• Home
  • SES view
  • State view
    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • NM View
  • Investments
    • SES RP3

    • Austria
    • Belgium
    • Bulgaria
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech Republic
    • Denmark
    • Estonia
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Hungary
    • Ireland
    • Italy
    • Latvia
    • Lithuania
    • Luxembourg
    • Malta
    • MUAC
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Romania
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
  • About
  • Download
  • Data Portal
  • Publications
  1. Safety
  • Year report
    • RP3
    • 2024
    • 2023
    • 2022
    • 2021 ✓
    • 2020

  • SES RP3
  • Overview
    • Contextual information
    • Main PRB findings
    • Traffic
    • Safety
    • Environment
    • Capacity
    • Cost-efficiency

  • Safety
    • PRB monitoring
    • EoSM
    • Safety occurrences
      • Runway incursions
      • Separation minima infringements
      • Occurrences reporting
    • ASDRS

  • Environment
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • Horizontal flight efficiency

  • Capacity
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route performance
      • En route ATFM delay
      • Other indicators
    • Terminal performance
      • Arrival ATFM delay
      • Other performance indicators

  • Cost-efficiency
    • PRB monitoring
    • En route CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result
    • Terminal CZ
      • Unit cost
      • AUCU
      • Regulatory Result

Safety - SES RP3

PRB monitoring

▪ Safety levels overall remained as before COVID-19.

▪ 17 ANSPs already achieved the RP3 targets for the effectiveness of safety management for all management objectives (two years before the end of RP3). The remaining 12 ANSPs are expected to meet them by the end of RP3.

▪ The rate of accidents and incidents remained in line with the trend over the past 10 years, continuously decreasing.

Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM) (KPI#1)

Focus on EoSM

Number of ANSPs on Target

17 out of 36 ANSPs already achieved the RP3 targets in 2021, reaching minimum maturity level D in safety risk management and minimum maturity level C in all other management objectives. Among the remaining 19 ANSPs that have not yet achieved the targets, 13 require to improve only in one management area, whereas six ANSPs need to improve both in the safety risk management and other management objectives.

Between 2020 and 2021 three additional ANSPs were added to the performance scheme as part of the update of the performance plans (in Sweden). None of these achieved the targets in 2021 causing the number of ANSPs under the targets to decrease only by one.

Actual versus planned

Comparing the ANSPs’ actual maturity levels of 2021 with the planned maturity levels in the performance plans, ANSPs are performing better than planned. Within the safety risk management area, 11 ANSPs planned to achieve the target level D, whereas 17 ANSPs have actually achieved the target. For other management objectives, 28 ANSPs planned to achieve the target, whereas 29 ANSPs have actually achieved it.

ANSPs achieving the targets and Score

• 18 out of 36 ANSPs achieved the 2024 RP3 target level D for safety risk management.
• 29 out of 36 ANSPs achieved the 2024 RP3 target level for all other MOs (the four management objectives other than safety risk management).
• 17 out of 36 ANSPs achieved the 2024 EoSM targets on all MOs for RP3.

The average EoSM score achieved by all ANSPs is 88. The minimum score achieved by an individual ANSP is 66, while the maximum EoSM score is 100, which is already achieved by three ANSPs.

Number of ANSPs per Management Objective

18 ANSPs did not reach the target level D for the safety risk management objective, four ANSPs did not reach the safety culture and safety policy & objectives management objectives, five ANSPs did not achieve the assurance management objective, and four ANSPs did not achieve the promotion management objective.

Interdependency

Majority of ANSPs are at maturity level C for interdependencies management objective. There is room for improvement since four ANSPs are at level B. interdependencies management objective is particularly important during and after the pandemic when the pressures to trade-off resources towards other business objectives of the organisation are intensified due to loss of traffic and revenues.

Safety occurrences

Rate of runway incursions (RIs) (PI#1)

Rate of RI per 100,000 airport movements
TOP 10 APTs in terms of movements
TOP 10 APTs in terms of number of RIs
TOP 10 APTs in terms of rate of RIs
# Airport name APT mvts. Number of RI Rate RI per 100,000 mvts. # Airport name APT mvts. Number of RI Rate RI per 100,000 mvts. # Airport name APT mvts. Number of RI Rate RI per 100,000 mvts.
1 Amsterdam - Schiphol 280,455 2 0.71 1 Oslo - Gardermoe 125,392 8 6.38 1 Lodz - Lublinek 3,076 3 97.53
2 Frankfurt 261,966 0 0.00 2 Málaga 94,488 8 8.47 2 Bydgoszcz 2,135 1 46.84
3 Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle 256,293 5 1.95 3 Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle 256,293 5 1.95 3 Rzeszow - Jasionka 4,268 1 23.43
4 Madrid - Barajas 217,558 1 0.46 4 Prague 62,520 4 6.40 4 Tartu 6,075 1 16.46
5 Barcelona 163,733 3 1.83 5 Malta International 32,499 4 12.31 5 Poznan - Lawica 13,847 2 14.44
6 Cork 156,918 1 0.64 6 Krakow - Balice 32,925 3 9.11 6 Malta International 32,499 4 12.31
7 Athinai-Eleftherios Venizelos 153,174 2 1.31 7 Lodz - Lublinek 3,076 3 97.53 7 Krakow - Balice 32,925 3 9.11
8 Munich 150,437 0 0.00 8 Warsaw 94,666 3 3.17 8 Málaga 94,488 8 8.47
9 Palma de Mallorca 141,324 3 2.12 9 Barcelona 163,733 3 1.83 9 Gdansk 25,444 2 7.86
10 Vienna 127,842 0 0.00 10 Palma de Mallorca 141,324 3 2.12 10 Prague 62,520 4 6.40
Focus on runway incursions

