You are on page 1of 103

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

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 pilots bulletin Preparation Trial ...................................................................... 59
DFS Controllers 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 projects
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 questionnaires feedbacks, 4 Austrian , 8 Tyrolean
ca. 110kg (35kg fuel)

SESAR relevance
The described activity is in line with SESARs 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

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.

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

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

2839

0 kg

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

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

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 Todays 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

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 operators 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 pilots and controllers 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 pilots 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 Report15, 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 pilots bulletin Preparation Trial, page 59


see annex Postflight Report Example, page 77
16 see annex DFS Controllers 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 pilots 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 pilots questionnaire for the Germanwings pilots.
Nevertheless to get an impression of other aircraft operators a pilots 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 questionnaires 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 todays 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 todays 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

10

11

12

13

14

15

hour

16

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 fr 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 Kln/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 berwiegende
Mehrheit der Germanwings-Piloten bewertete die Anflge als gut abfliegbar. Eine erste Bewertung ergab,
dass pro Flug eine Fueleinsparung von etwa 200kg (in etwa 250 Liter Kerosin) mglich 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 pilots 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 Controllers 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

3Glideslope

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, employeesmagazin, 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

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

1.500

1.510

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

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 Arienne (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 Kln/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
berwiegende Mehrheit der Germanwings-Piloten bewertete die Anflge als gut abfliegbar. Eine erste
Bewertung ergab, dass pro Flug eine Fueleinsparung von etwa 200kg (in etwa 250 Liter Kerosin)
mglich 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