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 N°: 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 N°: LH-AIRE-JS-04

Contract No. SJU/LC/0098-CTR 2/ 103

Phase 2 Deliverables


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


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


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.


Preparation Trial facts: Aircraft type: A319 Airline: Germanwings (4U) Trial period: 18.-24. September 2010 Reference period: 25.-29. September 2010 Number of flights: 90 Daily trial time: 24h CO2 saving: up to 650kg (200kg fuel) Main Trial facts: Aircraft type: mainly A319, but altogether 25 different types

including A320, B737-800, MD11, B747, A310, Fokker 100/ 70, B757 Airlines: GWI (48,7%), UPS (9,2%), AUA incl. Tyrolean (8,9%), Condor (5,2%) altogether 24 different airlines Main Trial period: 11.-24. June 2011 Reference period: 25. June - 08. July 2011 Daily trial time: 24h Number of flights: 272 Flight data: 152 flights, 106 trial + 46 reference flights, all GWI additionally 12 questionnaire’s feedbacks, 4 Austrian , 8 Tyrolean CO2 saving: 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.


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

Departures EDDK

Arrivals EDDK

Arrivals EDDLOver-Flights

Arrivals EDLV, EDDGDepartures EDDF

Departures EDDG, EDLW

Departures EDDL

Arrivals EDDKsoutheast

picture 1 – The flight trial area is a complex stru cture of departing and arriving traffic (route faci lity chart)

The following air traffic control sectors are affected: DFS Upper Centre Karlsruhe, “Rhein Radar”: DFS Cent re Langen, “Langen Radar”:

Fulda (FUL) Hersfeld (HEF) Frankfurt (FFM) 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.


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 a pproaches 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


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.

picture 3 – Today the descent starts ca. 300 nautic al miles prior touch down much earlier than for an

optimized profile (left: vertical profile; right: l ateral flight path); LIDO flight planning tool


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

Approach direction(to EDDK)

Possible descrease of Tripfuel per Flight operated with opt.

vertical Profile

Number of flights

annuallyAnnual Tripfuel

reductionAnnual decrease in

costsAnnual 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)

Possible descrease of Tripfuel per Flight operated with opt.

vertical Profile

Number of flights

annuallyAnnual Tripfuel

reductionAnnual decrease in

costsAnnual 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

Costs of forthcoming emission-trading not included.

Optimization of lateral routing promises further po tential for cost- and emission-reduction. table 2 –Potential decrease of CO 2 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.


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

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)

Current routing and profile (2009):


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)

Possible

Trip-Fuel

reduction

197 kg

Possible

Trip-Fuel

reduction

197 kg

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”.


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 5 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.


picture 5 – Preparation Trial procedure with a cons iderable later and therefore more efficient descent

starting ca. 180 nautical miles prior touchdown sav ing ca. 390kg CO 2 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


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.

DEMABat FL250(144 NM)

GEVTA(117 NM)

LAMOP(109 NM)

EBANA(90 NM)

SODNAat FL130(82 NM)

PELUN(71 NM)

RUNERFL 110 or below(64 NM)

GETNIat FL100(45 NM)

KOPAG(39 NM)

COL(20 NM)

DIST to RWY 32 14from DEMAB 144 NM 151 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.


DEMAB at FL250(129 NM)

GEVTA(102 NM)

LAMOP(93 NM)

EBANA(75 NM)

EKSAKat FL160(61 NM)

xZ841at FL100(44 NM)

COL(20 NM)

DIST to RWY 32 14from DEMAB 144 NM 151 NMTRIAL: 129 NM 145 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 (gre en) compared to current situation (red) and an opti mal 3°

profile (yellow). The green arrows show the still e xpected potential of CO 2 emission reduction.


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 the refore more efficient descent

(left: vertical profile; right: lateral flight path 9); 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


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 m anual

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


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


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.


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 15 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


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


The controller questionnaire19 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): □ ATFCM □ Workload □ _______________ 2 Sector workload when the aircraft entered the sector: □ low □ medium □ 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


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: A319 Airline: Germanwings (4U) Trial period: 18.-24. September 2010 Reference period: 25.-29. September 2010 Number of flights: 90 Daily trial time: 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.

20 The 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


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


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 23 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


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.

