Work Package 1: Final Project Report Appendix C: Analysis of the current situation in the Frankfurt TMA

Work Package 1: Final Project Report Appendix C: Analysis of the current situation in the Frankfurt TMA First Assessment of the operational Limitations, Benefits & Applicability for a List of package I AS applications FALBALA Project Drafted by: Eric Vallauri Authorised by: Thierry Arino on 29-4-4 ADDRESSEES: Francis Casaux (CARE/ASAS Manager), Mick Van Gool (CARE Manager), Bogdan Petricel (AGC Programme), Costas Tamvaclis (ADS Programme) COPY TO: CENA, DFS, EEC, NATS, UoG & Sofréavia Participants. Page C-1/43

RECORD OF CHANGES Issue Date Detail of changes.1 19 March 24 Proposed first issue 1. 29 April 24 Delivered version including comments received from partners IMPORTANT NOTE: ANY NEW VERSION SUPERSEDES THE PRECEDING VERSION, WHICH MUST BE DESTROYED OR CLEARLY MARKED ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH THE MENTION OBSOLETE VERSION Page C-2/43

TABLE OF CONTENTS C1. INTRODUCTION... 6 C1.1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES... 6 C1.2. SELECTED DAYS FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS... 6 C1.3. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW... 7 C2. OVERVIEW OF THE FRANKFURT APPROACH... 8 C2.1. GENERALITIES... 8 C2.2. TRAFFIC FLOWS... 9 C2.3. LANDING CONFIGURATION BREAKDOWN...1 C2.4. ARRIVAL PROCEDURES...11 C2.4.1. Introduction...11 C2.4.2. STAR...11 C2.4.3. GPS/FMS RNAV arrival routes...11 C2.4.4. ILS final approach...12 C2.4.5. Summary per landing configuration...12 C2.5. RUNWAYS...14 C2.6. FRANKFURT APPROACH ORGANISATION...15 C2.7. ARRIVAL MANAGER...16 C3. MAIN ARRIVAL CHARACTERISTICS...17 C3.1. MAJOR ARRIVAL FLOWS...17 C3.2. WHAT IS THE USE OF RADAR VECTORING IN E-TMA?...18 C3.3. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL USE OF THE IAFS?...2 C3.4. WHAT IS THE USE OF HOLDING PATTERNS IN APPROACH?...22 C3.5. WHAT IS THE USE OF RADAR VECTORING IN TMA?...25 C3.6. WHAT IS THE ORDERING OF AIRCRAFT IN THE LANDING SEQUENCE?...28 C3.7. WHAT IS THE SPACING BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE ARRIVALS?...3 C3.7.1. Introduction...3 C3.7.2. Easterly configuration...3 C3.7.3. Westerly configuration...34 C3.8. WHAT IS THE RUNWAY USE?...38 C3.8.1. Arrivals...38 C3.8.2. Departures...41 C3.8.3. Mix of arrivals and departures...42 Page C-3/43

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Number of movements per day at Frankfurt airport... 8 Figure 2: Traffic flows in Frankfurt TMA... 9 Figure 3: Number of arrival flights per day at Frankfurt airport... 1 Figure 4: Arrival procedures in the westerly configuration... 13 Figure 5: Arrival procedures in the easterly configuration... 13 Figure 6: Runways in EDDF... 15 Figure 7: Arrival flows to EDDF in the westerly configuration (22 July 6h-9h)... 17 Figure 8: Arrival flows to EDDF in the easterly configuration (4 August 6h-9h).. 18 Figure 9: Radar vectoring before the clearance limits (westerly configuration)... 19 Figure 1: Radar vectoring before the clearance limits (easterly configuration)... 19 Figure 11: Arrival flow breakdown per clearance limit... 2 Figure 12: Use of clearance limits depending on the landing configuration... 21 Figure 13: Use of ROKIM and EPINO depending on the landing configuration... 21 Figure 14: Breakdown of the number of orbits in holding patterns... 22 Figure 15: Number of orbits in holding patterns in easterly configuration... 23 Figure 16: Number of orbits in holding patterns in westerly configuration... 23 Figure 17: Time spent in holding patterns on 22 July... 24 Figure 18: Time spent in holding patterns on 19 July... 24 Figure 19: Radar vectoring after the clearance limits (westerly configuration)... 25 Figure 2: Radar vectoring after the clearance limits (easterly configuration)... 26 Figure 21: Trajectories to the final approach (westerly configuration)... 27 Figure 22: Trajectories to the final approach (easterly configuration)... 27 Figure 23: Snapshot at the final approach (westerly configuration)... 28 Figure 24: Snapshot at the final approach (easterly configuration)... 29 Figure 25: Time spacing between successive landings (easterly configuration)... 31 Figure 26: Spacing in time between successive landings per runway (19 July)... 32 Figure 27: Spacing in time between successive landings (19 July)... 32 Figure 28: Top of arrivals on runways 7L and 7R (19 July 6h-9h)... 33 Figure 29: Top of arrivals and departures on runways 7L and 7R (22 July 6h- 9h)... 33 Figure 3: Time spacing between successive landings (westerly configuration)... 34 Figure 31: Spacing in time between successive landings per runway (22 July)... 35 Figure 32: Spacing in time between successive landings (22 July 6h-9h)... 36 Figure 33: Top of arrivals on runways 25L and 25R (22 July 6h-9h)... 37 Figure 34: Top of arrivals and departures on runways 25L and 25R (22 July 6h- 9h)... 37 Figure 35: Arrivals per runways in the easterly configuration... 38 Figure 36: Arrivals per runways in the westerly configuration... 38 Figure 37: Arrival breakdown per runway... 39 Figure 38: Average number of arrivals per runway for both landing configurations... 39 Figure 39: Number of arrivals per hour and per runway at EDDF on 22 July (westerly configuration)... 4 Figure 4: Departures per runways in the easterly configuration... 41 Figure 41: Departures per runways in the westerly configuration... 41 Page C-4/43

