Environment - Italy
PRB monitoring
▪ Italy achieved a KEA performance of 3.03% compared to its target of 2.67% and did not contribute positively towards achieving the Union-wide target.
▪ KEP improved and SCR improved marginally in comparison with 2023, showing airspace users are planning shorter routes than in 2023 but the underlying efficiency of the airspace has not improved. Despite the target being missed, KEA improved in 2024. Additionally, the improvement in SCR shows that Italy 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.
▪ Additional taxi out time increased from 3.28 to 3.77 min/flight, while additional time in terminal airspace increased from 1.53 to 1.70 min/flight 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)
Focus on ASMA & AXOT
AXOT
Additional taxi-out times at Rome Fiumicino (LIRF; 2019: 7.87 min/dep.; 2020: 3.1 min/dep.; 2021: 3 min/dep.; 2022: 5 min/dep.; 2023: 5,93 min/dep.; 2024: 7.28 min/dep.) increased again in 2024 resulting once more in the highest additional taxi-out times in the SES monitored airports.
Milan Linate (LIML; 2019: 2.43 min/dep.; 2020: 1.93 min/dep.; 2021: 2.18 min/dep.; 2022: 2.89 min/dep.; 2023: 3.37 min/dep.; 2024: 3.71 min/dep.) also observed poor performance, with the 4th highest additional taxi-out time in the SES monitored airports. Similarly, Milan Malpensa (LIMC) observed the 7th highest value.
The Italian monitoring report provides extensive additional information: As in previous years of this RP3 and also for the entire RP2, and similarly to the PI#4 which is related to the performances considered for the Terminal Area/ASMA, ENAV SpA and the other ANSPs in ECAC do not have full access to the complete set of data used by PRU to process the output, and therefore they are not able to replicate the data processing and consequently to verify the correct assessment of the proposed information.
As already reported last years within the comments of the 2022 - 2023 - 2024 Reports, the ad-hoc WG PRU/Eurocontrol/ANSPs created for the scope of reviewing the TAXI-OUT Methodology completed the assigned task and released the new Methodology at the end of the 2022.
Then, from March 2023, both outputs (new output and previous one) are available within the ANS Performance website, although accessible only with the consolidated data at monthly level.
Therefore the outputs are usable by ANSPs for the purpose of monitoring and comparing any gaps or inconsistencies between the national outputs, counted annually at local level, with respect to the assigned Performance Targets.
The data presented in the Table above are related to the results concerning the PI Additional TAXI-OUT Time and were calculated by PRU for each of the years of the RP3 and for the 5 national airports identified (among those that counted more than 80k annual movements during the three-year period 2016-2018). The output presented refers to the data processing performed using the algorithm and methodology prior to the new one released in 2023.
As already done for the last year 2023 for the purposes of the comments to be produced for this Report, in order to refute the data, the output proposed using the algorithm and new methodology was used instead because this is able to produce a more stable REFERENCE and therefore an ADDITIONAL Time for the PI#3-TAXI-OUT (but also for the PI#4-ASMA) that better responds to the needs that the complexity of the traffic and the operational scenario has determined for the monitored airports.
Using the consolidated output on a monthly basis (we have already stated that the detailed data for each flight are not accessible unless directly and individually requested) released and available on the “Aviation Intelligence Portal” website, the following analysis was performed.
Based on both the consolidated results released for the RP3 years (from 2019 to 2024) and the traffic growth expectations as reported by STAFOR for the RP4 years for the selected airports, ENAV structures have produced an algorithm that aims to determine whether the result produced and published was in line with the trend of the consolidated results. Furthermore, for the future years of RP4, the data produced has been integrated with a forecast of expected results (within a range of values of +/- 2.5% plus a increase in uncertainty factor, compared to the annual value), state the current operational scenario.
Finally, in order to detect any gaps and mitigate the possible causes of inefficiencies where highlighted (mitigation actions required and appropriate to improve both operational performance and for the benefit of the flight efficiency), proprietary algorithms created ad-hoc have already been used in 2024 and are available to the operational structures of ENAV SpA. It is believed that already for 2024 (as proposed by the analysis of the data below), and especially for the years to come the outputs allow us to see how the initiatives implemented by the ANSP have been effective for this purpose.