RI rate

Despite the traffic increase in 2021, the rate of runway incursions reduced compared with the rate in 2020.

RI 2020-2021

The increase in traffic levels in 2021 has not resulted in an increase of the indicators of all types of RIs. The rate of RIs of all types and with ANS contribution has decreased by 8.4% and 31.7%, respectively, while only the number of RIs increases (by 6.8%). The number of RIs with ANS contribution decreased by 4.3%.

RI with Safety Impact by State

The highest rate occurred in Malta (30.77), followed by Sweden (26.8), although Sweden declared it was not able to differentiate occurrences that had a safety impact and therefore reported all types of RIs regardless of the associated safety risk. This means that the number of RIs in Sweden is higher, and so the rate is not comparable to other Member States.

Some Member States are not shown in the figure. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia did not include any airport in their performance plans and so are not obliged to report RIs.

Four Member States (Sweden, Norway, Spain, Greece) reported the RIs at all airports within their territory, not exclusively those included in their performance plans, which may explain why three of these Member States show the highest rates in the graph.

RI with Safety Impact by Airport

Out of 146 airports included in the performance plans, only 41 airports reported RIs that had any ATS/CNS contribution. The majority of the 41 airports reported one or two RIs. This makes the rates of runway incursions at airports with a low number of movements very sensitive to the presence of occurrences.

The airport with more than 80,000 movements and the highest rate of RIs at 8.5 per 100,000 movements is LEMG (Málaga) followed by LKPR (Prague) and ENGM (Oslo-Gardermoen) (6.4 per 100,000 movements each one). LEMG uses an automatic recording tool to identify RIs, which may have an effect on the number of reported events.

Rate of separation minima infringements (SMIs) (PI#2)

Rate of SMI with ANS contribution per 100,000 flight hours
# State
Flight hours
Number of SMIs
Rate of SMI per 100,000 flight hours
% variation in rate of SMIs
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
1 Austria 155,355 202,666 NA NA NA 7 9 NA NA NA 4.5 4.4 NA NA NA NA -2% NA NA NA
2 Belgium 55,762 134,413 NA NA NA 1 5 NA NA NA 1.8 3.7 NA NA NA NA +108% NA NA NA
3 Bulgaria 127,863 174,114 NA NA NA 1 0 NA NA NA 0.8 0.0 NA NA NA NA -100% NA NA NA
4 Croatia 106,693 155,957 NA NA NA 0 0 NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
5 Cyprus 78,614 116,453 NA NA NA 0 3 NA NA NA 0.0 2.6 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
6 Czech Republic 113,261 135,047 NA NA NA 7 11 NA NA NA 6.2 8.2 NA NA NA NA +32% NA NA NA
7 Denmark 98,936 99,279 NA NA NA 0 2 NA NA NA 0.0 2.0 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
8 Estonia 33,558 37,464 NA NA NA 4 5 NA NA NA 11.9 13.3 NA NA NA NA +12% NA NA NA
9 Finland 57,321 62,275 NA NA NA 0 3 NA NA NA 0.0 4.8 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
10 France 1,051,941 1,415,222 NA NA NA 133 272 NA NA NA 12.6 19.2 NA NA NA NA +52% NA NA NA
11 Germany 700,899 952,606 NA NA NA 6 8 NA NA NA 0.9 0.8 NA NA NA NA -2% NA NA NA
12 Greece 276,276 418,381 NA NA NA 24 31 NA NA NA 8.7 7.4 NA NA NA NA -15% NA NA NA
13 Hungary 116,008 149,648 NA NA NA 2 7 NA NA NA 1.7 4.7 NA NA NA NA +172% NA NA NA
14 Ireland 131,294 105,105 NA NA NA 2 7 NA NA NA 1.5 6.7 NA NA NA NA +338% NA NA NA
15 Italy 494,359 747,998 NA NA NA 26 33 NA NA NA 5.3 4.4 NA NA NA NA -16% NA NA NA
16 Latvia 39,170 46,440 NA NA NA 1 0 NA NA NA 2.5 0.0 NA NA NA NA -100% NA NA NA
17 Lithuania 36,493 47,794 NA NA NA 1 0 NA NA NA 2.7 0.0 NA NA NA NA -100% NA NA NA
18 Luxembourg 5,067 11,425 NA NA NA 0 3 NA NA NA 0.0 26.3 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
19 MUAC 289,985 311,843 NA NA NA 5 0 NA NA NA 1.7 0.0 NA NA NA NA -100% NA NA NA
20 Malta 40,016 44,905 NA NA NA 0 1 NA NA NA 0.0 2.2 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
21 Netherlands 88,456 101,649 NA NA NA 31 47 NA NA NA 35.0 46.2 NA NA NA NA +32% NA NA NA
22 Norway 235,547 257,160 NA NA NA 27 14 NA NA NA 11.5 5.4 NA NA NA NA -53% NA NA NA
23 Poland 221,029 278,330 NA NA NA 8 15 NA NA NA 3.6 5.4 NA NA NA NA +49% NA NA NA
24 Portugal 175,009 215,958 NA NA NA 10 13 NA NA NA 5.7 6.0 NA NA NA NA +5% NA NA NA
25 Romania 171,847 247,561 NA NA NA 3 4 NA NA NA 1.8 1.6 NA NA NA NA -7% NA NA NA
26 Slovakia 41,055 54,376 NA NA NA 0 2 NA NA NA 0.0 3.7 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
27 Slovenia 28,029 40,145 NA NA NA 0 2 NA NA NA 0.0 5.0 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
28 Spain 741,278 954,783 NA NA NA 25 59 NA NA NA 3.4 6.2 NA NA NA NA +83% NA NA NA
29 Sweden 199,288 218,597 NA NA NA 2 19 NA NA NA 1.0 8.7 NA NA NA NA +769% NA NA NA
30 Switzerland 150,242 137,471 NA NA NA 0 2 NA NA NA 0.0 1.4 NA NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA
Focus on separation minima