Figure 42: Departure breakdown per runways... 42 Figure 43: Number of arrivals and departures per hour at EDDF on runways 25R and 25L on 22 July (westerly configuration)... 43 Page C-5/43

C1. INTRODUCTION C1.1. Scope and objectives This appendix presents the results of the analysis of the current situation in the Frankfurt TMA. It includes both a qualitative and a quantitative assessment of the main arrival traffic characteristics. It is based on the analysis of the German radar data and it also benefits of environment data and METAR information gathered in support to the radar data processing and analysis. The German radar data recordings have been processed to help identifying relevant traffic patterns and typical traffic situations for the airspace considered within the FALBALA study. The first task was focused on the understanding of the airspace structure, the traffic demand and ATC practices to handle traffic flows in the considered airspace. Besides, some operational indicators have been defined in the project to mainly support the quantitative assessment of both the current situation, and the potential improvements brought by the ASAS applications under investigation within the FALBALA study (not part of this analysis). When assessing the current situation, these operational indicators have been used as a framework for the definition of measurements performed on the radar data recordings. C1.2. Selected days for detailed analysis To illustrate the arrival traffic patterns in Frankfurt TMA and E-TMA, 2 days have been selected, one for each of the two configurations. METAR information extracted from [3] is shown below: Tuesday 22 July 23 for westerly configuration (25L/25R) Wind Visibility Ceiling QNH Page C-6/43

Monday 4 August 23 for easterly configuration (7L/7R) Wind Visibility Ceiling QNH Note: METAR is missing on the morning of 4 August but a look at the days before and after shows that the weather at that time was constant and very nice. The missing data can be considered as the same as the one for the afternoon. Visibility is good for both days despite some rain showers on 22 July. This is important as the control practices in EDDF for arrivals often involve visual clearances on final approach to reduce separation between successive aircraft on parallel axis and therefore to increase airport capacity. For clarity but also to have sufficient displayed data, a period of 3 hours has been selected in the busiest part of the day (i.e. 6h 9h). C1.3. Document overview Chapter C1 briefly introduces the scope and objectives of this Appendix. Chapter C2 is an overview of the Frankfurt TMA and E-TMA based on the environment data and illustrated with extracts from the German radar data recordings. Finally, chapter C3 discusses the main traffic characteristics in the Frankfurt TMA and E-TMA, using the traffic patterns extracted from the German radar data recordings and provides the quantitative results computed based on the operational indicators. Page C-7/43

C2. Overview of the Frankfurt Approach C2.1. Generalities The area of responsibility Frankfurt Approach includes the complete airspace C below FL1 and in addition to that the airspace C above FL1 up to FL115 within the lateral boundary of the first part. The maximum usable flight level is FL11 The Frankfurt FIR is above the Frankfurt Approach and goes up to FL245. The TMA includes one major airport, i.e. Frankfurt (EDDF). Frankfurt is ranked third in Europe in terms of aircraft movements per year (about 458 in 22). The airport is the main Lufthansa s hub. In 1999, 57.2% of the inbound traffic were Lufthansa s ones. The figure below shows the number of departures and arrivals per day in EDDF extracted during processing of the radar data recordings in the first step of the analysis. Arrivals Departures Number of mvts 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 1: Number of movements per day at Frankfurt airport Due to an undetermined reason in the radar data processing, about 25% of departures on runway 18 cannot be extracted after 15 August. The average number of movements in EDDF (without taking account the days with partial extraction of departures) is 1285 (with a standard deviation of 39). Page C-8/43