Then, the results counted in 2024 encourage the Italian NSA to continue to incentivize ENAV SpA with the flight efficiency policy implemented with the aim of also reducing/optimising performance of TAXI-OUT and consequently reduce consumption and CO2 emissions.
As can be seen from the data reported below, although all airports have recorded an increase in the values of Additional Taxi-OUT Time compared to 2022, which was the reference year for the recovery of traffic at the airports compared to the pre-COVID19 period, what is highlighted is a trend value lower than the expected range determined, as reported above, by the increase in complexity of the operational scenario following the strong increase in traffic.
Among the consolidated data for 2024, the exception is Milano Linate airport (in the sense that the value is higher than the Output Forecasted Range) for the well-known reasons due to a Safety requirement already in place since 2022. All the values recorded for the other 4 airports are within the forecast range or outside the lower range.
As can be seen from the data reported below, although all airports have recorded an increase in the values of Additional Taxi-OUT Time compared to 2022, which was the reference year for the recovery of traffic at the airports compared to the pre-COVID19 period, what is highlighted is a trend value lower than the expected range determined, as reported above, by the increase in complexity of the operational scenario following the strong increase in traffic.
ASMA
Additional ASMA times at all Italian airports increased in 2024. Milan Malpensa (LIMC: 2019: 2.59 min/arr.; 2020: 0.85 min/arr.; 2021: 1.25 min/arr.; 2022: 1.64 min/arr.; 2023: 1.95 min/arr.; 2024: 2.17 min/arr.) increased by 11% in 2024 resulting once more the 4th highest in the SES monitored airports (SES average additional ASMA time= 1.28 min/arr.)
According to the Italian monitoring report: As in previous years of this RP3 and also for the entire RP2, and similarly to the PI#3 which is related to the performances considered for the Taxi-OUT Time, ENAV SpA and the other ANSPs in ECAC do not have full access to the complete set of data used by PRU to process the output, and therefore they are not able to replicate the data processing and consequently to verify the correct assessment of the proposed information.
As already reported last years within the comments of the 2022 - 2023 - 2024 Reports, the ad-hoc WG PRU/Eurocontrol/ANSPs created for the scope of reviewing the ASMA Methodology completed the assigned task and released the new Methodology at the end of the 2022.
Then, from March 2023, both outputs (new output and previous one) are available within the ANS Performance website, although accessible only with the consolidated data at monthly level. Therefore the outputs are usable by ANSPs for the purpose of monitoring and comparing any gaps or inconsistencies between the national outputs, counted annually at local level, with respect to the assigned Performance Targets.
The data presented in the Table above are related to the results concerning the PI Additional ASMA Time and were calculated by PRU for each of the years of the RP3 and for the 5 national airports identified (among those that counted more than 80k annual movements during the three-year period 2016-2018). The output presented refers to the data processing performed using the algorithm and methodology prior to the new one released in 2023.
As already done for the last year 2023 for the purposes of the comments to be produced for this Report, in order to refute the data, the output proposed using the algorithm and new methodology was used instead because this is able to produce a more stable REFERENCE and therefore an ADDITIONAL Time for the PI#4-ASMA (but also for the PI#3-TAXI-OUT) that better responds to the needs that the complexity of the traffic and the operational scenario has determined for the monitored airports.
Using the consolidated output on a monthly basis (we have already stated that the detailed data for each flight are not accessible unless directly and individually requested) released and available on the “Aviation Intelligence Portal” website, the following analysis was performed.
Based on both the consolidated results released for the RP3 years (from 2019 to 2024) and the traffic growth expectations as reported by STAFOR for the RP4 years for the selected airports, ENAV structures have produced an algorithm that aims to determine whether the result produced and published was in line with the trend of the consolidated results. Furthermore, for the future years of RP4, the data produced has been integrated with a forecast of expected results (within a range of values of +/- 2.5% plus a increase in uncertainty factor, compared to the annual value), state the current operational scenario.
Finally, in order to detect any gaps and mitigate the possible causes of inefficiencies where highlighted (mitigation actions required and appropriate to improve both operational performance and for the benefit of the flight efficiency), proprietary algorithms created ad-hoc have already been used in 2024 and are available to the operational structures of ENAV SpA. It is believed that already for 2024 (as proposed by the analysis of the data below), and especially for the years to come the outputs allow us to see how the initiatives implemented by the ANSP have been effective for this purpose.
