:00 11:15 11:30 13:00 14:20 17:50 18:40 19:15 20:30 20:10 20:40 00:30 06:55 07:20 07:40 06:50 09:40 07:20 10:20 10:00 10:15 11:15 12:10 12:00 14:20 17:50 18:40 19:15 20:10

03:50 08:25 09:00 11:05 11:40 11:40 12:35 12:50 13:40 14:40 14:45 15:50 19:15 20:10 21:05 21:50 22:30 03:40 03:50 04:00 08:25 08:45 09:50 10:10 11:50 12:35 13:40 15:45 15:50 19:15 20:10 21:05 22:10 23:00 23:00 03:50 08:25 09:00 09:40 10:45 10:45 10:50 11:40 11:50 12:30 12:35 13:40 14:45 15:50 19:15 20:10 21:05 23:00

CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN CGN

100/ 103

Article in “Lufthanseat” December 10th, 2010

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

101/ 103

English draft version of this article sent to Lufthanseat:

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

102/ 103

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR

103/ 103