Appendix C: Analysis of the current situation in the Frankfurt TMA FALBALA/WP1/FPR/D 29-4-24 Version 1.1 C2.2. Traffic flows The following figure illustrates the complexity of the Frankfurt TMA, with the mix of departures, arrivals and transits over a period of 3 hours in the morning (6h to 9h on 22 July 23). EDDF Level aircraft Climbing aircraft Descending aircraft Figure 2: Traffic flows in Frankfurt TMA The departure flows can be rather easily identified (blue). The arrival flows are more difficult to distinguish as the aircraft are either descending (red) or level (green). Nevertheless, some converging points can be identified as well as the approached, including the northern downwind leg, the base legs and the final approaches. Page C-9/43

C2.3. Landing configuration breakdown There are two main landing configurations in EDDF: easterly and westerly. The following figure shows the breakdown per day of the radar data recordings between the two landing configurations. East West 8 6 Number of arrivals 4 2 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 3: Number of arrival flights per day at Frankfurt airport Both landing configurations were experienced during the period of recordings, but with a predominance of the westerly configuration. The westerly configuration was applied 18 full days, whereas the easterly one was mainly applied 3 full days (there have been aircraft landing in the westerly configuration every day). Finally, a change in the landing configuration inducing at least 1% of arrivals in each configuration appears on 14 days. As a result, a large majority of the arrivals over the whole period of recordings occurred in the westerly configuration (74%). Page C-1/43

C2.4. Arrival procedures C2.4.1. Introduction C2.4.2. STAR Two types of arrival procedures are defined: STARs and RNAV. They all begin from one of the 4 clearance limits: EPINO ETARU GED (GEDERN) PSA (SPESSART) There are 2 STARs per clearance limit, i.e. one for each landing configuration (easterly and westerly). It means that 8 STARs are defined. There are 2 IAFS per landing configuration, one in the south and one in the north. The IAFs of the easterly configuration are: TAU (TAUNUS) RID (RIED) The IAFs of r the westerly configuration are: MTR (METRO) CHA (CHARLIE) There are no initial approaches defined from the IAFs to the ILS final approaches. C2.4.3. GPS/FMS RNAV arrival routes An alternative procedure to the STARs is the RNAV arrival routes. They are defined from each clearance limit to the beginning of the ILS final approach. They look like trombones. They are composed of a downwind leg, a base leg and a beginning of the final. The downwind legs and the beginning of the final include several navigation points (named DFxx), which are used to shorten the downwind leg thanks to vectors to the final. Some routes link the clearance limits to the downwind leg through either conventional navigation points (like the IAF) or RNAV navigation points (DFxx). Page C-11/43

C2.4.4. ILS final approach A pair of parallel runways is used for arrivals in EDDF (see following paragraph). There in one ILS final approach per runway of the pair (i.e. 4 different ILS final approaches). The final approach of the RNAV arrival routes splits into two routes to reach the Final Approach Fixes (FAF) of the two parallel final approaches: from DF51 to LOMPO and ROBSA in easterly configuration from DF21 to REDGO and LEDKI in the westerly configuration For both landing configurations, the final approaches are used independently of the origin of the traffic (e.g. traffic coming from the south can land on either the northern or the southern runway). The minimum separation value is 3 NM on final approach before the outer marker and then 2.5 NM during a CAT I ILS in IMC. As the runways are dependent, simultaneous parallel approaches cannot be performed. To optimise runway capacity, the strategy is to have spacing between arriving staggered aircraft (i.e. on the two parallel approaches) close to the minimum separation value and in case of sufficient weather conditions, aircraft are cleared to follow each other visually, leading to reduced separation and therefore higher traffic flow. The only constraint is that the aircraft behind may not pass the one in front. This practise is particularly effective since aircraft land on different runways and that therefore there is no constraint due to the runway occupancy time. C2.4.5. Summary per landing configuration The following figures show the arrival procedures for the westerly configuration (the preferred one, provided the tail wind component does not exceed 5 kts) and the easterly configuration. Page C-12/43

Clearance Limit IAF RNAV & ILS procedures STAR Figure 4: Arrival procedures in the westerly configuration Clearance Limit IAF RNAV & ILS procedures STAR Figure 5: Arrival procedures in the easterly configuration Page C-13/43