Then, the results counted in 2024 encourage the Italian NSA to continue to incentivize ENAV SpA with the flight efficiency policy implemented with the aim of also reducing/optimising performance in ASMA and consequently reduce consumption and CO2 emissions.
As can be seen from the data reported below, although all airports have recorded an increase in the values of Additional ASMA Time compared to 2022, which was the reference year for the recovery of traffic at the airports compared to the pre-COVID19 period, all airports have reported Additional ASMA Time values lower than the consolidated values in 2019.
Furthermore, what is highlighted is that 3 out of the 5 airports under monitoring have reported a consolidated value for 2024 lower than the expected range, determined (as reported above) by the increase in complexity of the operational scenario following the strong increase in traffic.
Among the 5, the exception is Milan Malpensa airport which reported a value within the calculated Range, while Venice airport recorded an Additional ASMA Time value higher than the calculated range and this is due to the longer time in flight of the aircraft within the Terminal Area due to the many days of bad weather also reported by the ATFCM Regulations.
Share of arrivals applying continuous descent operations (CDOs) (PI#5)
Focus CDOs
The share of CDO flights decreased at Milan Malpensa, Rome Fiumicino and Venice while it stayed the same at Bergamo and increased at Milan Linate. All airports had shares of CDO flights below the overall RP3 value in 2024 (29.3%).
According to the Italian monitoring report: The current methodology used by PRU to measure the performances of ANSPs in the management of Continuous Descent Operations (PI CDO) has been questioned several times and by several representatives (STATES/ANSPs) both in the method (Binary Proxy) and in the metrics used by PRU for the performance analysis of the proposed output.
ENAV SpA, with also most of the other ECAC ANSPs, strongly contested (see the notes to last years’ Report 2021-2022-2023) the methodology with which the “interruptions” of the CDO trajectory are identified as negative input, disagreeing with the value presented in the Performance Reports starting from 2020. A methodology that does not take into consideration the real ATC constraints in managing the flight itself, nor, obviously, the needs and priorities of the Safety of Operations.
Finally, after many disputes, at the middle of 2024 the PRB took on board the multiple requests received and requested to PRU to transform the calculation of the output from the BINARY mode (i.e. that each levelling as detected in accordance with the methodology was considered as a “flight not CDO compliant”) to counting the “total flight time counted as an interruption of the CDO. From this, the recalculation for the previous years and the availability of information, always in aggregate format on a monthly basis (any details for individual flights are available upon direct agreement with PRU), in order to begin to determine the average levelled times per aircraft (interruption of the Continue Descent Trajectory from the ToD to the Touch-Down). Then, even if the data reported in the table refer to the previous BINARY methodology (also to be in continuity with the previous years published for the RP3), the refutation and post analysis for the PI CDO was performed using the data published in terms of “Levelled Time per Flight”, as follows.
In order to define the values of “Levelled Time per flight”, the times recorded below FL 75 were excluded from the total time considered as interruption of the descent path. Even PRU, which takes care of the calculation and publication of the information, has accepted the invitation of many representatives of the ANSPs and NSAs and has reported in a specific field the times of interruption of the descent path below FL 75, that is, when the ATCO management margin is reduced so much that the aircraft are already in a defined arrival sequence and the continuous descents are “regulated” by the availability of free flight levels. Therefore, the times (in mins) reported in the table here at the bottom can be traced back to the net value of the interruption of the descent path time counted up to FL75.
As for the analysis, reference values were calculated for this PI CDO, both for the years of RP3 and for the future years of RP4, and the data produced were integrated with a forecast of the expected results (within a range of values of +/- 2.5% plus an increase in the uncertainty factor, compared to the annual value) taking into account the operational scenario.
In summary, the analysis can be outlined in 2 fundamental points:
1. The values in terms of “average minutes per flight of interruption of the CDO trajectory” show for all the airports considered an increasing value, with reference to 2022, for the years 2023 and 2024. This therefore confirms the assumption that as the quantity of flights increases, and therefore the complexity of the operational scenario, an increase in the interruption times of the descent trajectory will be detected. And again, considering the 2019 reference compared to the year 2024, the year in which the number of aircraft arriving for the 5 airports under monitoring reached and exceeded the traffic values of the pre-COVID19 year, we note an alignment of the CDO trajectory interruption times between the 2 years with homogeneous traffic numbers.
