Environment - Germany

Download Report

PRB monitoring

▪ Germany achieved a KEA performance of 2.53% compared to its target of 2.30% and did not contribute positively towards achieving the Union-wide target.

▪ The NSA states that the longer routes persist due to re-routings caused by the war in Ukraine and weather-related issues.

▪ Both KEP and SCR improved in comparison with 2023. Despite the KEA target being missed, KEA improved in 2024. Additionally, the improvement in SCR shows that Germany has enhanced the environmental efficiency of its airspace when accounting for impacts outside of its control.

▪ The share of CDO flights remained stable in 2024.

▪ Both additional taxi out time and additional time in terminal airspace remained stable in 2024 compared to 2023.

En route performance

Horizontal flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) (KPI#1), of the last filed flight plan (KEP) (PI#1) & shortest constrained route (SCR) (PI#2)

Terminal performance

Additional taxi-out time (AXOT) (PI#3) & Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area (ASMA) time (PI#4)

AXOT

Globally, the additional taxi-out times at German airports in 2024 remained consistent with 2023 levels. While each airport showed varying trends without significant changes, slight improvements were observed in Cologne (EDDK) and Dusseldorf (EDDL), while Berlin (EDDB) experienced a modest increase. Frankfurt exceeded the SES average for additional taxi-out time in 2024: 2.91 minutes per departure.

According to the German monitoring report: The development of improved Airport-CDM in cooperation with the airports continues. The NSA is monitoring the KPA Environment by regularly checking the current performance by using the existing dashboards.

The German monitoring report takes the values from the SES DB:
(https://www.eurocontrol.int/prudata/dashboard/vis/2024/) and in line with the PRU ansperformance DB (old Methodology).

ASMA

Like for the taxi-out, additional ASMA times at German airports in 2024 remained similar to 2023 levels, with slight improvements in Cologne (EDDK) and Dusseldorf (EDDL) and small deterioration in Berlin (EDDB).

According to German monitoring report: DFS is constantly optimising its approach system in order to improve capacity (open STARS) and to reduce detours (adjustments in IAPs during PBN transition). The NSA is monitoring the KPA Environment by regularly checking the current performance by using the existing dashboards.

The German monitoring report takes the values from the SES DB:
(https://www.eurocontrol.int/prudata/dashboard/vis/2024/) and in line with the PRU ansperformance DB (old Methodology).

Share of arrivals applying continuous descent operations (CDOs) (PI#5)

All German airports had shares of CDO flights below the RP3 overall value in 2024 (29.3%). Hamburg (EDDH) saw the highest improvement in the share of CDOs from 24.2% to 28.5%. Overall, the share of CDO increased from 12.0% to 12.9% in 2024. The two airports with the highest traffic numbers, Frankfurt (EDDF) and Munich (EDDM), still have a very low share of CDO flights.

According to the German monitoring report: No additional procedures are currently planned or being considered. Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) are applied within the framework of published procedures whenever traffic conditions allow. The NSA is monitoring the KPA Environment by regularly checking the current performance by using the existing dashboards. Source of the above shown values is unknown.

The SES Dashboard shows the following values for 2024: EDDB 0,18; EDDC 0,22; EDDE 0,14; EDDG 0,20; EDDH 0,23; EDDK 0,19; EDDL 0,17; EDDM 0,04; EDDP 0,13; EDDV 0,23; EDDW 0,21