Although the lines are displayed in purple, it should be noted that the STARs and the RNAV arrival routes are actually overlapped (i.e. the black line is below the purple one) between PSA and CHA and between GED and either MTR in the westerly configuration or GEDSI in the easterly configuration. C2.5. Runways There are three runways in EDDF. a pair of runways (7/25) separated by 518 m, i.e. they are dependent; a runway 18 on the western side of the airport, beyond the runway 7 threshold. Runway 18 is only used for take-off. It enables a majority of the take-offs with a maximum rear wind of 15 kts. If the wind is stronger, runway 18 is closed and only the pair of runways is used. During the period of recording, runway 18 has never been closed and therefore it has enabled a majority of departures. The pair of runways is used for both take-off and landing. 7L/25R is dedicated to northbound departures only. There is an additional ILS in the middle of runway 25L with a specific lightning for a runway 26L (2 m long). The ILS glide is parallel to the 25R ILS but higher. Runway 26L is used in specific cases (i.e. heavy aircraft on 25R and lighter aircraft on 26L) with good weather conditions. No arrival on runway 26L has occurred during the period of recordings. The following figure shows the 3 runways with the departures and arrivals during 3 hours (i.e. from 6h to 9h on 22 July 23) in the westerly configuration for the pair of runways and runway 18. Page C-14/43

Figure 6: Runways in EDDF C2.6. Frankfurt Approach organisation The radar controller Pickup North (TR1) is responsible for IFR approaches coming from GED, ETARU and EPINO. The radar controller Pickup South (TR1S) is responsible for IFR approaches coming from PSA. The radar controller Feeder (TE1) is responsible for the turn onto the final and for the final. It is possible to have a second Feeder (TE2) The departure controller (TR3) is responsible for IFR departures going to north and east (RWY7). The second departure controller (TR2) is responsible for IFR departures going to south, south-east and west. Exception: The responsibility of TR3 includes departures to the west if all departures use RWY18. There are two co-ordinator positions: TC1 is co-ordinating approaches TC2 is co-ordinating departures. Page C-15/43

There are no fixed sectors. The work-sharing between Pickups and Feeder is flexible and depends on the load of traffic and on the team. C2.7. Arrival Manager There is an Arrival Manager (AMAN), named 4D-Planner, dedicated to Frankfurt ACC and Approach. The 4D Planner basic ideas are controller assistance for arrivals proposals for a dense and optimised landing sequence sequence should always reflect the actual traffic situation assignment of target times for metering fix and threshold controller advisories how to achieve the proposed sequence and target times The ACC controller monitors the Planning Display of the 4D-Planner and guides the aircraft movements by assigning headings, speeds and altitudes so that the handover to the Approach is at the planned time. At its expected time of delivery, each aircraft appears on the time scale as a label, containing the trend information represented by a coloured bar (red: too early, green: too late). The Approach controller will receive information about the planned runway and arrival time, and thus the sequence in which the aircraft will land. Page C-16/43

C3. Main arrival characteristics C3.1. Major arrival flows The following figures show the entire radar trajectories of the arrival traffic in EDDF extracted from the radar data from 6 am to 9 am on for the two selected days. Figure 7: Arrival flows to EDDF in the westerly configuration (22 July 6h-9h) Page C-17/43

Figure 8: Arrival flows to EDDF in the easterly configuration (4 August 6h-9h) The same major arrivals flows converging towards the clearance limits can be identified: 2 from the west to EPINO 1 from the north-west to ETARU 1 from the north and some traffic from the east to GED 1 from the south-east and 1 from the south to PSA In addition, it can be noted that: in the westerly a traffic coming from the south-west is directly integrating the southern downwind leg; In the easterly configuration, the flows from the west to EPINO merge about 3 NM before EPINO and not at EPINO or ROKIM as in the westerly configuration; the same short-haul flights coming from 4 different airports can be identified. In both figures. C3.2. What is the use of radar vectoring in E-TMA? The following figure shows a zoomed view of the arrival flows to illustrate the use of radar vectoring in E-TMA before the clearance limits. Page C-18/43

Radar Vectoring Figure 9: Radar vectoring before the clearance limits (westerly configuration) Radar Vectoring Figure 1: Radar vectoring before the clearance limits (easterly configuration) Page C-19/43