2. As done for PI#3 and PI#4 (TAXI-OUT and ASMA), also for the CDO PI the ENAV SpA structures have determined an expected value in terms of minutes (with also a probability margin range) with which to compare the consolidated data with the expected results (same calculation method and same algorithm used for the other 2 PIs).
From this analysis and comparison, it was detailed that for 4 out of the 5 airports considered the consolidated output is lower than the calculated expected value; only Milan Linate airport recorded a value higher than the forecast, which is also in line with what this airport recorded for PI#4 – ASMA, the additional time spent inside the Terminal Area. This analysis result highlights ENAV’s continuous efforts to improve traffic flow management in line with Flight Efficiency expectations.
Then, the results counted in 2024 encourage the Italian NSA to continue supporting ENAV SpA with the flight efficiency policy implemented with the aim of also reducing/optimising performance of CDO and consequently reduce consumption and CO2 emissions. As can be seen from the data reported below, although all airports have recorded an increase in the values of Additional CDO Time compared to 2022, which was the reference year for the recovery of traffic at the airports compared to the pre-COVID19 period, all airports have reported Additional CDO Time values lower than the consolidated values in 2019.
| 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 | |
| Orio Al Serio | 1.02 | 1.11 | 1.77 | 1.82 | 2.09 | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 1.20 | 1.35 | 39% | 40% | 33% | 26% | 26% |
| Linate | 1.93 | 2.18 | 2.89 | 3.37 | 3.71 | 0.78 | 0.84 | 1.16 | 0.85 | 1.07 | 28% | 28% | 24% | 18% | 20% |
| Malpensa | 2.66 | 2.86 | 3.41 | 3.56 | 3.54 | 0.85 | 1.25 | 1.64 | 1.95 | 2.17 | 24% | 23% | 20% | 16% | 15% |
| Fiumicino | 3.10 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 5.93 | 7.28 | 1.25 | 0.96 | 1.40 | 1.44 | 1.80 | 43% | 40% | 36% | 30% | 29% |
| Venice Tessera | 1.38 | 1.10 | 1.83 | 1.69 | 1.67 | 1.06 | 0.53 | 1.15 | 1.26 | 1.44 | 34% | 34% | 29% | 29% | 28% |
Focus on Civil-Military dimension
Update on Military dimension of the plan
The military dimension impacts the environment mainly through airspace use and system integration. Efforts focus on optimizing airspace efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. Through effective application of the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) and free-route procedures, additional capacity is provided to civil aviation, supporting reduced fuel burn and CO₂ emissions. System interoperability in ASM, ATS, and AIS is a priority, with continuous monitoring of civil-military interface developments within dedicated coordination bodies. Military-provided ANS, where applicable, operate within robust collaborative decisionmaking frameworks, with no major ATFM-related constraints identified
Military - related measures implemented or planned to improve capacity
The situation is being improved through the systematic application of FUA at both pre-tactical and tactical levels—particularly in military Areas and free-route airspace—combined with the co-location of civil and military ATCOs within the same operational environment (ACC), enabling the use of shared systems and data. Furthermore, joint civil-military collaborative decision-making processes are embedded in airspace design and AIS activities, while the implementation and continuous optimization of interoperable systems further enhance operational integration and efficiency.
Ongoing improvements focus on:
• enhancing capacity through the dynamic application of collaborative decision-making (CDM) in airspace design and AIS;
• the continuous promotion and optimization of airspace reservation procedures,
• the progressive evolution of interoperability and information management systems.
These measures aim to support seamless operations and efficient airspace utilization under varying civil and military traffic demands.
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#6
The military dimension impacts the environment mainly through airspace use and system integration. Efforts focus on optimizing airspace efficiency while minimizing environmental impact; through effective application of the Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) and free-route procedures. System interoperability in ASM, ATS, and AIS is a priority, with continuous monitoring of civil-military interface developments within dedicated coordination bodies, in order to optimize the use of the airspace.
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#7
n/a
Initiatives implemented or planned to improve PI#8
n/a