SMI

in 2021, the rate of separation minima infringements increased compared to the rate from 2020 .

SMI 2020-2021

The increase in traffic levels in 2021 has naturally resulted in an increase of SMI occurrences of types, namely regardless the factors involved and those with ANS contribution, by 32.8% and 71.45%, respectively. Similarly, the rates have experienced an increase of 3.6% and 34.1%, respectively. The increase of SMI with ANS contribution has experienced greater increase.

SMI by State

Only 24 ANSPs reported SMIs which had an ATS/CNS contribution.

The highest rate of SMIs was in LVNL airspace (49.9 SMIs per 100,000 flight hours), which results from the third highest absolute numbers of occurrences (47 SMIs). The rate has also experienced an increase of 31.7% with respect to 2020. LVNL has a good record in the EoSM questionnaire having achieved the 2024 safety target in all objectives. Nevertheless, LVNL should not be complacent, and continue assessing occurrences and risk mitigate them according to their SMS, if necessary.

The highest number of SMIs with ANS contribution occurred in DSNA´s airspace (228), but the high number of controlled hours results in lower rate (16.7), but which is still above the Union average. The rate increased by 32,1 % with respect to 2020. DSNA should not be complacent, and continue assessing occurrences and risk mitigate them according to their SMS, if necessary.

Other ANSPs with high rates and that experienced a high increase in 2021 are ANA LUX and skeyes. For both, it is noted that the number of controlled hours is relatively low, hence the sensitivity of the rate to variations in the number of SMIs. Their EoSM maturity levels are below target and with room for improvement. Both should monitor carefully SMIs in the next years, while improving the maturity of their SMS to achieve the EoSM target, looking into the reasons contributing to this rate and take appropriate mitigating actions, if necessary.

Quality of occurences reporting

Occurrence reporting quality

For the calculation of the indicators related to SMIs and RIs (SPI1a, SPI1b, SPI1c, and SPI1d), RP3 safety supporting material requires that occurrences data reported in the ECR under Commission Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 is used. However, so far in RP3, EASA has not been able to extract data from the ECR containing all needed information to compute the SPIs. This is because of the overall poor quality of the data uploaded to the ECR: A significant part of occurrences extracted from ECR did not contain information on severity and risk, as required to compute the SPIs, and in many cases basic information was missing. Member States had to extract the occurrences from their own national databases with no further involvement from or verification by EASA.

For the calculation of the indicators related to SMIs and RIs (SPI1a, SPI1b, SPI1c, and SPI1d), the occurrences that should be used in the computation of the different rates are only those that have a “safety impact”. Whether an occurrence has a safety impact or not should be determined by NSAs using the common European Risk Classification Scheme (ERCS), and by ANSPs through the severity classification using the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT). This information was barely found encoded in the ECR’s occurrences. While there has been some improvement, it is not such that the values may be calculated using ECR data as planned.

It is likely that some have not applied the ERCS and RAT resulting in greater subjectivity in ANSP and NSA interpretations of what constitutes an occurrence that had a safety impact. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate the analysis, but it should be taken into consideration when interpreting the data.

 
  • © European Union, 2025

  • Disclaimer

  • Website published by EUROCONTROL for the European Commission