The dotted black ellipsoid highlights the radar vectoring applied by ATC for the merging at the clearance limits. C3.3. What is the actual use of the IAFs? As shown in the figures of the paragraph C3.2, the STARs from the clearance limits to the IAFs are not used. Therefore, the relevant points to study are the clearance limits and not the IAF (Note: this is actually a naming issue as the clearance limits are used exactly as IAFs in other TMA, e.g. for holding patterns). It can be noted that the actual merging point of the traffic flow coming from the west is ROKIM and not EPINO (it is particularly visible in the westerly configuration). The following figure shows the breakdown of arrivals flying over the clearance limits within a radius of 1.5 NM. For the western flows, ROKIM is used instead of EPINO. 4% 3% 2% 1% % GED PSA ROKIM ETARU None Figure 11: Arrival flow breakdown per clearance limit About 7% of the arrivals have flown over a clearance limit. PSA is the most important clearance limits in terms of arrival flows. This is likely linked with the fact that it is the only one located in the South of EDDF. The percentage of arrivals having flown over EPINO is half of the ones over ROKIM (13.4% vs. 6.6%). However, EPINO has been on average more often used during the 3 days where only the easterly configuration was applied (1%) than during the 18 days with the westerly configuration (6%). The following figure shows the arrival flow breakdown per clearance limits for days in only either the easterly or the westerly configuration. Page C-2/43

All East West 4% 3% 2% 1% % GED PSA ROKIM ETARU None Figure 12: Use of clearance limits depending on the landing configuration The only noticeable difference is the lower number of arrivals flying over ROKIM in the easterly configuration. The figure below summarises the use of ROKIM and EPINO depending on the landing configuration (Note: these averages have been computed on 18 days for the westerly configuration but on only 3 days for the easterly configuration.) East West 2% 15% 1% 5% % ROKIM EPINO Figure 13: Use of ROKIM and EPINO depending on the landing configuration Page C-21/43

C3.4. What is the use of holding patterns in approach? As shown in the figures of the paragraph C3.2, some arrivals are holding: first figure: one is holding in ETARU (westerly configuration) second figure: several are holding at ETARU, GED and EPINO (easterly configuration) In addition, it can be noted that some arrivals on the south-east traffic flow have performed a 36 turn for delaying. The figure below shows the number of orbits done per aircraft having flown over a clearance limit ( means that the aircraft has not been stacked). GED PSA EPINO ETARU 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 1 2 3 >=4 Figure 14: Breakdown of the number of orbits in holding patterns About 8% of the aircraft having flown over GED, PSA and ETARU have not been stacked. This percentage is smaller for EPINO (64%). The average on the four clearance limits is 78%. It means that on the total period of radar recordings, only 15% of the arrivals (i.e. 22% of the 7% having flown over a clearance limit) have been stacked. Most of the stacked aircraft have done one orbit and very few have done more than two. The analysis of the use of holding patterns seems to depend on the landing configuration as illustrated by the figures below: Page C-22/43

GED PSA EPINO ETARU 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 1 2 3 >=4 Figure 15: Number of orbits in holding patterns in easterly configuration GED PSA EPINO ETARU 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % 1 2 3 >=4 Figure 16: Number of orbits in holding patterns in westerly configuration The results for the westerly configurations are similar to the average values. However, in the easterly configuration, a significant larger number of aircraft, except in PSA, have been stacked, especially in EPINO where 5% of arrivals have been stacked. This result is to be linked with the higher proportion of arrivals having flown over EPINO in the easterly configuration. The figures of the paragraph C3.2 confirm the greater number of stacked aircraft in the easterly configuration. Nevertheless, the figures for the easterly configuration should be taken carefully as they are computed on only 3 days. Page C-23/43

On average on the full radar data recordings, the stacked aircraft have spent about 9 minutes in the holding patterns. The following figures provide some information about the time spent in holding patterns for two days with significantly different characteristics: 22 July: westerly configuration and limited use of holding patterns (11% of flights having flown over a clearance limit) 19 July: easterly configuration and significant use of holding patterns (45% of flights having flown over a clearance limit) GED PSA 25 2 15 1 5 Average Minimum Maximum Figure 17: Time spent in holding patterns on 22 July GED PSA EPINO 25 2 15 1 5 Average Minimum Maximum Figure 18: Time spent in holding patterns on 19 July The values for holding patterns in PSA on both days are similar, like between the three holding patterns on 19 July. Page C-24/43

C3.5. What is the use of radar vectoring in TMA? The following figure shows a zoomed view of the arrival flows to illustrate the use of radar vectoring TMA after the clearance limits. Radar Vectoring Figure 19: Radar vectoring after the clearance limits (westerly configuration) Page C-25/43