SODNA FL130

RUNER FL110 or below

picture 12 – A small “tunnel” of PADL airspace was lifted to FL165 at EKSAK (brown) to enable the flig hts

into Cologne to stay at FL160 over EKSAK, but be co ntrolled by the same sector as today. (green: trial routing, yellow: standard routing), r oute 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


Execution Aircraft type: mainly A319, but altogether 25 different types26

including A320, B737-800, MD11, B747, A310, Fokker 100/ 70, B757 Airlines: GWI (48,7%), UPS (9,2%), AUA incl. Tyrolean (8,9%), Condor (5,2%) altogether 24 different airlines27 Main Trial period: 11.-24. June 2011 Reference period: 25. June - 08. Juli 2011 Daily trial time: 24h Number of flights: 272 Flight data: 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 pa rticipating (red, “Nein”) flights during the Main T rial

26 see annex List of participating aircraft types – Main Trial, p. 74 27 see annex List of participating airlines – Main Trial, p. 75


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.

Seite 1

effected by WX (10 Flights)

directs duringnight shift

picture 14 – non participating flights (red) occurr ed 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 r unway


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.


table 3 – problem clusters from evaluation of the c ontroller 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.

SODNA FL130

RUNER FL110 or below

picture 17 – Flights that had to deviate from the t rial routing after EKSAK (red) are entering the air space of the Paderborn High (PADH) sector causing a lot o f additional coordination efforts by the controller s.

(green: trial routing, yellow: standard routing), r oute facility chart


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.


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:

• 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

28 see annex Postflight Report Example, page 77


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.

Flightplan-routing

flown routing(one update per minute)

profile(red: flownblue: RFL)

Landing runway

trial-routing yes/no

level at fix

closest distance to fix

length of level segment

picture 18 – example of Stanley PC tool


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 (“op timiert”) 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.


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”).

DEMAB LAMOB Comp Trial Comp Trial fuel [kg] 657 655 533 534

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

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

DEMAB LAMOB RWY in use Comp Trial Delta Comp Trial Delta

24 660 624 -36 517 500 -17 14L 700 764 +64 600 621 +21 14R 700 600 32R 641 625 -16 519 520 +1 unknown 700 500 weighted average 29 657 655 -2 533 534 +1

table 5 – fuel burn [kg] from DEMAB or LAMOB to tou chdown 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.


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)

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

Trial DEMAB date Wind Fuel

11. Jun 11 -13 600 12. Jun 11 -24 622 13. Jun 11 -4 660 14. Jun 11 -15 550 15. Jun 11 -20 650 16. Jun 11 -19 643 17. Jun 11 -32 657 18. Jun 11 -26 671 19. Jun 11 -26 680 20. Jun 11 -42 767 21. Jun 11 -40 780 22. Jun 11 -32 800 23. Jun 11 -27 567 24. Jun 11 -22 600 weighted average -24 655 1st trial week -19 631 2nd trial week -31 692

Reference DEMAB date Wind Fuel

28. Jun 11 -3 750 29. Jun 11 unknown 700 30. Jun 11 -20 450 1. Jul 11 unknown 650 2. Jul 11 -3 675 3. Jul 11 -2 650 4. Jul 11 0 500 5. Jul 11 -5 650 6. Jul 11 -13 633 7. Jul 11 -20 667 8. Jul 11 -15 750 weighted average -8 657


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. DEMAB LAMOB wind cluster 30 Comp Trial Comp Trial 5 700 500 0 600 700 500 600 -5 700 750 567 625 -10 700 600 600 -15 733 600 633 567 -20 600 620 600 500 -25 600 610 400 513 -30 667 540 -35 750 550 -40 750 533 -45 820 580 -50 700 500 unbekannt 647 600 491 460 weighted average 657 655 533 534

table 6 – fuel burn [kg] from DEMAB or LAMOB to tou chdown 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: DEMAB LAMOB wind cluster Comp Trial Comp Trial 0 600 700 500 600 -5 700 750 567 625 -10 700 600 600 -15 733 600 633 567 -20 600 620 600 500 -25 600 610 400 513 weighted average 667 629 571 539 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.