Airport level
Airport
Additional taxi-out time (PI#3)
Additional ASMA time (PI#4)
Share of arrivals applying CDO (PI#5)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Berlin Schönefeld 1.29 1.90 1.58 1.91 1.74 0.40 0.93 0.59 0.74 0.81 29% 23% 21% 22% 23%
Berlin-Tegel 0.94 NA NA NA NA 0.72 NA NA NA NA 26% NA NA NA NA
Bremen 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.56 0.63 0.51 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.29 25% 16% 23% 24% 23%
Köln-Bonn 1.36 1.34 1.22 1.39 1.19 0.88 1.27 1.30 1.36 1.26 29% 25% 18% 18% 18%
Dresden 0.46 0.46 0.76 0.39 0.33 0.40 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.16 24% 22% 21% 21% 23%
Düsseldorf 1.37 1.33 1.63 1.92 1.89 1.25 0.59 0.91 0.96 0.87 27% 24% 19% 16% 18%
Erfurt 0.41 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.17 0.26 0.69 0.43 0.25 20% 22% 14% 17% 16%
Frankfurt 1.90 1.34 1.81 3.10 3.24 1.73 1.51 1.65 1.50 1.48 8% 7% 5% 4% 4%
Hamburg 0.91 1.12 1.37 1.30 1.35 0.60 0.45 0.55 0.84 0.82 33% 26% 27% 24% 29%
Hannover 1.03 0.73 1.01 1.04 0.90 0.65 0.13 0.24 0.33 0.32 33% 32% 27% 26% 26%
Leipzig 2.01 3.68 2.40 2.59 2.27 2.07 1.91 1.61 1.16 1.31 18% 15% 12% 14% 16%
Münster-Osnabrück 1.02 1.19 1.09 1.06 1.07 0.53 0.28 0.39 0.32 0.16 17% 19% 23% 24% 23%
München 2.48 3.12 2.70 2.94 2.90 1.12 1.20 0.92 1.17 1.20 11% 10% 5% 5% 5%
Nürnberg 0.63 0.92 1.35 0.84 0.69 0.43 0.32 0.33 0.22 0.19 21% 19% 14% 14% 13%
Saarbrücken 2.43 2.72 2.15 2.01 NA 0.61 0.46 0.43 0.38 NA 14% 11% 12% 12% 12%
Stuttgart 1.85 1.87 1.91 1.66 1.57 0.56 0.32 0.51 0.46 0.45 16% 16% 10% 9% 9%

Civil-Military dimension

Update on Military dimension of the plan

For obvious flight safety reasons, military activities must be segregated from civil flows which has an impact on both horizontal (HFE) and vertical flight efficiency (VFE). Because ASM manageable areas form an integral part of the nominal system, military airspace reservations shall be considered as part of the performance baseline rather than a key factor degrading environmental KPIs.

As a result of implementation of the FUA concept the impact of military activities using Restricted Airspace -RSA on civil performance is highly minored when associated with an efficient ASM process:
- At strategic level (HLAPB) by designing areas in accordance with A-FUA concept (MVPA/VGA structures), especially for congested airspaces.
- At pre-tactical level (AMC), by managing these areas in a dynamic way, with an associated level 2 CDM process, validated by HLAPB.
- At tactical level (ACC/Regional Military Control Centre) by activating/deactivating areas as close as possible to actual use and allowing crossing or direct routes when possible (in accordance with TRA status), with an associated level 3 CDM process validated by HLAPB.
- At each level, HLAPB, AMC or ACC/Regional Military Control Centre, a key factor of efficiency is a trust-driven civil-military cooperation. As a counterpart, AOs and CFSPs must be reactive and take efficiently into account available or released airspaces. At last, ANSP have also to adapt the route network to create more DCTs within military areas.

Finally, local circumstances (e.g. constrained airspace, proximity of international hubs, etc….) as well as a large number of military missions that differ from one State to another must be taken into account. Therefore, airspace needs (e.g. airspace requirements for the 5th generation fighters) and related ASM procedures of the States differ and standardized objectives cannot be defined.

Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity

FABEC States are working on mid-term improvements regarding implementation of ASM level 1, 2, and 3 procedures. Some local initiatives regarding ASM/ATFCM convergence, like the traffic Light Scheme concept in France are promoted at FABEC level, as well as at ECAC level in the EUROCONTROL OEP framework.

Another major improvement is the interconnection of the existing ASM tools (e.g. LARA, STANLY_ACOS) at FABEC Level, to enhance regional coordination among FABEC AMCs as well as with the NM.

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7

Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8