Radar Vectoring Figure 2: Radar vectoring after the clearance limits (easterly configuration) The dotted black ellipsoid highlights the radar vectoring applied by ATC from the clearance limits to the base leg. In each landing configuration, radar vectoring is mainly used from the clearance limits close to the final approach (e.g. PSA in the westerly configuration). Globally, more arrivals seem to follow the RNAV arrival routes in the easterly configuration. Note: non-rnav aircraft are radar vectored all way long from the clearance limits to the final approaches. Due to the position of the clearance limits, the arrivals coming from the west, north and east are going to the northern downwind leg. It induces two successive mergings, performed with radar vectoring: In the easterly configuration, there is a first merging between traffic from EPINO/ROKIM and from ETARU, and then the controller has to integrate arrivals from GED. In the westerly configuration, there is a first merging between traffic from GED and from ETARU, and then the controller has to integrate arrivals from ROKIM. It can also be noted that in the easterly configuration, some of the traffic coming from EPINO/ROKIM and from ETARU are actually flying towards the southern downwind leg passing above traffic on short final approach (dotted purple box). The following figure shows a zoomed view of the arrival trajectories close to the final approach. Page C-26/43

Appendix C: Analysis of the current situation in the Frankfurt TMA FALBALA/WP1/FPR/D 29-4-24 Version 1.1 Figure 21: Trajectories to the final approach (westerly configuration) Figure 22: Trajectories to the final approach (easterly configuration) Page C-27/43

These figures show that arrivals are not turning to the final approach exactly on the RNAV points of the downwind leg. Aircraft are vectored to intercept the ILS between the FAF (shortest trajectory) and the extremity of the beginning of the RNAV final approach. (Note: one has intercepted the 7L ILS between the FAF and the runway threshold) In addition, it can be noted that: aircraft are intercepting the ILS localizer before the FAF, still on the RNAV arrival route whereas the route is supposed to separate itself into two parallel approaches just before the FAFs a few aircraft have started a 7R ILS procedure but have moved to the 7L ILS about 4 to 5 NM before the runway threshold (dotted purple box) in the easterly configuration, a traffic on the northern downwind leg has performed a 36 turn for delaying (dotted purple ellipsoid) C3.6. What is the ordering of aircraft in the landing sequence? The following figure shows a zoomed view of the arrival flows in the westerly configuration to illustrate the use of radar vectoring and the ordering of aircraft. It also highlights the staggered approaches. The length of the trajectories is 6 seconds. 1 5 6 7 8 4 1 2 3 9 Figure 23: Snapshot at the final approach (westerly configuration) Page C-28/43

There are 1 arrivals displayed on this figure: 1 has just landed on 25L 2, 3 and 4 are on the ILS procedures, respectively 25R, 25R and 25R (Note: 3 is changing from 25L to 25R) 5 is intercepting the 25L ILS localizer at the FAF from the northern downwind leg, between 4 and 6, which is also on the 25R ILS localizer 7 and 8 are following each other (and previously 6) from the south clearance limit (PSA) to intercept respectively the 25L and 25R ILS localizer 9 is leaving the southern RNAV arrival route and is vectored for a future 25L ILS procedure 1 is on the northern downwind leg and will be vectored to intercept the 25R ILS localizer behind 9 This time, the following figure shows a zoomed view of the arrival flows in the easterly configuration. The length of the trajectories is also 6 seconds. 11 1n 3 2 1 9n 5 4 8 7 6 1s 9s Figure 24: Snapshot at the final approach (easterly configuration) There are 11 arrivals displayed on this figure: 1 has just landed on 7L Page C-29/43

2, 3, 4 and 5 are on the ILS procedures, respectively 7R, 7L, 7R and 7L, the separation between them is about 1 minute 6 is on the 7R ILS localizer before the FAF 7 is intercepting the 7L ILS localizer from the southern downwind leg behind 6 8 is intercepting the 7R ILS localizer from the northern downwind leg, close behind 7 9s and 9n are in the first position on the (respectively southern and northern) downwind leg, 1s and 1n being in the second position 11 is on the northern RNAV arrival route C3.7. What is the spacing between successive arrivals? C3.7.1. Introduction The following table provides the ICAO wake vortex radar separation minima in distance between successive arrivals according to the aircraft wake vortex categories (i.e. H: Heavy, M: Medium, L: Light) and the estimated spacing in time based on a 15 kt ground speed. Preceding aircraft Succeeding aircraft ICAO wake vortex radar separation minima Distance (NM) Estimated time (sec) H H 4 96 H M 5 12 H L 6 144 M L 5 12 The aircraft spacing is achieved in terms of distance. The spacing in terms of time varies according to the strength of the headwind. For example, assuming a constant IAS of 15 kts, a 3 NM spacing with nil headwind represents a 72 second spacing. With a 3 kts headwind, the same 3 NM spacing corresponds to a 9 second spacing. It is the spacing in terms of distance that controllers implement. Variation in timespacing in the following figures of this section is partly a function of varying wind conditions on different days C3.7.2. Easterly configuration The following figures show the breakdown of aircraft spacing in time between successive landings on the same runway in the easterly configuration. Page C-3/43