Within a comparable wind range the trial routing sh ows a much better performance with an average saving of CO 2 emissions of ca. 110 kg corresponding to fuel savi ngs of ca. 35 kg per flight . Divided for different runways the picture for looks like this:

DEMAB 24 14L 32R wind cluster Comp Trial Comp Trial Comp Trial

0 700 600 -5 700 800 700 700 -10 700 -15 800 600 700 800 560 -20 600 600 750 600 -25 600 600 weighted average 667 605 700 767 657 590 LAMOB 24 14L 32R Windcluster* Comp Trial Comp Trial Comp Trial 0 600 500 -5 500 650 600 600 -10 600 600 -15 700 600 600 800 517 -20 500 489 650 700 400 -25 400 514 weighted average 525 511 600 667 588 518 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 reduct ion 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 CO 2 emissions of ca. 220kg for RWY 32 and up to 200kg for RWY 24.

-67 to -70 kg-211 to -221 kg32L/R

+67 kg+211 kg14L/R

-32 to -38kg-100 to -120kg∅∅∅∅

-14 to -62 kg-44 to -195 kg24

FuelCO2

-67 to -70 kg-211 to -221 kg32L/R

+67 kg+211 kg14L/R

-32 to -38kg-100 to -120kg∅∅∅∅

-14 to -62 kg-44 to -195 kg24

FuelCO2

table 7 – CO 2 and fuel differences for flights with “comparable winds”


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 Dis-tance to fix

Dist. DEMAB-RWY 32 14Planned route 144 151average flown 131 137

picture 20 – standard routing vs. average flown, 1 3NM less for RWY 32 and 14NM for RWY 14

31 see annex Flighttracks – Main Trial, page 78


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 32 14Planned route 129 145average flown 121 137

picture 21 – trial routing vs. average flown, 8NM l ess 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.


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

Dist. DEMAB-RWY 32 14Planned route (Trial) 129 145average flown (Trial) 121 137

Planned route (today) 144 151average flown (today) 131 137Diff planned -15 -6Diff actual -10 0

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


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).

DEMABDEMAB

GEVTA

LAMOP

EBANA

SODNASODNAPELUN

RUNERRUNER

GETNIGETNIKOPAG

COL

DEMABDEMAB

GEVTALAMOP

EBANA

EKSAKEKSAK

xZ841xZ841

COL

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


During the real life trial this optimization could be confirmed.

DEMAB

GEVTALAMOP

EBANASODNA

RUNERKOPAG

DEMAB

GEVTALAMOP

EBANA EKSAK

xZ841

picture 24 – average flown vertical profiles of tod ay’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 p rofile is 5000 feet about 60NM prior touchdown (EKSAK). Additionally FL 250 is left abou t 10 nautical miles later. Together with the shown fuel reduction for “comparable winds”, the flight trial validated the potential for less CO 2 emissions during transition from en-route to final approach.


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.

500

600

700

800

900

1000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

hour

fuel

bur

n

reference week

trial weeks

400

500

600

700

800

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

hour

fuel

bur

n

reference week

trial weeks

picture 25 – fuel burn to touchdown depending on th e 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


Speed Speed data was collected for DEMAB waypoint:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

220 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340

IAS at DEMAB

fligh

tsreference week

trial weeks

picture 26 – Indicated airspeed overhead DEMAB or ab eam 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.


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. ability to fly the profile with descent rates not harming passenger comfort 2. ability to fly the profile with acceptable flight deck workload 3. ability to use the procedure with acceptable controller workload 4. ability to manage the conflicting traffic 5. 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. Main Trial routing/ profile new standard for runways 24 or 32R/L,

while present routing/ profile stays standard for runways 14L/R Scenario 2. Main Trial routing/ profile new standard for all arrivals from southeast


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.


Copy of all communication material


Lufthansa Policy letter 2010


Lufthansa Sustainability Report 2011



Lufthanseat article 2010


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. ��


DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung Transmission magazine 20 10





Annexes


Germanwings pilot’s bulletin Preparation Trial 33

33 English translation available upon request.




DFS Controller’s bulletin Preparation Trial


Pilots questionnaire Preparation Trial 34

34 translation see page 89


Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – La ngen ACC DKAE 35



Controller questionnaire for Preparation Trial – La ngen ACC PADH 36



Main Trial NOTAM


Germanwings pilot bulletin Main Trail 37




Questionnaire Austrian Airlines and Tyrolean Airway s





Questionnaire Controllers – Main Trial


List of participating aircraft types – Main Trial

Types AnzahlA319 134A320 26B738 22MD11 22B744 12A310 9F100 9F70 9B753 6A321 3A30B 2B737 2C25B 2H25B 2A306 1B739 1B752 1B763 1BE40 1C25A 1C510 1C560 1C56X 1LJ60 1MD82 1


List of participating airlines – Main Trial

Company Anzahl AnteilGWI 132 48,7UPS 25 9,2AUA 24 8,9CFG 14 5,2THY 13 4,8FDX 11 4,1TUI 7 2,6GXL 5 1,8SXS 5 1,8CFC 4 1,5IRA 4 1,5keine 4 1,5VIM 4 1,5BER 3 1,1MSX 2 0,7NJE 2 0,7AEE 1 0,4BUC 1 0,4FHY 1 0,4FYJ 1 0,4GAF 1 0,4GMI 1 0,4KKK 1 0,4MNB 1 0,4PHU 1 0,4


Departure aerodromes of participating flights – Mai n Trial


Postflight Report Example


Flighttracks – Main Trial

13.06.2011 (Trial – Day 3)

16.06.2011 (Trial – Day 6)


26.06.2011 (Reference Week)


Phase 1 Deliverables


Situation in the year 2009

Situation in 2009:

More Fuel consumption per Flight

Average: 197 kg

Actual Approachprofil:


Top of Descent: ANELA (203NM vor CGN) Optimum: ANELA/F360 UL604 DEMAB T842 SODNA T842 RUNER T858 KOPAG

Top of Descent: 9NM nach GEVTA (110NM vor CGN)


Description of the current situation and the soluti on 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.

Currently the arrival traffic to Cologne is segregated laterally to the East from the one to Dusseldorf

(route facility chart)

DEMABFL250

SODNAFL130

RUNERFL110-GETNI

FL100

EKSAKFL250

GETNIFL140-

Standard-Routing

Trial-Routing

DEMABFL250

SODNAFL130

RUNERFL110-GETNI

FL100

EKSAKFL250

GETNIFL140-

Standard-Routing

Trial-Routing


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

DEMABFL250

SODNAFL130

RUNERFL110-

GETNIFL100

EKSAKFL250

GETNIFL140

Standard-Profile

Trial-Profile

3°Glideslope

DEMABFL250

SODNAFL130

RUNERFL110-

GETNIFL100

EKSAKFL250

GETNIFL140

Standard-Profile

Trial-Profile

3°Glideslope


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.


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.

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.

new routingat FL250

new routingFL140

Departures EDDL

Departures EDDKclimbing FL140

at FL210

Arrivals EDDK

Arrivals EDDLOver-Flights

Arrivals EDLV, EDDGDepartures EDDF

Departures EDDG, EDLW

Departures EDDL


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.


Project Time Plan

24.08.2010 kick off in Frankfurt

18.09.2010 to 24.09.2010

preparation trial with already 90 flights

25.09.2010 to 29.09.2010

collection of comparison data using the normal procedure

30.09.2010 to 03.11.2010

analysis of preparation trial done by GWI and DFS

04.11.2010 result presenting meeting

Pha

se 1

16.11.2010 Phase 1 Deliverables to SJU

December 2010 Phase 2 go ahead by SJU

4. quarter 2010 and 01. quarter 2011

preparation of main trial

2. quarter 2011 main trial 3. and 4. quarter 2011 analysis of main trial

Pha

se 2

4. quarter 2011 or 1. quarter 2012

acceptance review at the Germanwings head office in Cologne


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


Data Collection Process and Tools Aircraft:

2. Print of Post flight Report and Analysis of Fuel Values after EKSAK a. Example:

Approach in the Multi Airport Environment

Treibstoffmenge (Fuel on board)


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 • ___________________


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.


• 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.