Runway 7L 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Runway 7R 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Figure 25: Time spacing between successive landings (easterly configuration) There is no peak around the values listed in the table above. For both runways the maximum is reached for spacing values between 15 and 17 seconds. This is due to the staggered approaches performed in EDDF. As a result, the spacing between two successive aircraft on the same runway can be about twice the wake vortex radar separation minimum. To illustrate these spacing values on one particular day, the following figure shows the results of the computation performed on all arrivals on 19 July (Note: 4 August does not enable to compute statistics on the whole day since there has been a change of landing configuration in the afternoon). Page C-31/43

RW7L RW7R RW25L RW25R 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Figure 26: Spacing in time between successive landings per runway (19 July) No significant difference can be identified by comparison with the overall breakdown. The following figure shows the variation of the time spacing between aircraft on 19 July during a period of three hours (6h to 9h) of dense arrival traffic. RW7R RW7L 48 42 36 3 24 18 12 6 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3 Figure 27: Spacing in time between successive landings (19 July) Page C-32/43

Some large spacing values can be identified, in particular on runway 7R. In addition, there has been no landing during about 2 minutes (i.e. from 8: to 8:2). To illustrate the staggered approaches, the following figure shows the top of arrivals on runways 7L and 7R during these three hours. RW7R RW7L 1 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3-1 Figure 28: Top of arrivals on runways 7L and 7R (19 July 6h-9h) The figure shows a similar number of arrivals on runways 7L and 7R. It also shows the staggered approaches. However to have a complete picture of the use of the pair of runways and to better understand its complexity, it is also necessary to include the departures, as shown by the figure below. RW7R (arr) RW7L (arr) RW7R (dep) RW7L (dep),5 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3 -,5 Figure 29: Top of arrivals and departures on runways 7L and 7R (22 July 6h- 9h) Page C-33/43

C3.7.3. Westerly configuration The following figures show the breakdown of aircraft spacing in time between successive landings on the same runway in the westerly configuration. Runway 25L 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Runway 25R 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Figure 3: Time spacing between successive landings (westerly configuration) Page C-34/43

The results for runway 25L are similar to the ones in the easterly configuration. The only significant difference is the number of arrivals is the higher number of spacing values greater than 24 seconds. For runway 25R, there is a greater proportion of spacing values lower than 9 seconds. They likely correspond to successive landings on the same runway, and not on the parallel one. To illustrate these spacing values on one particular day, the following figure shows the results of the computation performed on all arrivals on 22 July RW7L RW7R RW25L RW25R 8 6 4 2 <6 6-69 7-79 8-89 9-99 1-19 11-119 12-129 13-139 14-149 15-159 16-169 17-179 189-189 19-199 2-29 21-219 22-229 23-239 >=24 Figure 31: Spacing in time between successive landings per runway (22 July) No significant difference can be identified by comparison with the overall breakdown. The following figure shows the variation of the time spacing between aircraft during a period of three hours (6h to 9h) of dense arrival traffic on 22 July. Page C-35/43

RW25L RW25R 48 42 36 3 24 18 12 6 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3 Figure 32: Spacing in time between successive landings (22 July 6h-9h) The results are very different between the two runways. The spacing values are much more regular on runway 25R (i.e. between 6 and 18 s except between 7:3 and 8:3). It can be surprising since this runway is the one mainly used for take-offs in the westerly configuration (in addition to runway 18). It means that the total of movements on runway 25R is much greater than on 25L. (respectively 19 vs. 5 during these three hours) One explanation is that runway 25R is closer to the terminal and therefore is preferred so as to reduce taxiing time. To illustrate the staggered approaches, the following figure shows the top of arrivals on runways 25L and 25R during these three hours. Page C-36/43

RW25L RW25R 1 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3-1 Figure 33: Top of arrivals on runways 25L and 25R (22 July 6h-9h) The figure shows a greater number of arrivals on runway 25R. It also shows the staggered approaches. For instance, it is clearly visible for the arrivals on runway 25L at 6:15 or between 8: and 8:3. However to have a complete picture of the use of the pair of runways and to better understand its complexity, it is also necessary to include the departures, as shown by the figure below. R W2 5 L ( a r r ) R W2 5 R ( a r r ) R W2 5 L ( de p) R W2 5 R ( de p ),5 6: 6:3 7: 7:3 8: 8:3 -,5 Figure 34: Top of arrivals and departures on runways 25L and 25R (22 July 6h- 9h) Page C-37/43

C3.8. What is the runway use? C3.8.1. Arrivals The figure below shows the number of arrivals identified in the radar data recordings in each landing configuration. RW7L RW7R 5 4 3 2 1 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 35: Arrivals per runways in the easterly configuration RW25L RW25R 5 4 3 2 1 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 36: Arrivals per runways in the westerly configuration Page C-38/43

To illustrate the use of the runways, the following figure shows the percentage of arrivals per runway in EDDF over the whole period of recordings. RW7R 13% RW7L 13% RW25L 32% RW25R 42% Figure 37: Arrival breakdown per runway The figure confirms that the westerly configuration is the most common one (74%) in this period of time. It also shows that, whereas there is the same proportion of landings in 7R and 7L on the easterly configuration, 25R is more often used than 25L on the westerly configuration. The following figures present the average number of arrivals per runway computed on the days with only one landing configuration (i.e. 3 days for the easterly one and 18 days for the westerly one). Easterly configuration Westerly configuration 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 RW7L RW7R RW25L RW25R Figure 38: Average number of arrivals per runway for both landing configurations Page C-39/43

The following figure presents the number of arrivals per hour and per runway on the selected day in the westerly configuration, i.e. 22 July 23. Arrivals 25R Arrivals 25L 3 2 1-1 -1h 2h 3h 4h 5h 6h 7h 8h 9h 1h 11h 12h 13h 14h 15h 16h 17h 18h 19h 2h 21h 22h 23h 24h -2-3 Figure 39: Number of arrivals per hour and per runway at EDDF on 22 July (westerly configuration) This figure confirms that runway 25R is more often use than runway 25L. In particular the average of arrivals per hour is greater and there are more values greater than 2 per hour. Nevertheless, on this selected day, the period of use of runway 25L is greater than runway 25R. In addition, it can be noticed that there is no arrival during the night. Page C-4/43

C3.8.2. Departures The figure below shows the number of departures identified in the radar data recordings in each landing configuration (all departures from runway 18 are shown). RW7L RW7R RW18 5 4 3 2 1 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 4: Departures per runways in the easterly configuration RW25L RW25R RW18 5 4 3 2 1 19/7 21/7 23/7 25/7 27/7 29/7 31/7 2/8 4/8 6/8 8/8 1/8 12/8 14/8 16/8 18/8 2/8 22/8 24/8 Figure 41: Departures per runways in the westerly configuration The number of departures on runway 18 is almost constant over the period where they could be correctly extracted from the radar data. On average, there were 382 departures per day (standard deviation=22). Page C-41/43

The figure below shows the percentage of departures per runway for the days with the full detection of departures on runway 18 (i.e. up to 15 August). RW25L 3% RW25R 27% RW18 59% RW7L 9% RW7R 2% Figure 42: Departure breakdown per runways It shows that 59% of the identified departures were from runway 18. It also confirms the greater number of departures on the northern runway (i.e. 7L/25R), especially in the westerly configuration. Runway 25R is already much more often used than 25L for arrivals. C3.8.3. Mix of arrivals and departures The following figures present the number of arrivals and departures per hour on runways 25R and 25L on the selected day in the westerly configuration, i.e. 22 July 23 Since the objective is to illustrate the mix of arrivals and departures on the runway use, runway 18, which is dedicated to departures only, is therefore not considered in this figure. Page C-42/43

Arrivals Departures 3 2 1-1 -1h 2h 3h 4h 5h 6h 7h 8h 9h 1h 11h 12h 13h 14h 15h 16h 17h 18h 19h 2h 21h 22h 23h 24h -2-3 Runw ay 25R Arrivals Departures 3 2 1-1 -1h 1-2h 2-3h 3-4h 4-5h 5-6h 6-7h 7-8h 8-9h 9-1h 1-11h 11-12h 12-13h 13-14h 14-15h 15-16h 16-17h 17-18h 18-19h 19-2h 2-21h 21-22h 22-23h 23-24h -2-3 Runw ay 25L Figure 43: Number of arrivals and departures per hour at EDDF on runways 25R and 25L on 22 July (westerly configuration) This figure clearly confirms that runway 25R is much more used than runway 25L, in particular in terms of departures. *** END OF DOCUMENT *** Page C-43/43