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


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

DFS PHASE 1 days costs TOTALhours man-days travel other

Project Phase 1 setup, coordination 4 3.920 3.920Validation, communication, risk and safety management 5 4.900 4.900Kick-off meeting, preparation and participation 2 1.960 100 2.060Trial preparation, briefings 6 5.880 600 6.480Trial week - headquarter 4 3.920 3.920Trial week - ACC Langen (6 days) 19 18.620 18.620Trial week - UAC Karlsruhe 6 5.880 5.880Trial results - evaluation and reporting 7 6.860 300 7.160AIRE Workshop Dec. 2010 3 2.940 1.200 4.140Procedure re-development 6 5.880 5.880TOTAL 62 60.760 2.200 0 62.960 62.960

GERMANWINGS PHASE 1 days costs TOTALhours man-days Pilot Engineer travel other

Air TrafficCoordination and preparation of the trials 8 1 1.500 1.500Creation of the Crewbriefing packages and questionnaires 16 2 1.500 755 2.255KO Meeting in FRA with DFS and project SESAR 24 3 3.000 755 900 4.655Meeting with DFS in Cologne 32 4 4.500 755 5.255Flight Operations EngineeringAcquisiton of statistical data and creation of the presentation 32 4 3.000 1.510 4.510Devlopment of a performance comparative calculation 16 2 1.500 755 2.255Examination of statistical data and its analysis 16 2 1.500 755 2.255Operations Control CenterPreparation of Flightplan-packages 40 5 6.000 755 6.755Supervision of the trail flight from ... to ... 32 4 4.500 755 5.255

Adjustment of the trials with the DFS (several accordances by telephone) 16 2 1.500 755 95 2.350Final coordination between DFS and DLH 16 1.550 1.550TOTAL 248 29 28.500 9.100 995 38.595 38.595

LUFTHANSA PHASE 1 (Coordinator) days costs TOTALhours man-days Pilot Engineer travel other

Information phasePrepartion of Technical Information Mtg.2010 1 755 755AIRE 2 Information Mtg 15th January 2010 1 1.500 150 1.650Internal Meeting LH and Project group 5 3.000 2.265 5.265Contract phasePreparation of contract/admin/telcon etc. 8 4.500 3.775 500 150 8.925Corrections and communication with all members 2 1.500 755 300 120 2.675KO MeetingPlanning and organisation 3 1.500 1.510 240 3.250Simulator 1.260 1.260Participation 3 3.000 755 3.755Technical MeetingMeeting with DFS and GWI 2 1.510 300 1.810Finalisation of the 1st report for the SJU 3 1.500 1.510 3.010TOTAL 32.355 32.355

TOTAL 133.910


List of Acronyms (SESAR/SES) for the AIRE Project MOHR FRA P/VO-JS

Acronym Description A/G Air/Ground ACC Area Control Centre A-CDA Advanced Continuous Descent Approaches ADD Architecture of the Technical Systems Description Documents AI Aeronautical Information AIRE Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions AIRM ATM Information Reference Model AIS Aeronautical Information Service AMC Airspace Management Cell ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider AOC Airline Operations Centre APP Approach ARDEP Analysis of Research & Development in European Programmes ASAS-SM Airborne Separation Assurance System - Sequencing and Merging ATC Air Traffic Control ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Services ATSEP Air Traffic Safety Electronics Personnel BA Business Aviation BAFO Best and Final Offer B/M Business / Mission CASE Computer Aided System Engineering CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CDA Continuous Decent Approach CNS Communication, Navigation & Surveillance CONOPS Concept of Operations CORDIS Community Research & Development Information Service DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung (German ANSP) DoW Description of Work DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (French ANSP) Dn Deliverable n (Major Deliverables from the SESAR Definition Phase) EA Enterprise Architecture EAEA European ATM Enterprise Architecture EATMS European Air Traffic Management System E-OCVM European Operational Concept Validation Methodology EUROCAE European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment FOC Flight Operations Control Full Operating Capability FOIPS Flight Object Interoperability Proposed Standard GA General Aviation G/G Ground/Ground GWI / 4U German Wings Airline ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICOG Interoperability Consulting Group ID Identifier IPn Implementation Package n ISRM Information Service Reference Model IS Industrial Support IT Information Technology


Acronym Description KPA Key Performance Area KPI Key Performance Indicator MCS OATA Maintenance and Convergence into SESAR MET Meteorological MIR Management Initiation Report N/A Not Applicable NAF NATO Architecture Framework NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NFR Non-Functional Requirement NSA National Supervisory Authority NSOV NATO Service-Oriented View NSV NATO Systems View NTV NATO Technical View OAR Operational Acceptance Review OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards OATA Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture OI Operational Improvement OMG Object Management Group Ops Operations OSED Operational Service(s) Environmental Description PDR Preliminary Design Review PIR Project Initiation Report PMP Programme/Project Management Plan PSO Project Support Office R&D Research and Development SAR System Acceptance Review S/C Ln Service/Capability Level n SEAC (Consortium of six major European Airport Operators ) SEMP System Engineering Management Plan SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking SJU/IS SJU Industrial Support SOA Service Oriented Approach / Service Oriented Architecture SOS System of Systems SOV Service-Oriented View SV System View SWIM System Wide Information Management SWP Sub WP TV Technical View TWR Tower VDR Validation Data Repository WBS Work Breakdown Structure WP Work Package


Attachments for the AIRE Project:


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.


4U913 GWI913 19.09.2010 SUN TIA 00:30 03:00 CGN4U907 GWI907 19.09.2010 SUN ESB 00:30 03:50 CGN4U967 GWI967 19.09.2010 SUN PUY 05:50 07:30 CGN4U969 GWI6NA 19.09.2010 SUN SPU 06:40 08:40 CGN4U973 GWI93A 19.09.2010 SUN ZAG 07:00 08:50 CGN4U975 GWI975 19.09.2010 SUN ZAD 08:05 09:55 CGN4U673 GWI673 19.09.2010 SUN JMK 07:00 10:15 CGN4U285 GWI1AS 19.09.2010 SUN KLU 09:05 10:25 CGN4U677 GWI5PH 19.09.2010 SUN HER 07:20 10:50 CGN4U683 GWI2AC 19.09.2010 SUN ATH 07:50 11:05 CGN4U733 GWI733 19.09.2010 SUN KRK 09:35 11:15 CGN4U929 GWI929 19.09.2010 SUN AYT 07:45 11:40 CGN4U773 GWI7H 19.09.2010 SUN PRG 11:00 12:20 CGN4U955 GWI68K 19.09.2010 SUN DBV 10:55 13:15 CGN4U277 GWI4CM 19.09.2010 SUN SZG 12:20 13:25 CGN4U843 GWI8R 19.09.2010 SUN VRN 12:55 14:25 CGN4U753 GWI753 19.09.2010 SUN VIE 14:00 15:30 CGN4U949 GWI949 19.09.2010 SUN BEG 13:50 16:05 CGN4U815 GWI49N 19.09.2010 SUN TSF 17:55 19:20 CGN4U755 GWI755 19.09.2010 SUN VIE 18:40 20:10 CGN4U789 GWI37C 19.09.2010 SUN BUD 19:25 21:15 CGN4U653 GWI41G 19.09.2010 SUN SKG 20:10 23:00 CGN 4U551 GWI551 21.09.2010 TUE TLV 22:20 03:05 CGN4U757 GWI757 21.09.2010 TUE VIE 06:55 08:25 CGN4U783 GWI783 21.09.2010 TUE BUD 06:55 08:45 CGN4U615 GWI615 21.09.2010 TUE CFU 06:15 08:50 CGN4U795 GWI795 21.09.2010 TUE BBU 07:30 10:10 CGN4U973 GWI93A 21.09.2010 TUE ZAG 10:35 12:25 CGN4U773 GWI7H 21.09.2010 TUE PRG 11:15 12:35 CGN4U493 GWI2V 21.09.2010 TUE SJJ 11:45 13:55 CGN4U969 GWI6NA 21.09.2010 TUE SPU 13:25 15:25 CGN4U275 GWI275 21.09.2010 TUE KBP 13:00 15:45 CGN4U753 GWI753 21.09.2010 TUE VIE 14:20 15:50 CGN4U815 GWI49N 21.09.2010 TUE TSF 17:50 19:15 CGN4U755 GWI755 21.09.2010 TUE VIE 18:40 20:10 CGN4U789 GWI37C 21.09.2010 TUE BUD 19:25 21:15 CGN4U975 GWI975 21.09.2010 TUE ZAD 20:15 22:05 CGN4U653 GWI41G 21.09.2010 TUE SKG 20:10 23:00 CGN


4U907 GWI907 22.09.2010 WED ESB 00:30 03:50 CGN4U757 GWI757 22.09.2010 WED VIE 06:55 08:25 CGN4U733 GWI733 22.09.2010 WED KRK 07:20 09:00 CGN4U683 GWI2AC 22.09.2010 WED ATH 07:50 11:05 CGN4U285 GWI1AS 22.09.2010 WED KLU 10:20 11:40 CGN4U277 GWI4CM 22.09.2010 WED SZG 10:35 11:40 CGN4U773 GWI7H 22.09.2010 WED PRG 11:15 12:35 CGN4U973 GWI93A 22.09.2010 WED ZAG 11:00 12:50 CGN4U949 GWI949 22.09.2010 WED BEG 11:25 13:40 CGN4U843 GWI8R 22.09.2010 WED VRN 13:10 14:40 CGN4U743 GWI743 22.09.2010 WED SOF 12:00 14:45 CGN4U753 GWI753 22.09.2010 WED VIE 14:20 15:50 CGN4U815 GWI49N 22.09.2010 WED TSF 17:50 19:15 CGN4U755 GWI755 22.09.2010 WED VIE 18:40 20:10 CGN4U789 GWI37C 22.09.2010 WED BUD 19:15 21:05 CGN4U653 GWI41G 22.09.2010 WED SKG 19:00 21:50 CGN4U969 GWI6NA 22.09.2010 WED SPU 20:30 22:30 CGN4U311 GWI311 23.09.2010 THU SAW 00:25 03:40 CGN4U935 GWI935 23.09.2010 THU ADB 00:30 03:50 CGN4U927 GWI927 23.09.2010 THU AYT 00:05 04:00 CGN4U757 GWI757 23.09.2010 THU VIE 06:55 08:25 CGN4U783 GWI783 23.09.2010 THU BUD 06:55 08:45 CGN4U969 GWI6NA 23.09.2010 THU SPU 07:50 09:50 CGN4U795 GWI795 23.09.2010 THU BBU 07:30 10:10 CGN4U973 GWI93A 23.09.2010 THU ZAG 10:00 11:50 CGN4U773 GWI7H 23.09.2010 THU PRG 11:15 12:35 CGN4U493 GWI2V 23.09.2010 THU SJJ 11:30 13:40 CGN4U275 GWI275 23.09.2010 THU KBP 13:00 15:45 CGN4U753 GWI753 23.09.2010 THU VIE 14:20 15:50 CGN4U815 GWI49N 23.09.2010 THU TSF 17:50 19:15 CGN4U755 GWI755 23.09.2010 THU VIE 18:40 20:10 CGN4U789 GWI37C 23.09.2010 THU BUD 19:15 21:05 CGN4U967 GWI967 23.09.2010 THU PUY 20:30 22:10 CGN4U653 GWI41G 23.09.2010 THU SKG 20:10 23:00 CGN4U955 GWI68K 23.09.2010 THU DBV 20:40 23:00 CGN 4U907 GWI907 24.09.2010 FRI ESB 00:30 03:50 CGN4U757 GWI757 24.09.2010 FRI VIE 06:55 08:25 CGN4U733 GWI733 24.09.2010 FRI KRK 07:20 09:00 CGN4U969 GWI6NA 24.09.2010 FRI SPU 07:40 09:40 CGN4U929 GWI929 24.09.2010 FRI AYT 06:50 10:45 CGN4U277 GWI4CM 24.09.2010 FRI SZG 09:40 10:45 CGN4U677 GWI5PH 24.09.2010 FRI HER 07:20 10:50 CGN4U285 GWI1AS 24.09.2010 FRI KLU 10:20 11:40 CGN4U973 GWI93A 24.09.2010 FRI ZAG 10:00 11:50 CGN4U949 GWI949 24.09.2010 FRI BEG 10:15 12:30 CGN4U773 GWI7H 24.09.2010 FRI PRG 11:15 12:35 CGN4U843 GWI8R 24.09.2010 FRI VRN 12:10 13:40 CGN4U743 GWI743 24.09.2010 FRI SOF 12:00 14:45 CGN4U753 GWI753 24.09.2010 FRI VIE 14:20 15:50 CGN4U815 GWI49N 24.09.2010 FRI TSF 17:50 19:15 CGN4U755 GWI755 24.09.2010 FRI VIE 18:40 20:10 CGN4U789 GWI37C 24.09.2010 FRI BUD 19:15 21:05 CGN4U653 GWI41G 24.09.2010 FRI SKG 20:10 23:00 CGN


Article in “Lufthanseat” December 10th, 2010


English draft version of this article sent to Lufthanseat:
