GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study · GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study. ... Francisco...

Management and technology consultants

Final report Annex C - Detailed summary of research

Version 1.5 (FINAL), 24th September 2017

GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study

w w w . a sk he l io s . c o m

Contents

Quieter fleet initiatives 2

Runway schemes 10

Night flight restrictions 22

Noise abatement procedures 33

Ground and gate operations 46

Land use planning 53

Noise complaints 65

Community outreach 82

Noise ombudsman 91

Fly Quiet programmes 96

Reporting of noise monitor data 106

1

Research summary

Quieter fleet initiatives


Introduction

Most airports have some form of measures to either limit

the use of the noisiest aircraft types or encourage the use

of quieter fleets. These measures can be in the form of

restrictions on certain types of aircraft (typically at night),

incentive schemes, voluntary arrangements and comparing

fleet mix between airlines.

Typical practices

Operating restrictions: These involve restricting the

operation of certain (older/noisier) aircraft types, typically at

night. These are usually based on the noise

certification/Chapter number of aircraft types according to

the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Noise based charging schemes: It is common in Europe

for airports to assign a noise element to the landing and/or

take-off charge. Lower noise charges are levied on ‘quieter’

aircraft to incentivise their use. Again, these charges are

usually related to the certified noise level of an individual

aircraft or its ICAO Chapter.

A320 modification programmes: A relatively new

initiative is addressing the ‘whine’ generated Airbus A320

family of aircraft on approach. The aircraft have small vents

on each wing designed to help equalise the fuel pressure in

the intra wing tanks. When air rushes past the vents it

creates a high pitched ‘whine’ which can cause up to 6dB

“extra” noise. There is a simple modification (vortex

generator) which can resolve the issue and some airports

have undertaken voluntary and financially incentivised

initiatives to encourage airlines to modify the aircraft.

Special and unique practices

Incentives to replace older aircraft: Zurich and

Amsterdam Schiphol were found to have offered financial

incentives to airlines to replace older noisier aircraft.

Fly Quiet programmes: A small number of airports have

Fly Quiet programmes which publicly compare airlines

across a variety of noise metrics. Two of these airports

(Heathrow and San Francisco) have fleet metrics as a

means to encourage airlines to operate the quietest fleet

possible for a given type of operation.

Regional trends

Operating restrictions are the only initiative commonly

applied by airports across the world. Financial

mechanisms, such as noise based charging and incentives

are primarily applied in Europe

Quieter fleet initiatives - Overview


Quieter fleet initiatives - Best practice from around the world

4

• Gatwick, Heathrow and Frankfurt incentivise

A320 retrofit through either voluntary

schemes or through additional charging.

• Noise based charging (or a noise factor in the

charge) is the norm for European airports – it

is either based on certified or measured

noise. There is a 10X difference at Heathrow

between loudest and quietest aircraft.

• Chapter 2 aircraft are banned at European

airports.

• Airports such as Charles de Gaulle and

Frankfurt limits the operation of marginally

compliant chapter 3 and Chapter 3 aircraft in

the overnight period.

• Heathrow has included aircraft chapter within

the Fly Quiet program.

• Incentive schemes for quieter aircraft have

been used at Zurich and Schiphol, rewards

are applied per arrival or departure if

marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft are

replaced.

• Charges are mainly based

on weight.

• 40% discount is applied at

Changi to incentivise night

flights.

• Only Chapter 3 or better

aircraft are permitted.

• Charging is largely based on MTOW or PAX.

• Chapter 2 aircraft are largely banned. At

Montreal, Chapter 3 and 4 aircraft are

restricted during the night.

• Forums at Chicago O’Hare, LAX and San

Francisco jointly engaged with United Airlines

on the ‘whine’ generated by A320 aircraft.

• Softer schemes in operation, such as the MD-

80 phase out at O’Hare.

• Noise is not part of the charging scheme.

• Chapter 2 aircraft are banned at US airports.

• John-Wayne has restrictions based on the

actual noise output of aircraft on arrival and

departure.

• Only Chapter 3 or better

aircraft are permitted to

operate from Dubai.

• Charges are based on aircraft weight – Sydney

used to operate a night noise levy but this has

now ceased.

• Only Chapter 3 aircraft or better are allowed.


Overview of research

Operating restrictions limit the use of certain (older/noisier)

aircraft types, either throughout the day or at sensitive

times of day such as the night. The key findings from the

research were:

• Almost all airports researched specify that Chapter 2

aircraft (according to ICAO Annex 16) are banned from

operating.

• At Amsterdam Schiphol aircraft that are marginally

compliant with Chapter 3 standards by < 5 EPNdB are

subject to restrictions at night:

• Aircraft with engine bypass ratio > 3 (typically commercial aircraft)

are not allowed to operate between 2200-0600

• Aircraft with engine bypass ratio < 3 are not allowed to operate

between 1700-0700

• Paris Charles de Gaulle restricts aircraft that are

marginally compliant with Chapter 3 standards:

• Aircraft compliant by < 5 EPNdB are banned

• Aircraft compliant by < 10 EPNdB are not allowed to take off or

land between 2200-0600

• Frankfurt does not allow the operation of marginally

compliant Chapter 3 aircraft 1900-0700 on weekdays and

does not allow their operation at the weekend (between

1900 on Friday to 0700 on Mondays).

• Montreal does not allow Chapter 3 and 4 aircraft over 45

tonnes to land between 0100-0700 or take off between

0000-0700 .

• New York (JFK) and John Wayne airports are subject to

movement limits. JFK is limited to 81 movements per hour

between 0600-2259

• Brussels, Heathrow, Gatwick and Madrid apply night-

time quota schemes which restrict the operation and/or

scheduling of aircraft in the noisiest aircraft categories at

different times of the night (quota schemes are

explained the night flight restrictions section)

Quieter fleet initiatives – Operating restrictions

5

ICAO Annex 16, Volume I, Aircraft Noise, front cover

Source:

http://www.icao.int/secretariat/PostalHistory/annex_16_environmental_protec

tion.htm

http://www.icao.int/secretariat/PostalHistory/annex_16_environmental_protection.htm



Noise based charging schemes

It is common in Europe for airports to assign a noise

element to the landing and/or take-off charge. Lower noise

charges are levied on ‘quieter’ aircraft to incentivise their

use. Again, these charges are usually related to the

certified noise level of an individual aircraft/its ICAO

Chapter.

Charges are often also increased further at night as a

further incentive for airlines to operate quieter aircraft.

As summary of the findings in this areas are as follows:

• 8 of 26 airports in the study (all in Europe) employed

some form of noise based charge in their charging

schemes.

• Sydney airport did have a noise levy in place from 1996

but it was repealed in 2005.

• Hong Kong airport are investigating whether noise

based charging is appropriate for them.

• New York (JFK) have increased charges between 3pm

and 10pm for unscheduled/private aircraft.

• Although not an airport within the scope of the study,

Tokyo Narita airport has recently introduced a noise

based charge.

Case studies of noise-based charging schemes are given

in the following pages.

Financial incentives

Two examples were found of airports using financial

incentives to encourages airlines to replace older aircraft:

Zurich and Amsterdam Schiphol were found to have

provided direct financial incentives to airlines (or in the

case of Amsterdam cargo operators). Both schemes

focussed on incentives to replace ‘noisier’ aircraft with a

‘quieter’ one.

The Zurich scheme encouraged operators to put a quieter

aircraft (a minimum 5 dB reduction is required over the

previous aircraft type) on one of its existing routes through

reductions in landing charges for up to 3 years.

Amsterdam Schiphol operates a Cargo Sustainability

Incentive Programme to stimulate the use of quieter cargo

aircraft. Airlines are incentivised to replace their Marginally

Compliant Chapter 3 (MCC3) dedicated freighter flights

with quieter wide body dedicated freighter aircraft.

Qualifying airlines are eligible for a reward of € 400 per

departure during the first year of operation with the new

aircraft.

Quieter fleet initiatives – Financial mechanisms

6


Case study – Heathrow charging scheme

Heathrow has a noise element in its landing charges. For

aircraft over 16 metric tonnes there are 6 charging

categories based upon ICAO Chapter numbers (see the

top table to the right).

In addition, charges differ depending on whether an aircraft

lands during the day or at night. The top table to the right

shows that charges increase by a factor of almost 12 from

the quietest (Chapter 14 Low) aircraft, to the loudest

(Chapter 3).Charges are further increased by a factor of 2.5

for each category between 0100 and 0430.

The second table describes the qualification criteria for

categorising aircraft. The criteria are based on the

cumulative reduction in Effective Perceived Noise level

(EPNdB*) compared to the ICAO Chapter 3 standard. This

information must be provided to the airport in order to

calculate the appropriate charge.1

* The EPNdB metric represents the average sound level in

decibels over a 10 second period. A 10dB reduction is equivalent

to halving the sound level.

1. http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/Company/Static/PDF/P

artnersandsuppliers/Conditions-of-Use_2017.pdf

Quieter fleet initiatives - Noise based charging schemes

7

Heathrow conditions of use. Source:

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/Company/Static/PDF/Partnersandsuppliers/Con

ditions-of-Use_2017.pdf

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/Company/Static/PDF/Partnersandsuppliers/Conditions-of-Use_2017.pdf

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/Company/Static/PDF/Partnersandsuppliers/Conditions-of-Use_2017.pdf


Case study – Schiphol charging scheme

Amsterdam Schiphol also used aircraft certified noise

levels to categorise them into different charging bands

(see top table to the right).

A noise factor of between +60% and -20% is applied to the

basic compensation/charge (a unit charge per 1,000kg –

see table below) depending on the aircrafts noise

classification. An additional charge is also levied during the

night period (2300-0600). For the noisiest aircraft types

(marginally compliant Chapter 3 (MCC3)), charges

approximately double during the night.

Schiphol airport also states that where aircraft do not

provide evidence of their noise certification, they will be

allocated into a category by the airport based on their type.

This approach is termed the “conservative classification of

noise categories” (see table) since the classification is

based on the most unfavourable configuration of a given

type.

Quieter fleet initiatives - Noise based charging schemes

8

Schiphol “Conservative classification of noise categories” 01/04/2016 (for those

aircraft which do not have noise certification available)

Source: https://www.schiphol.nl/en/route-development/page/ams-airport-

charges-levies-slots-and-conditions/

Noise

category

Cumulative reduction in

EPNdB

Description

MCC3 0 ≥ change in EPNdB ≥ -5 Marginally compliant chapter 3

A -5 ≥ change in EPNdB > -9 Relatively noisy aircraft

B -9 ≥ change in EPNdB > -18 Average noise producing aircraft

C -18 ≥ change in EPNdB Relatively low noise aircraft

Noise categories at Amsterdam Schiphol airport

Source: https://www.schiphol.nl/en/route-development/page/ams-airport-charges-levies-

slots-and-conditions/Noise categories at Amsterdam Schiphol airport

Source: Setting_Charges___Conditions_1_April_17_.pdf

https://www.schiphol.nl/en/route-development/page/ams-airport-charges-levies-slots-and-conditions/

https://www.schiphol.nl/en/route-development/page/ams-airport-charges-levies-slots-and-conditions/



6 of the 26 airports researched had undertaken some form

of initiative to encourage A320 operators to modify the

aircraft to alleviate the ‘whine’ generated when the aircraft

is on approach to land (see the introduction page to this

section for further information).

In May 2016, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago

O’Hare airports submitted letters to United airlines via their

community round table groups. In December 2016, United

agreed to install vortex generators on its aircraft. 13 aircraft

were to be retrofit by early 2017 and subsequent aircraft at

a rate of 2 per month.

Heathrow airport publicly states that they encourage

airlines to retrofit their A320 fleets but no specifics were

identified.

Frankfurt and Gatwick modified the noise element of their

landing/take-off fees to encourage airlines to modify the

A320. For the noise element of its landing/take-off charges,

Frankfurt categorises aircraft into one of 15 charging bands

based upon certified noise levels. An A320 that has been

modified to remove the ‘whine’ falls into a different (less

expensive) band than its unmodified counterpart.

Gatwick created a separate charging category for

unmodified A320 family aircraft (see case study opposite).

Case study – Gatwick modified charging scheme

As part of an independent review of arrivals in 2016, it was

recommended that the airport introduce an A320

modification incentive scheme. Following a period of

consultation with airlines, it was decided that a higher noise

charge would be introduced for unmodified aircraft from 1st

January 2018 to give operators a chance to modify their

fleets. The table below shows that unmodified A320s will

be subject to the highest noise charges during both the day

and night.

The airport informed airlines of these changes and

continues to liaise them through requests of quarterly

updates of their A320 modification programmes.

Quieter fleet initiatives - The A320 modification program

9

Season Charge category Charging unit Day Night

Summer

(1 April - 31

October)

Unmodified A320 family per movement £784.40 £988.02

Chapter 3 & below per movement £78.44 £988.02

Chapter 4 per movement £39.22 £494.01

Chapter 14 High per movement £23.53 £296.41

Chapter 14 Base per movement £19.61 £247.00

Chapter 14 Minus per movement £15.69 £197.60

Winter

(1 November - 31

March)

Unmodified A320 family per movement £784.40 £988.02

Chapter 3 & below per movement £0.00 £988.02

Chapter 4 per movement £0.00 £494.01

Chapter 14 High per movement £0.00 £296.41

Chapter 14 Base per movement £0.00 £247.00

Chapter 14 Minus per movement £0.00 £197.60

Gatwick Unmodified A320 family noise charge – effective 1st January 2018, Source:

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_

public_publications/2017/2017-18-conditions-of-use---final---sent-30jan17.pdf

Research summary

Runway schemes


Introduction

In order to ensure safe take-off and landing, aircraft normally

land and take-off into the wind and air traffic control will

select the runway direction based upon current and forecast

weather conditions to facilitate this.

Runway schemes

At airports with multiple runways, preferred runway

directions for take-off and landing are often nominated for

noise abatement purposes, the objective being to utilize

whenever possible those runways that permit aircraft to

avoid noise-sensitive areas during the initial departure and

final approach phases of flight1.

Use of runway schemes

Of the 26 airports researched, most operate some form of

runway scheme for noise management purposes. The

exceptions were in the Middle East.

Day-time and night-time runway schemes

Both day and night-time runway schemes are common.

Night-time schemes are more widely used as this is both a

more noise sensitive period of the day, and airports are able

to operate their runways with increased flexibility at night

when traffic levels are lower.

Types of runway schemes

The type of schemes operated varied considerably,

reflecting the influence of several local factors –

geographical location, location relative to populations and

the number/orientation of runways. Each broadly aimed to

either provide some form of predictability of flight path use,

focussing overflight over sparsely populated/unpopulated

areas and/or sharing noise. For the reasons stated earlier,

schemes operated at night tended to apply more ingenious

solutions.

Conformance with runway schemes

Factors such as weather, traffic demand, safety, pilot

preferences and runway maintenance make it very difficult

to provide 100 percent conformance with any runway

scheme. For this reason a number of airports state that they

will apply their runway schemes voluntarily or ‘where

possible’.

Reporting on runway schemes

The majority of airports do not report on the level of

compliance with their runway schemes.

Runway schemes – Overview

11

1 ICAO PANS-OPS Volume 1 - Section 2.1 Noise Preferential Runways


Runway schemes - Best practice from around the world

12

• Almost all airports make use of runway schemes to

provide respite. However in some areas it’s used to

deliver capacity benefits (Frankfurt and Charles de

Gaulle).

• Schemes are either based upon fixed time (daily or

weekly) rotations (Brussels, Zurich and Heathrow)

or use a number of factors. Amsterdam uses

software to share noise by assessing the potential

noise impacts, traffic mix and metrological

conditions.

• Schemes are typically the same during the night

although some airports do not allow use of certain

runways during the night (Amsterdam, Madrid).

• Runway usage is reported by Heathrow, Gatwick

and Charles de Gaulle. However, Heathrow is the

only airport that reports departure runway

adherence.

• Changi and Hong Kong

attempt to push departures

away from residential areas by

using the runway closest to the

water for departures, with

arrivals on the closest runway.

• In Changi this only applies in

the early morning.

• Runways schemes used to divert traffic over low population

areas.

• Night time runway schemes typically operate between 2300 and

0600. Usually based on preferred operational direction

(Vancouver) or set list of runways (Calgary, Montreal, Toronto).

• Only Vancouver and Montreal report on runway usage in annual

or directors reports.

• Runways schemes are not typically used

during the day. Only Hartsfield Jackson

(Atlanta) states that the 4 northern runways

should be used between 0700 and 2200.

• O’Hare recently undertook a night-time

runway use rotation trial to vary runway use

on a 12 week rotation.

• Tendency to make use of ‘inner’ runways

during the night period.

• Voluntary night time runway schemes are

used between 2200 and 0700. The protocol

is designed to direct aircraft over water (Los

Angeles, San Francisco).

• Where runway schemes are used, runway

usage is reported in figures and maps in the

applicable time period.

• No information available

on runway schemes.

• Sydney has an aspirational Long Term Operational Plan

(LTOP) which aims to share traffic and drive traffic over

water where possible.

• In Auckland, opposite runway directions (landing and

take-offs nose to nose) are used to drive traffic over

water during the night.

• Sydney reports on runway usage through an online

community tool which is required to report performance

against the LTOP.



Of the 26 airports researched, most operate some form of

runway scheme for noise management purposes.

Day and night-time runway schemes

As shown in the chart above, night-time runway schemes

were more common than their day-time counterparts. This

reflected both the night-time being a more noise sensitive

period of the day, and airports being able to be more

flexible with the operation of their runways at night when

traffic levels are much lower. Two airports, Paris Charles

de Gaulle and Frankfurt, had protocols but these are not

specifically used for noise management.

Night-time runway schemes typically start around 2300 and

end around 0600 (see chart on page 16).

Types of runway schemes

The type of schemes operated varied considerably

reflecting the influence of several local factors and

examples are given below, these are supported by case

studies in the following pages. In many cases combinations

of the examples below were used at a given airport:

• Prioritised list of preferential runways: Many airports,

publish an order of priority for runway use. If conditions

such as weather are satisfied, the first preference runway

combination is used. If conditions are not satisfied, the

second preference is used and so on (see Amsterdam

Schiphol case study).

• Fixed timetable for runway usage: In this example,

airports had a timetable stating the preferred runways to be

used at certain hours of the day. These aimed at providing

those under the flights paths with a degree of predictability

of when they would be overflown (see Zurich case study).

(Continued on the next page)

Runway schemes – Overview & types of runway schemes

13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Day protocol Night protocol Publicly reported onprotocol

Num

be

r o

f a

irp

ort

s a

pp

lyin

g

the

pro

toco

l


• Directing traffic over the least populated areas: These

examples aimed at focussing the use of runways for arriving

and departing aircraft on the least populated areas. In

particular, airports with a coastal location try to fly as many

aircraft as possible of the sea (see Sydney Case study). At

night, when traffic levels were lower, a number of this airports

aimed to have both arriving and departing aircraft operating

over the sea i.e. landing and departing in opposite directions.

(see Auckland and Vancouver case studies).

• Rotating timetable for runway usage: Similar to the

example above, but with a timetable that rotated, typically on

a weekly basis. As well as providing those under the flights

paths with a degree of predictability of when they would be

overflown, it also aimed to ensure that overflight did not occur

at the same time every day (see Chicago O’Hare and

Heathrow case studies).

• Use of runways furthest from populated areas: During the

day-time, Los Angeles, with its four parallel runways, where

practicable, aims to operate arriving aircraft on the outer

runways (closest to populations) and departure operations,

which are noisier than arrivals, on the inner runways (furthest

from populations). At night, the aim is to maximise the use of

the inner runways for both arriving and departing aircraft.

Similarly, other airports focus night-time operations on the

runway furthest from populations (see Vancouver case study).

• Long-term noise sharing: This approach aims to achieve

some form of equitable sharing of noise over an extended

period of time – for example the amount of overflight certain

areas will receive over a given period of time. The main

example of this is Sydney airport which sets targets for the

proportion of aircraft arriving/departing from/to the north, east,

south and west of the airport (see Sydney case study).

Runway schemes – types and limitations

14


Conformance with runway schemes

Research identified that it is very difficult to provide 100

percent conformance with any runway scheme. The level of

conformance can vary quite considerably depending on the

scheme – for example 90 - 95% at Heathrow and 67% at

Chicago O’Hare. There are several factors for this, not all

of which are under the control of the airport. For this reason

a number of airports state that they will apply their runway

schemes voluntarily or ‘where possible’:

• Weather: This includes wind direction/speed and nearby

storms which preclude the use of a preferred runway.

• Traffic demand: Some preferred runway directions can

only be operated during low traffic demand.

• Pilot preferences: Pilots will sometimes request a certain

runway on safety grounds, for example the longest runway

at the airport.

• Emergencies: Use of a ‘non-preferred’ runway in the case

of emergencies.

• Runway inspections & maintenance: Use of another

runway while the preferred runway is being maintained or

inspected.

Reporting on runway operations

Of the 26 airports researched, 8 provided public reports on

usage of runways.

The method and frequency of reporting varied from

monthly, quarterly and annually written reports to daily

online reports as provided by Heathrow.

No clear trends were spotted in the frequency of reporting

periods, however all of the reports provided graphics

showing the percentage use of one particular runway

direction over the reporting period.

Runway schemes – Conformance and Reporting

15


Runway schemes – Night time protocol benchmarking

16


Runway schemes – Case studies

17

Case Study - between 2300 and 0600, when weather conditions

permit, Vancouver airport makes use of runways which direct both

arriving and departing aircraft over the Strait of Georgia. In addition,

the northern runway (08L/26R) is closed between 2200 and 0700

except in the event of an emergency or maintenance. During the day,

where weather conditions permit, departures are directed towards

the water.

The airport has published a short paper explaining how the protocol

works, the times at which it isn’t possible to use it, and notes the

specific operations which may not follow the protocol such as air

ambulances or police flights.

Reporting on compliance is made within the airport’s annual noise

report and covers 24 hour runway utilisation which is then subdivided

up into operations over the Strait of Georgia. In 2015 the airport

conducted 54% of take-offs over this body of water. There is no

separate reporting of night-time runway operations.

Case Study - Heathrow airport uses a day-time runway alternation

scheme between 0600 and the last departure of the day when

aircraft land from the east/depart to the west (for historical reasons,

the scheme does not apply when aircraft land from the west/depart

to the east). The scheme runs over a two week rotating cycle

throughout the year and aims to provide residents under the flight

paths with a predictable break from noise. During week 1, the

northern runway is used for arriving aircraft until 1500, the southern

runway is then used for arrivals until the end of the day. On week 2,

the pattern is changed, with the southern runway being used for

arriving aircraft until 1500. During 0600-0700 arrivals can use both

runways, and alternation can be broken for safety and emergency

reasons. The airport publishes a yearly schedule outlining the

preferred operational direction and publicly reports daily on the use

of the preferred runway.

The runway in use is also rotated at night on a weekly basis.

Heathrow’s runway

alternation program,

source -

http://www.heathrow.c

om/noise/heathrow-

operations/runway-

alternationDepartures overwater

Arrivals overwater

Vancouver runway operations 2200 to 0700

Closure of Northern runway

http://www.heathrow.com/noise/heathrow-operations/runway-alternation



18

Case Study - Amsterdam Schiphol operates both a day-time and

night-time preferential runway scheme. The schemes are based

upon a prioritised list of runway combinations, with the chosen

combination being based upon weather conditions. The daytime

preferences operate from 0600-2230, and the night-time preferences

from 2230-0600. The aim of the scheme is to focus aircraft noise into

least densely populated areas.

The airport makes use of an Environment-Aware Runway Allocation

Advice System developed by NLR, the Dutch National Aerospace

Laboratory. The system is connected to a metrological system and

therefore has up to information on current wind and visibility

conditions. Using a known database of preferential runway

directions, noise management procedures and situational inputs

such as runway availability and the status of navigational aids such

as the ILS, the system can provide recommendations on which

runway to use. The system can also provide forecasts, or what-if

analysis to inform future runway selections.

The system is connected to a wider environmental management

system which allows Schiphol to update the preferential runway

listing in response to runway utilisation. This process allows the

preferential runways to be re-prioritised to meet environmental

targets. The system records data on runway utilisation and this is

provided to communities to ensure transparency.

Runway preferences at Amsterdam Schiphol, Source:

https://www.lvnl.nl/en/environment/route-and-runway-use/runway-

preferences.html

A: Valid 0600 to 2300 hours local

Pref.Runway combinations

ARR 1 ARR 2 DEP 1 DEP2

Required

visibility - and

daylight

conditions

Good visibility

within UDP

1 06 36R 36L 36C

2 18R 18C 24 18L

3 06 36R 09 36L

4 27 18R 24 18L

Good visibility5a 36R 36C 36L 36C

5b 18R 18C 18L 18C

Marginal visibility6a 36R 36C 36L 09

6b 18R 18C 18L 24

B: Valid 2300 to 0600 hours local

Pref.Runway combinations

ARR 1 ARR 2 DEP 1 DEP2

Required

visibility - and

daylight

conditions

Good or marginal

visibility

1 06 - 36L -

2 18R - 24 -

3 36C - 36L -

4 18R - 18C -



19

Case Study - To investigate the potential benefits from a night

time runway rotation, Chicago O’Hare airport undertook a 25

week operational trial in 2016. The trial rotated the runways in

use at night on a weekly basis. The aim was to reduce noise

impacts at night and provide some predictability to this through a

25-week schedule published at the start of the trial (see extract

below). Each night the trial commenced at either 2200, or a

period thereafter when operations could be supported using a

single runway for arrivals, and a separate single runway for

departures. The trial ended at either 0700 or earlier when traffic

demand dictated.

Throughout the trial the airport tracked runway utilisation, noise

events and feedback using a survey. A public report was

generated at the end of the trial and showed 67% compliance

with the planned schedule. Reasons for non-compliance included

traffic demand at the start end of the night, runway inspections,

weather and pilot requests for specific runways. The airport has

since extend the trial into a second period.Case Study - Zurich airport has adopted a runway scheme

similar to Brussels which shifts traffic based upon time periods,

weekends and holidays as follows:

Case Study - between 2300 and 0600 and in low traffic periods,

Auckland airport makes use of a single opposing runway for

arrivals and departures to limit all noise exposure over water.

This effectively means that arrivals and departures face each

other on the same runway. As the procedure is only enacted in

very low traffic scenarios, such as late night/early morning both

arrivals and departures are never in conflict.

Runway Weekdays Weekends and German holidays

34 0500 to 0600 0500 to 0800

14 and 16 0600 to 20000800 to 1900 (Arrivals not allowed on

German Holidays)

28 2000 to 0500 1900 to 0500 An extract from the Chicago O’Hare runway rotation test schedule, source -

http://www.airportprojects.net/flyquiettest/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/25-

Week-Schedule-1-page.pdfZurich airport runway scheme, source - SkyGuide Zurich AIP

Departures overwater

Arrivals overwater

Auckland runway operations 2300 to 0600

http://www.airportprojects.net/flyquiettest/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/25-Week-Schedule-1-page.pdf



20

Case Study - Sydney airport’s Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) was

introduced in response to community pressure to share noise around

the airport. The plan aims to share traffic around the airport according

to the following targets:

• 17% of movements to the North of the Airport

• 13% of movements to the East of the Airport

• 15% of movements to the West of the Airport

• 55% of movements to the South of the Airport

The LTOP defines ten different ways, or modes, of using the airports

three runways. The principal of LTOP is that when making selections of

the runway each day the Australian air traffic control body, Airservices

Australia, must ensure that, subject to safety and weather conditions:

• as many flights as practical come and go using flight paths over water or

non-residential areas where aircraft noise has the least impact on

people

• the rest of the air traffic is spread or shared over surrounding

communities as fairly as possible

• runway modes change throughout the day so individual areas have

some break (or respite) from aircraft noise on most days.

Some of the modes of operation are referred to a ‘noise sharing modes’

(mode 5, 7 and 14a). These procedures should be used whenever

possible on weekdays between 6am to 7am, 11am to 3pm and 8pm to

curfew.

Longer noise sharing hours apply at weekends. Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) modes of operation-

http://sacf.infrastructure.gov.au/LTOP/files/LTOP_general

_information_fact_sheet_2015.pdf



21

Case Study (con’t) - Sydney airport, via Air Services Australia, reports

on runway usage against the LTOP targets on its public engagement

website. This information includes an interactive map which shows

runway utilisation including the number of arrivals, departures and

hours when the runway was not used and can be broken down by

aircraft type. On a separate tab, the runway utilisation figures are

reported against the LTOP targets.

The website is easy to navigate and provides a good level of

information for most readers however if more detailed information is

required, the website provides links to detailed monthly reports. The

reports, which are also produced by Air Services Australia, include a

breakdown of runway operations per runway and per day on an hourly

basis, the LTOP runway modes in use and the level of respite provided

over the corresponding flight paths.

(Above) online runway

utilisation, (right) extract from

detailed monthly LTOP report

showing respite provided,

source -

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com

/sydney/

Monthly runway utilisation reported against LTOP targets for 2016 for movements to (i) the

north of the airport (left) and (ii) south of the airport (right), source -

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/



Research summary

Night flight restrictions


Introduction

Many airports define a night period where a different and

more stringent set of operating rules are applied compared

to the day-time. Examples of night time practices include

operating restrictions, night quotas, noise surcharges and

rules for managing airline operations in the night period,

including penalties if operations are off schedule.

Duration of the night period

Thirteen airports had defined night period of 6-9 hours in

duration, typically starting at 2200 or 2300 and ending at

0600 or 0700. Some airports applied the same restrictions

throughout the night, while others applied different levels of

stringency – typically at the start/end of the night period or

during the hours before/after the night period. These were

often less stringent than those applied during the night

period.

Typical practices

Operating restrictions: Restrictions applied include

movement limits, curfews/night-flight bans, restrictions on

the operation of certain (noisier) aircraft and runway used.

Night quotas: A small number of airports operate night

quotas. These schemes aim to manage the overall amount

of noise generated at night by having an overall noise

‘quota limit’ as well as a movement limit.

Each aircraft is allocated a number of points depending on

the amount of noise they produce (the louder the aircraft,

the more points allocated). The airport must operate within

a defined limit of night quota points as well as movement

limits.

Night noise surcharge: Airports that included a noise

element in their landing/take-off charges had a separate

day and night-time charge. This is typically a percentage

increase on top of the day-time charge.

Management of late running aircraft: Some airports have

rules applied to manage late running aircraft or have

protocols in place to allow dispensations for aircraft not

scheduled to operate in the night period that are running

late. In the case of the latter these often refer to exceptional

circumstances and require authority, or delegated authority,

from a government department. Some airports also have a

contingency set aside for off-schedule activity.

Penalties applied for non-conformance: Some airports

applied fines for non-conformance with night flight

restrictions.

Regional trends

More than half of the airports researched had defined a

night period although it was more common in Europe.

Airports without a defined night period were primarily those

in the Middle East and United States.

Night flight restrictions – Overview

23


Night flight restrictions - Best practice from around the world

• Night period starts at 2200 or 2300 and ends between 0400

and 0700. Some airports define night shoulder periods (Zurich)

or night quota periods (Heathrow, Gatwick, Brussels, Madrid).

• Night restrictions have noise at their core and are based on a

number of criteria: noise certification (MCC3 banned at

Amsterdam), quota system (Brussels, Gatwick, Heathrow,

Madrid), night curfew (Zurich), movement limits (Amsterdam,

Gatwick, Heathrow).

• Restrictions on scheduling and the operation of noisier aircraft

during the night period, or periods before or after the night

period (shoulder periods).

• Amsterdam, Charles de Gaulle, Madrid, Heathrow and Gatwick

either apply higher charges in the night period or make use of a

night noise surcharge.

• Changi restricts operations

on one runway between

0000 and 0600.

• Has a scheme to shift

noise away from residents.

• Night time restrictions vary across Canadian airports

starting between 2200 and 0001 and ending between 0600

and 0814. Variations in type of aircraft restricted.

• Pearson is the only airport with a night flight budget

(approximately 15,000 aircraft allowed per year). Number

of night flights allowed to grow with traffic.

• Montreal prohibits aircraft over 45 tons at night.

• Violations of night restrictions incurs fines of up to

CAD5000 for individuals and CAD25000 for corporations.

• Only John-Wayne has a night period. It

applies a night curfew from 2200 to 0700 on

weekdays and 2200 to 0800.

• John-Wayne has a sliding scale for

violations of the night time restrictions

($2,500 to $10,000).

• Other airports do not have penalties as no

night restrictions are in place. Penalties are

applied for violations with NAPs.

• No information on

night restrictions.

24

• Sydney has a night curfew which restricts operations

between 2300 and 0600. Auckland will soon introduce a

similar scheme as part of its 2nd runway. The curfew

times are adjusted at weekends.

• Curfew applies to aircraft based on several criteria

including weight, type, dispensations, missed

approaches.

• Sydney curfew is under Australian law and violations

incur a fine of up to AUD 650,000.


Duration of the night period

Of the 26 airports investigated, 13 had a defined night

period where a different and more stringent set of operating

rules where applied compared to the day-time. Night

periods were 6-9 hours in duration, typically starting at

2200 or 2300 and ending at 0600 or 0700.

Airports without a defined night period were primarily those

in the Middle East and United States.

Restrictions in the hours adjacent to the night period

Four airports also applied additional restrictions in the 1-2

hours adjacent to the night period. Often the

rules/restrictions applied in these hours were less stringent than those applied during the night period, but more

stringent than those in the day. Examples in these hours

included – gradual increasing of night-time charges and

restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types. Some airports

take a similar approach, but at the start/end of the night

period (see below).

Variation in rules/restrictions during the night-period

While many airports apply the same rules/ restrictions

throughout the night period, others apply different levels of

stringency throughout the night. Examples include having

less stringent restrictions at the start/end of the night

period, allowing a small number of aircraft per night to be

scheduled/operated at certain times and having periods

where no aircraft may operate.

Night flight restrictions – Duration of the night period

25


Introduction

Examples of the types of night-time operating restrictions

identified by the research are summarised below.

Movement limits

Four of the airports researched applied night-time

movement limits. These limits are either applied annually or

based upon scheduling seasons. Examples of movement

limits compared to Toronto are shown in the figure below.

Movement limits are set by legislation. For example,

Gatwick and Heathrow apply movement limits as part of

their quota count systems which are set by the Department

for Transport.

Amsterdam Schiphol airport is currently limited to 34,620

movements per year but this could be reduced this year to

32,000 due to delayed implementation of continuous

descent approach (CDA) operations.

Curfews/night flight bans

Frankfurt, John Wayne, Sydney and Zurich, airports have

bans/curfews on night flights.

• At Sydney there are restrictions on the number and type of

movements that can take place during the curfew (see

case study on page 33)

• At Frankfurt, the curfew runs from 2300-0500, with a limit

of 133 movements each night from 2100 to 2259.

• At Zurich a night-time curfew is in place between 2330-

0600, with the time between 2300-2330 used to reduce the

backlog of delayed flights. Landings/take-offs between

2330-0600 are only allowed in exceptional circumstance

and incur high charges (see Zurich case study later in this

document).

Night flight restrictions – Operating restrictions

26Figure: Movement limits during the night period

Source: Government legislation


Night-time restrictions on certain aircraft types

Airports apply restrictions on certain aircraft types, typically

based upon their Chapter number of certified noise levels.

• Chapter 2 bans: 18 of the 26 airports researched

implemented a total ban on ICAO Chapter 2 aircraft during

the night. Note that today, a limited number of those

aircraft are in use.

For aircraft quieter than Chapter 2, a range of different

approaches are used:

• Marginally compliant chapter 3 bans: Amsterdam

Schiphol, Brussels and Paris Charles de Gaulle airports

implemented a ban on aircraft whose Effective Perceived

Noise Level (EPNdB) was close to the limit of Chapter 3

standards.

• Shoulder hour restrictions: Frankfurt airport ban airlines

from scheduling marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft

between 1900-0700 (night period is 2300-0500). Only

Chapter 4 aircraft (which are quieter) are allowed to take

off between 2100-2200.

• Other examples: Airports with night quota systems (see

later pages in this section), restrict the

scheduling/operation of the noisiest aircraft types at night.

Several airports define criteria to restrict certain operations

at night. Montreal airport bans Chapter 3 aircraft that are

over 45 tonnes. Calgary airport is one example of an

airport that restricts Chapter 3 aircraft to certain runways at

night.

Runway restrictions

Some airports also place restrictions on which runways can

be used at night – see the ‘runway schemes’ section in this

document.

Night flight restrictions – Operating restrictions

27


Night flight restrictions – Night curfew case study (Sydney)

28

Runways

There are also restrictions on the runways that can be used:

• 2300-0600: Only runway 34L is allowed to be used for

landings during the daily and additional weekend hours

(unless assigned an alternative by ATC).

• 2245-2300: Only 16L or 16R can be used for take off.

• 0600-0700 and 2200-2245 (weekends only): Only 16L or

16R can be used.

Exemptions

Exemptions are granted in exceptional circumstances such as

emergencies or search and rescue operations

Penalties

If the curfew is breached, offenders can face criminal

prosecution and fines of up to AUD$550,000.

Other

There are also restrictions and conditions on the use of reverse

thrust and missed approaches.

Case study – Sydney airport night curfew

The Australian Government enacted the “Sydney Curfew Act

of 1995” to restrict aircraft movements during the night.

Specifically, the curfew includes the following:

Time

Movements are restricted daily between 2300-0600. There

are also additional restrictions daily during the shoulder

period between 2245-2300 and on weekends between 0600-

0700 and 2200-2300 on the runways that can be used.

Aircraft movements

During the curfew period take-offs and landings at the Airport

are restricted to specific types of aircraft and operations:

• Small (less than 34,000kg) noise certificated propeller

driven aircraft and ‘low noise’ jets (mostly business and

‘small’ freight jets—these are specified on a list which has

been Gazetted by the Minister) are allowed to operate

without a quota on the number of their movements

• 74 small freight (BAe146 size) aircraft are allowed to

operate per week.

• Between 0500 and 0600, 24 intercontinental arrival flights

are allowed to operate per week.

During the curfew aircraft must operate over Botany Bay, that

is take-offs to the south and landings to the north.


Night quotas

Brussels, Heathrow, Gatwick and Madrid all operate night

quota schemes. These schemes aim to manage the overall

amount of noise generated at night by having a noise

‘quota limit’.

Typically a number of quota points will be assigned to each

aircraft depending on the amount of noise they produce. In

the examples identified, this uses the certified noise levels

of an individual aircraft. The louder the aircraft, the more

points allocated (see example for Madrid below). For a

given duration of time (year or scheduling season) the

airport must operate within a defined number of night quota

points. Typically the night-quota period will also have a

movement limit.

Both the Belgium and UK quota systems also limit the

scheduling/operation of the noisiest aircraft types at certain

times of the night quota period (see example for Heathrow

opposite). For example, at Brussels take-off or landing of

aircraft with QC>12 is forbidden 0500-0559.

A case study of the UK night quota system is presented on

the next page.

Night flight restrictions – Night quotas

29

Night-time restrictions at Heathrow (source: Heathrow night flights fact sheet)

Madrid airport quota points allocation

Source: http://www.enaire.es/csee/Satellite/navegacion-

aerea/en/Page/1078418725163/?other=1083158950596&other2=1083857758835

http://www.enaire.es/csee/Satellite/navegacion-aerea/en/Page/1078418725163/?other=1083158950596&other2=1083857758835


Case study – UK night quota system

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports use a quota system

during the night quota period (2330 - 0600). This was first

established by the Department for Transport in 1993. The system

is based upon aircraft movements and noise (note that a

movement is defined as either a single departure or a single

arrival). Each aircraft is placed in a Quota Count (QC) band

according to their certified noise output. The band can be different

for a given aircraft, depending on whether it is departing or

arriving.

Each band is associated to a fixed number of Quota Count points.

The quietest band has 0 points and the loudest has 16 points

(note that aircraft with Quota Count 8 or 16 are banned from

operating in the night). In effect, the quieter the aircraft

movement, the lower the number of points awarded.

Each airport is granted a total quota limit for each season

which is applied in conjunction with a limit on movements.

This is shown in the table below.

Airports Coordination Limited (ACL) is the independent

organisation that allocates quota to airlines who wish to

operate in the night quota period. Some quota count is

retained by the airports as a contingency, for example in the

case of aircraft were scheduled to operate outside of the night

quota period, but for various reasons (e.g. mechanical failure,

weather, ATC delay) operate inside it.

In exceptional circumstance (e.g. prolonged disruption)

aircraft are granted dispensations to operate in the night

quota period with oversight provided by the Department for

Transport (i.e. their operation does not count against the

quota). The quota system is reviewed and consulted upon

every few years.

Night flight restrictions – Quota system

30

Quota count points per noise classification. Source:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwick-

and-stansted.pdf

Quota count and movement limits for London airports. Source:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d

ata/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwick-and-

stansted.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwick-and-stansted.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwick-and-stansted.pdf


Night-time noise charges

All 8 European airports that included a noise element in

their landing/take-off charges (see the quieter fleet section

for further information) had a separate day and night-time

charge.

The night-time charge is typically percentage on top of the

day-time charge. In the case of Amsterdam Schiphol and

Heathrow, charges are increased by a factor of 2-2.5 at

night. But in some cases the night-time charge can be 10

times higher.

Zurich airport applies a different approach – see case study

below.

Case study – night-time charges at Zurich airport

Zurich airport have a ban/curfew on flights between 2330-

0600 although in exceptional circumstances some flights are

allowed.

A noise surcharge is levied between 2100 and 0700 local to

cover both the night hours and shoulder periods. Charges

increase from 2100 until 0600 and then reduce for operations

between 0600-0700. After 0700 the night noise surcharge no

longer applies.

Charges also increase if the aircraft is in a higher noise class.

The discrepancy between the charge applied to aircraft is

significant. For example, an aircraft operating at 0030 in the

noisiest class (class 1) will be charged CHF18,000 whereas

an aircraft operating at 2130 in the quietest class (class 5) will

be charged CHF40. The charges (in CHF) are as follows):

Night flight restrictions – Night-time noise charges

31

Charg

es i

ncre

ase f

rom

2100 u

ntil

0600

Charges increase if

the aircraft is noisier

Night noise surcharges at Zurich airport

Source: https://www.zurich-airport.com/business-and-partners/flight-

operations/charges

https://www.zurich-airport.com/business-and-partners/flight-operations/charges


Management of aircraft running late or arriving early in

the night period

Some airports have protocols in place to allow

dispensations for aircraft not scheduled to operate in the

night period that are running late or early. These often refer

to exceptional circumstances and require authority, or

delegated authority, from a government department.

Examples include:

• The Transport Minister is able to given dispensations

(permission) to aircraft operating late or early into Sydney

airport’s curfew period

• At Brussels airport, aircraft operating late or early into the

night period must be given an exemption by the national

CAA.

• Heathrow and Gatwick airport can given dispensations to

aircraft running late/early. This power is delegated to them

by the Department for Transport. In addition, the quota

schemes has a ‘pool’ set aside for off-schedule activity.

Additionally, airports also apply some latitude for late

running aircraft. Taking Frankfurt as an example:

• Chapter 3 aircraft (which are banned between 1900-0700)

are allowed to operate until 2100 or from 0500 if they are

running late or early as long as the delay was not foreseen.

• Chapter 4 aircraft scheduled to land between 2100-2200

are permitted to land until 2300.

Penalties for non-conformance/late running –


A number of airports were also found to apply penalties for

non-conformance with night time restrictions. Examples

identified were:

• At Toronto Pearson the penalty for non-conformance with

restrictions is 16 times landing fee. Further enforcement

action may be taken by Transport Canada.

• Across the rest of Canada, fines are applied by Transport

Canada for violations. This is up to CAD$5,000 for

individuals and CAD$25,000 for corporations.

• John Wayne Airport applies fines on a sliding scale. For

the first 5 violations with night time restrictions the penalty

is $2,500 per issue (i.e. if two rules were broken then the

aircraft operator would be fined $5,000). The next 5

violations attract fines of $3,500-$5,000 per issue. For the

next 10 it is $5,000-$10,000 per issue.

• Violations of the curfew at Sydney airport can incur fines of

up to AUS$850,000. This is administered by the

Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

Night flight restrictions – Other practices

32

Research summary

Noise abatement procedures


Introduction

The noise generated by aircraft arriving and departing an

airport can be influenced by the procedures used by the

flight crew and air traffic control. A range practices and

operational procedures can be employed to manage the

noise generated by aircraft in these phases of flight.

Common practices

Many of the arrival and departure practices and operational

procedures are in common use at the airports researched.

These includes:

Arriving aircraft:

• Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA), where the aircraft

approaches the runway using a ‘consistent’ descent angle.

• Altitude restrictions during the approach to an airport;

• Advisory restrictions on the use of reverse thrust in night

and off peak periods.

Departing aircraft:

• Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2.

These are internationally recognised procedures intended

to provide noise reduction to those areas close to the

airport (NADP1) or to those areas further away (NADP2)

• Altitude restrictions limiting early turns;

• The application of noise limits for departures.


In addition to the common practices, a number of initiatives

have been developed to either solve a local issue or as a

creative and innovative solution to noise management. The

initiatives in this area include

Arriving aircraft:

• The combination of CDA and Low Power Low Drag (LPLD)

operations;

• The joint development and introduction of an arrivals code

of practice by airports, airlines and air traffic control;

• Swing-over arrivals when the aircraft approaches a pair of

parallel runways. The approach is made to one runway

with a visual manoeuver to land on the neighbouring

runway.

• Steeper approaches such as a 3.2 degree glideslope.

Departing aircraft:

• The joint development and introduction of a departures

code of practice.

• Continuous Climb Operations (CCO).

Trials

In addition this section has also researched practices in the

management and communication of trials.

Noise abatement procedures - Overview

34

1a continuous descent may not necessarily involve a continuous descent, level segments are permitted within the researched definitions. Level segments are often used to aid aircraft to slow

down at the start of the descent without the use of the flaps / speed brake.


Noise abatement procedures - Best practice from around the world

35

• UK airports arrivals and departures code’s of practice.

• CDAs are commonly used at all airports, however

definition varies along with the applicable time periods.

• LPLD used at both London, Madrid and Zurich airports.

• NADP 1 or 2 used at almost all airports.

• P-RNAV and PBN used at the majority of airports

however this is mostly a straight replacement for the

legacy SID.

• Early turns are not typically used, however ‘noise

preferential routes’ are applied.

• Airports used mini-websites to report on trials activities,

which provide updates on progress along with trial

reports.

• Steeper approaches (3.2⁰) have been trialed at Heathrow

and Frankfurt with limited improvements in noise seen.

• Frankfurt uses ‘swing over’ visual approaches to shift to

a parallel runway up to 4 NM from touchdown to avoid

directly overflying specific areas.

• CDA used based upon

vectored approach/RNAV

implementation.

• NADP 1 or 2 used on

departure at Hong Kong.

• Early turns are not used to

maintain straight out

departure over the water

at Hong Kong.

• CDAs used by NAV CANADA where possible, although its more commonly used on RNAV STARs.

• Vancouver request pilots to use LPLD approaches.

• NADP 1 or 2 used and altitude restrictions in place to limit turns post departure, applied in some

areas to limit noise impact / maintain operations over industrial areas.

• Websites used to communicate information on trials such as P-RNAV/PBN implementation.

• Early turns are used to allow prop aircraft to exit the departure flow.

• CDA not commonly used however are

seen as a future step as part of NextGen

and have been trialled at San Francisco.

• Implementation of departure procedures

linked to P-RNAV implementation including

FAA AC 91-53A NADP procedure.

• Some early turns used at San Francisco

and Chicago O’Hare to keep noise over

industrial areas.

• Airports operate trials websites (NextGen

program) which include detailed

information, consultation, environmental

reviews and workshop materials.

• NADP 1 or 2 used at

Istanbul Ataturk.

• CDA implemented using P-RNAV STARs.

• ILS joining point at 14nm and 4,000ft to keep

aircraft higher on approach.

• ICAO NADP 1 or 2 used on departures.

• Early turns are not allowed and 3,000ft limit

applied before turns can be commenced.

• Websites used for trials covering PBN

implementation, includes status updates,

consultations and output documents.


Arrivals procedures - overview

Twenty-two of the 26 airports researched prescribed at

least one procedure or practice to manage noise from

arriving aircraft. Often more than one initiative was used

with the most common being the use of Continuous

Descent Approaches (CDA) and the application of altitude

limitations during the approach phase of flight.

Continuous Descent Approaches

Conventional approaches to an airport involve phases of

level flight, as shown in the diagram on the upper right. A

Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) aims to reduce the

amount of time an aircraft remains in level flight during the

approach phase. Doing so offers the opportunity to reduce

noise, emissions and fuel burn along the approach path

(see case study for Amsterdam on following sides).

Work by the UK CAA shows CDAs to provide noise

reductions of up to 2.5 to 5 dB, varying over distances from

touchdown of 10 to 25nm1. The noise reduction is achieved

by keeping the aircraft higher for longer and allowing the

aircraft to maintain a managed gliding approach using low

to idle thrust setting.

Although sounding simple in theory, in practice it is difficult

to currently enable CDAs to be flown without any level flight

in the busy traffic environment experienced at international

airports. For this reason airports tend to either operate less

stringent definitions of CDAs which allow some periods of

level flight (UK case study on the next page), thereby

achieving some of the noise benefits of CDA throughout

the day. At other airports, CDAs are only used at night or

other periods of low traffic density.

Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals

36

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CDA CDA/LPLD Reverse thrust Altitude limits

Num

be

r o

f a

irp

ort

s

ap

ply

ing

pra

ctice

s

The procedures which airports apply to manage arrival noise

Typical stepped approach

vs a typical CDA

1 CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.


Nine of the airports researched made reference to CDA

procedures, although only 4 actively used CDA at all

operational times. The remaining airports had implemented

CDA as part of an RNAV or PBN arrival routing which was

not in use at all times.

Although the majority of airports make use of new

navigational technology, it is possible to undertake a CDA

using radar vectoring (the provision of direction, speed and

altitude commands by air traffic control to pilots).

Continuous Descent Approaches and Low Power Low

Drag

When an aircraft extends its flaps and undercarriage on

approach this disturbs the airflow around the aircraft and

creates noise.

Low Power Low Drag procedures are intended to safely

delay the extension of flaps and undercarriage. In the

United Kingdom LPLD is defined as “a noise abatement

technique for arriving aircraft in which the pilot delays the

extension of wing flaps and undercarriage until the final

stages of the approach, subject to compliance with ATC

speed control requirements and the safe operation of the

aircraft.”


37

Case Study - CDA definitions vary around the world as follows:

EUROCONTROL define CDA as follows: ‘Continuous Descent

Approach is an aircraft operating technique in which an arriving

aircraft descends from an optimal position with minimum thrust and

avoids level flight to the extent permitted by the safe operation of

the aircraft and compliance with published procedures and ATC

instructions’.

The UK use the following wording in the AIP: ‘A descent will be

deemed to have been continuous provided that no segment of

level flight longer than 2.5 nautical miles (nm) occurs below 60001

ft QNH (FL070) and ‘level flight’ is interpreted as any segment of

flight having a height change of not more than 50 ft over a track

distance of 2 nm or more, as recorded in the airport noise and

track-keeping system.

1 Not all airports in the UK start CDA at this altitude as it can vary due to airspace, for example Gatwick commences CDA at 7,000ft and Luton from 5,000ft.

Frankfurt use the following wording in the AIP: ‘pilots should expect

a clearance to descend below FL 70 only 6 NM prior to reaching

the above-mentioned points. Pilots should adjust their speed

accordingly (approx. 200 – 220 kt when leaving FL 70) and are

urgently requested to perform their descent from FL 70 as a

continuous descent whenever possible’.

Schiphol use the following wording in the AIP: ‘Executing a CDA

implies that after NIRSI, NARIX or SOKSI a continuously

descending flight path without level segments is to be flown in a

low power and low drag configuration. A flight path is considered

continuously descending when there is no level segment. A

segment is considered level if the altitude loss is less than 50 ft

over a distance of 2.5 NM’.


Work by the UK CAA shows LPLD can deliver reduction of

between 3 to 5dB1.

Low Power Low Drag (LPLD) can be combined with a CDA

to ensure the aircraft maintains a low noise configuration,

with a reduced flap setting and the delayed deployment of

the landing gear for as long as possible. 8 airports, mainly

in Europe, prescribe the use of LPLD procedures in the AIP

alongside CDA. Although the exact wording used is

typically non-descript.


38

1 CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.

Case Study - LPLD definitions vary around the world as

follows:

Heathrow and Gatwick use the following LPLD wording in the

AIP: ‘Where the aircraft is approaching the aerodrome to land it

shall, commensurate with its ATC clearance, minimise noise

disturbance by the use of continuous descent and low power,

low drag operating procedures’.

Schiphol use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: ‘Executing

a CDA implies that after NIRSI, NARIX or SOKSI a

continuously descending flight path without level segments is

to be flown in a low power and low drag configuration’.

Vancouver use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: ‘Use low

power/drag profiles consistent with safe operating procedures,

conforming to published visual approaches and as directed by

ATC’.

Hong Kong use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: ‘During

a CDA pilots should maintain a low thrust setting and should

not have recourse to level flight.’

Case Study - Amsterdam Schiphol uses P-RNAV routing to

accurately direct aircraft on approach to the ILS in the night

period between 2300 to 0600 making use of both CDA and

LPLD.

The procedure has been specifically designed for night time

operations and commences around 30 nautical miles from the

airport. Aircraft are directed onto the P-RNAV routing, which

has been carefully designed to maintain a vertical path direct to

the ILS. An LPLD configuration with minimal thrust setting is

maintained throughout, providing an optimum low noise

approach. Whilst the lateral path was designed to minimise

overflight of noise sensitive areas.

The introduction of the procedure has reduced the ‘noise

footprint’ of a Boeing 747-400 aircraft by 20km as shown in the

figure on the next page. (Continued)


Altitude Limits

Thirteen airports applied specific altitude limits within their

noise abatement procedures, these restrictions focus on:

• Restricting the altitude at which aircraft can join the

glideslope/Instrument Landing System (ILS);

• Specifying altitude limits over noise sensitive areas such

as urbanised areas.

In all situations, the restrictions aimed to increase the

altitude of aircraft and keep them higher for longer thus

reducing the impact of noise.


39

According to the Netherlands slot coordinator (SACN), the

implementation of CDAs is delayed and Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol is facing temporary environmental restrictions in order to

compensate this. Due to these temporary restrictions, a further

reduction of night movements to 29,000 per year (from 34,620) is

expected within a maximum of three years’ time.

Reports via the Environmental Council Schiphol note that the

difficulty in implementing CDA is due to the nature of the RNAV

CDA arrival routing, limiting capacity to a level where it is not

sustainable given the current airport and network traffic levels.

Source: NLR Research Paper,

environmental benefits of CDA at

Schiphol Airport NLR-TP-2000-275

Noise footprint comparison between

CDA and typical approach for a B744

Distance from airport (km)

Altitude

Case Study - Auckland airport applies altitude restrictions in its

AIP. The entry notes that ‘Except when operating in accordance

with an instrument approach procedure… aircraft must not be

flown over the high density population areas of greater Auckland

city at an altitude of less than 5000 ft. The boundaries of these

high density population areas are defined in the Auckland Noise

Abatement Chart’. The Auckland noise abatement chart provides

a map of the area around the airport and clearly marks areas of

high population density for which this restriction applies.

Case Study - Los Angeles airport applies restrictions on

helicopter flights over the city requiring operators to avoid flying

below 2,000ft during the day and not flying over the city between

2200 and 0700 local.

Case Study - Heathrow airport applies restrictions on the ILS

joining point and does not permit aircraft to join the ILS below

2500ft in the day (0600 to 2330 local) and 3000ft or 10nm in the

night.


Reverse thrust

Nine of the airports researched have voluntary restrictions

on use of reverse thrust on landing where pilots were

asked to minimise the use of reverse thrust unless it was

required to maintain safety. The majority of airports applied

these restrictions in the overnight period only.

Additional noise based restrictions

The research also highlighted a number of specific

practices applied at individual airports. These included:

• Voluntary industry code of practice: In the UK, the

Department for Transport, Civil Aviation Authority, airports,

airlines, the air navigation service provider developed an

industry code of practice for noise from arriving aircraft.

The document defines options to reduce approach noise

including the implementation of CDA and LPLD procedures

and provides guidance to air traffic control, flight crews and

airports on how to deliver improvements.

The document also reports on improvements made since

the work commenced including the benefits made to air

traffic controller training and the improvements seen in

CDA compliance. The document was widely circulated

within the industry and is publicly available on the

Sustainable Aviation website1.

• Swing over arrivals: This is a visual procedure

implemented at Frankfurt airport to reduce the impact of

noise on populations living under the approach path to one

of the airports runways (runway 25C). The procedure is

outlined in the figure below. It requires the crew to initially

fly an approach to runway 25C using the approach path for

runway 25L. At any point on the approach, but not less

than 1,000ft AGL (above ground level) and 4 nautical miles

from touchdown, the pilot will visually manoeuver the

aircraft onto the approach path for runway 25C.


40

Case Study - Madrid Barajas restricts the use of reverse thrust

in the night period with the following wording contained within its

AIP, The use of reverse thrust above from idle regime is

prohibited at night time (2300-0700 LT) except if necessary for

safety reasons, in this case, it must be notified to TWR and the

Departamento de Medio Ambiente of the airport.

25 L

25 C

Approach path if continued

Town under approach path

Swing-over procedure

Typical approach path

The swing-over approach procedure in use at Frankfurt

1 http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Noise-from-Arriving-Aircraft-%E2%80%93-An-Industry-Code-of-Practice1.pdf

http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Noise-from-Arriving-Aircraft-%E2%80%93-An-Industry-Code-of-Practice1.pdf


Steeper Approaches

Steeper approaches have recently been trialled at both

Frankfurt and Heathrow. A steeper approaches involves

flying along the instrument landing system at a slightly

steeper angle, of 3.2 degrees in comparison to the typical 3

degrees. The increase in approach angle increases the

height of arriving aircraft and therefore reduces the noise

for aircraft closest to the airport.

Departure procedures - overview

Twenty three of the 26 airports researched applied

procedures to manage the noise from departing aircraft.

Often more than one initiative was used with the most

common being the use of Noise Abatement Departure

Procedures (NADP), or the use of a similar procedure.

Noise Abatement Departure Procedures, or similar

Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) involve

operating an aircraft in a way as to reduce noise close to

the airport or at a distance away and focus on the point at

which engine thrust is reduced on departure (see diagram

on next page).

NADP is an ICAO defined procedure and are listed within

an appendix to Chapter 3, departure procedures, of ICAO

Doc 8168 PANS-OPS Part 1. (continued)

Case Study - Heathrow airport conducted a trial on a slightly

steeper approach angle of 3.2 degrees. To maintain normal

operations when the steeper approach was not in use, the 3.2

degree glide path was implemented with RNAV. The trial ran for 6

months and no adverse impacts identified in terms of go-arounds

and complaints. The trial did identify a small improvement in noise,

however this was small with an average reduction of 0.5dBA and a

maximum reduction of 1.4dBA SEL. The A380 was the only

aircraft to achieve the full 3.2 degree slope and thus provided the

greatest noise reduction.

Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals and Departures

41

0

5

10

15

NADP or similar Turn restrictions Altitude limits

Num

be

r o

f a

irp

ort

s

ap

ply

ing

pra

ctice

s

The procedures which airports apply to manage departure noise

Heathrow airport

steeper approach

angles

Source -

http://www.heathro

w.com/noise/latest

-news/steeper-

approach-trial-

report/

http://www.ocair.com/aboutjwa/accessandnoise/


Fourteen of the researched airports either prescribed the

use of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 and 2

(NADP1/NADP2) or made use of an equivalent procedures

which was either described or referenced to another

document such as the FAA Advisor Circular AC91-53A.

The procedures reduce departure noise by either:

• NADP1: Reducing noise impact close to the airport by

requiring aircraft to climb quickly by using; or

• NADP2: Reduce the noise impact at an increased distance

from the airport when the airport climbs quickly initially

before transitioning into a low drag configuration with a

reduced power setting.

Of the airports which prescribed NADP, only Amsterdam

Schiphol recommended the use of a single procedure (NADP

2) but permitted the use of NADP 1 if it was not possible to

comply with NADP 2. All other airports were non-prescriptive

and simply required the use of NADP 1 or 2.

Departure routes – altitude restrictions

A total of 7 airports applied altitude restrictions on the

minimum altitude before air traffic control were allowed to

vector aircraft off the departure route. The minimum altitude

varied between airports but typically remained between

2,000 and 6,500ft. This aimed to limit the noise exposure of

departing aircraft to a specific area.

Noise abatement procedures - Departures

42

Case Study - A study carried out by NLR, the Dutch Aeronautical

Research Institute, at Schiphol investigated the implementation of

NADP 2 in comparison to NADP 1. The study conducted a robust

test using a scientific sampling group to determine the fuel saving,

noise exposure and community annoyance levels following the

implementation of NADP 2. Testing took place using Boeing 737-

800 and 767-300 and showed a:

• reduction in fuel burn of between 20 to 60kg,

• a reduction in SEL dB(A) if up to 2.2dB.

The study noted that this could provide “a reduction in the number

of highly annoyed or sleep deprived people in the vicinity of

Schiphol”.

Distance from airport

Altitude

Take-off Thrust V2 + 10 to 20 kts

Climb thrust +

10 to 20 ktsClimb thrust Accelerate to flaps

up speed and retract flaps

Climb thrust Accelerate to flaps

up speed and retract flaps

Normal climb speed and thrust

800ft AGL

3,000ft AGL

Comparison between NADP 1 and NADP 2 procedures

NADP 1

NADP 2

Case Study - Vancouver airport applies SID departure

restrictions within the Canada Air Pilot. The restrictions require

the use of NADP 1 or 2, and pilots to follow the SID to 3,000ft or

2,000ft on runway 08R before proceeding on course.


Continuous climb operations

Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) are an aircraft

operating technique facilitated by airspace and procedure

design to execute an optimised departure profile. It

commences at lift off and continues to cruise level with no

level segments providing a reduction fuel burn and

emissions. The Sustainable Aviation Departures code of

practice notes the main benefit is in terms of fuel and

emissions with reductions of 50kg on an A320 to 475kg on

a B747 with a continuous climb to 6,000ft. The overall noise

benefit is neutral.

As CCO focuses on the climb from lift off to cruise level it is

often a concern of the Air Navigation Service Provider

(ANSP) rather than the airport. Our research has shown

that the ANSPs in the UK and Denmark facilitate CCO.

Whilst SESAR trials have been undertaken at Paris Charles

de Gaulle and Frankfurt are currently developing CCO

procedures with DFS, the German ANSP.

Departure routes - early turns

Early turns are typically used to allow slower aircraft such

as propeller driven aircraft to exit the main departure flow

(e.g. to maintain safe separation between faster jet powered

aircraft that can catch-up with the slower propeller powered

aircraft).

They can also be used to manage departure noise (e.g. by

turning aircraft off the extended centreline before the aircraft

reaches and overfly residential areas).

Of the 26 airports researched, 8 had procedures covering

early turns, this included:

• 5 which restricted early turns and required aircraft to either

maintain the centreline or SID routing, usually though the

application of altitude restrictions.

• 3 which allowed early turns, this typically was only allowed

on certain aircraft types (e.g. propeller) by reducing the

altitude restrictions applied.

Of the 3 airports which allowed early turns, these could be

started shortly after take-off and 2 of the 3 airports used

early turns to allow aircraft to take-off and turn before

reaching noise sensitive areas.


43

Case Study - As part of its Fly Quiet program, San Francisco airport

uses early turns to minimise noise disturbance over residential

areas, early turns are used keep noise over mainly industrial areas

and business parks. As part of its fly quiet program, the airport tracks

airline performance on this turn by measuring the distance from the

turn to a local highway, beyond which, the residential area exists.

The airport publicly reports this compliance figure.

Case Study - In the UK, CCO procedures have been promoted since

2006 when 55% of departures operated CCO to 10,000ft, that figure

has since risen to 67% in 2014.

Due to airspace constraints, wherever possible CCO is facilitated to

the cruise level and NATS, the UK ANSP, reached an agreement

with DSNA, the French ANSP, to coordinate with the Paris and Brest

Area Control Centres to allow CCO to FL290 with 260 aircraft per

day using this new profile in 2015. Further improvements in CCO are

planned as part of the future airspace strategy as part of the

restructuring of UK airspace.


Departure noise restrictions

Four of the airports researched measured the noise

generated by departing aircraft. Noise limits were set with

financial penalties applied if the limits were breached.

The noise restrictions were as follows:

• New York JFK: limit set at 112.9 PNdB as measured using

noise monitors at the end of the runway.

• Heathrow and Gatwick: Limits set according to time

period as follows, using noise monitors under the

departure routes:

• Day, 0700 to 2300 94 dBA Lmax,

• ‘Shoulder’, 2300 to 2330 and 0600 to 0700 89 dBA

Lmax,

• Night, 2330 to 0600 87 dBA Lmax.

Both Heathrow and Gatwick apply fines for aircraft which

breach these noise limits. Fines range between £500 and

£1000 and are paid into the airport community fund.

• John Wayne: limits noise on both arrival and departure.

Limits are based upon aircraft category with noise levels

set at each noise monitor. These level range between the

following limits:

• Class A, 102.5 dB to 93.7 dB SENEL,

• Class E, 94.1 dB to 86.6 dB SENEL.

If an aircraft breaches the noise limits, the airport can

either apply a fine of up to $500,000 USD and it may also

ban the operator from operating for up to half a year.


44

Case Study - John-Wayne airport is surrounded by noise sensitive

areas which a particular concentration to the south of the airport

under the main departure path.

Previously the departure routings were based upon older ground

based navigational aids which led to dispersion over the noise

sensitive area and due to the extensive noise abatement

techniques employed by the airport, the issue was not a major

annoyance to the community. The recent move to satellite based

navigation systems such as PBN and RNAV has improved

navigational accuracy but at the same time this has resulted in a

concentration of departing aircraft.

Attempts by the FAA to

improve the situation have

not delivered an improvement

in dispersal. In 2013, the City

of Newport Beach contracted

GE Aviation to undertake a

study to investigate the

feasibility of a curved PBN

departure routing to mainly

overfly the river/bay and

non-noise sensitive areas.

The study concluded that

although the problem is

complex, the curved

departure routing is possible

and the city should engage

with the FAA to develop this

solution further.

Typical

flight

path

Example

future

PBN SID

John Wayne Airport Departure Feasibility

Study, Source -

http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showd

ocument?id=15548

http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15548


Voluntary industry code of practice

Similar to the arrivals code of practice, in the UK industry

partners have developed a code of practice for departing

aircraft to align and improve operations.

The document defines options to reduce departure noise

through the implementation of systems to reduce APU

usage, implement reduced engine taxi, introduce Airport

Collaborative Decision Making systems and Continuous

Climb Operations. In particular it investigates the feasibility

of CCO, its impacts, and measurement techniques.

The document provides guidance to air traffic control, flight

crews and airports on how to deliver improvements. It was

widely circulated within the industry and is publicly

available on the Sustainable Aviation website1.

Trials

The airports researched did not list their processes or

procedures for trials. Of the airports researched, Sydney,

Auckland and the US airports (as part of the FAA NextGen

program) had information available. This information

typically took the form of a dedicated website and if a trial

was currently ongoing, the websites included information

on:

• Trial routes,

• Reasons for testing and selection of routes,

• Consultations and outcomes,

• Ways to provide feedback.

If no trials were ongoing, summary information was

provided on the most recently completed trial along with

links to the trial completion reports which provided

additional information.

Noise abatement procedures - Departures and Airspace Trials

45

Case Study - In addition to the airspace trial website, Sydney

airport undertakes a dedicated and proactive process to engage

with the public as part of infrastructure and airspace changes. The

most recent engagement was undertaken as part of a runway

upgrade and involved the following actions:

• Setup and management of phone lines for comments.

• Directed emails providing information and updates.

• Adverts in the local media.

• Production and distribution of information brochures to over 100,000

residences.

• The organisation of community and stakeholder consultation

meetings.

• The organisation of community question and answer sessions.

• Door to door visits.

Air Services Australia,

Sydney airport,

investigations and

consultations page

Source -

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bks

v.com/sydney/noise-

improvements-

community-consultation/

1 http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Departures-Code-of-Practice-June-2012.pdf

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/noise-improvements-community-consultation/

http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Departures-Code-of-Practice-June-2012.pdf

Research summary

Ground and gate operations


Introduction

Restrictions are often applied to activities on the airport

surface (taxiways/aircraft parking positions etc.) to reduce

the impact of ground noise on the local area.

The restrictions focus on two areas:

• Restricting engine testing which can be required following

routine and specific engineering works on the aircraft.

• Restriction the use of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a

small jet engine usually located in the tail of the aircraft. It

is used to provide electrical power and air conditioning

when the main engines are off. It also provides power to

start the start the main engines.

Typical practices

Engine testing restrictions typically take the form of

limiting the times at which ground runs can take place (i.e.

not during the night), as well as associated limits on the

duration and engine power settings.

Engine testing restrictions can also specify the locations

where testing can take place, such as a remote location or

within a ground run pen.

A small number of airports have introduced monitoring

systems to check compliance with any restrictions. For

example, Los Angeles (LAX) have made this monitoring

system publicly available.

Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) restrictions limit the time

period they can be used when the aircraft is on the ground

and/or parked on the stand – for example limits on the

amount of time an APU can be used (i) after arriving on

stand and (ii) before the scheduled time of departure.

The restrictions require the aircraft to make use of the fixed

ground power units rather than the APU.

Some airports also undertake monitoring to track

compliance.

Regional trends

Almost all airports surveyed, with the exception of airports

located in the Middle-East, were found to apply some form

of restriction, or practice to reduce the impact of ground

noise from aircraft. However, both the stringency of

restrictions and time period for which they were active

varied. Due to the close proximity of airports to residential

areas, rules for ground runs and APU usage tended to be

more restrictive in Europe.


Landscaping can be used to limit the propagation of

sound emanating form the airport. A large scale system in

Schiphol has reduced ground noise by 2-3dB and took two

years to construct.

Reduced engine taxi or electric tugs can be used to

reduce engine usage on the ground either by operating on

a single engine or by using a system to manoeuvre the

aircraft without the use of its engines.

Ground and gate operations - Overview

47


Ground and gate operations - Best practice from around the world

48

• Almost all airports limit engine testing in the

overnight period.

• Like the US some airports, Frankfurt monitors

ground running with a 57dbA limit in the day

and 50dBA at night.

• Prescriptive limits are applied for APU usage

on stands this includes time limits.

• Limits on reverse thrust on landing including a

ban (unless safety requires) in the overnight

period.

• Pilots are requested to use ‘minimal thrust’

when manoeuvring.

• Landscaping used for ‘sound barriers’.

• Limited restrictions on engine

ground running locations and

test durations.

• No APU restrictions could be

found.

• Engine run ups at high RPMs or ‘noisy’ aircraft are

restricted in the overnight period.

• Vancouver has built a ground run up pen which reduced

ground noise by 50% (15dB).

• Airports tend to have ground power units and

preconditioned air-conditioning units installed at the gate,

but requirements to make use of these systems are not

applied.

• Montreal and Air Transat are trialling a ‘wheel tug’ system.

• Engine ground runs are restricted in the

overnight period.

• San Francisco and Los Angeles and have

ground running monitoring systems. The system

at LA is publicly available.

• APU usage is limited on stands at noise

sensitive airports such as Los Angeles, San

Francisco and John-Wayne. But restrictions are

not typically applied at the other airports.

• Los Angeles and Chicago O’Hare have

constructed ‘sound barriers’ around the airport

perimeter to reduce the noise impact.

• Istanbul Ataturk has prescriptive APU

operating limits and restricts engine

ground running in the night period.

• Limitations on engine testing, Auckland track noise

using a 7 day rolling average of 55 dBA LDN with

a 75dBA Lmax limit in the overnight period.

• Sydney supports the use of single engine taxi and

reduced APU usage on stand.



The research highlighted that the majority of airports apply

a limitation on engine run ups, with a sub-set applying

additional restrictions.

Although the specific nature of these limitations varied they

generally limited the number of ground runs, duration and

power settings during the night. The night-time period was

defined anywhere between 2100 and 0700, with the most

common definition being between 2300 and 0700. In this

period 11 restricted ground testing by applying power,

location, time limits or an outright ban on testing. A chart on

the next page provides an overview of this practice.

The six airports which applied additional initiatives to

manage the noise generated by ground runs included (also

see separate case studies):

• Purpose built ground run-up pens

• Monitoring systems to manage, approve or decline engine

testing requests.

• Reporting on the number of engine run ups that took place

in either the last month, quarter or year.

Case Study - Both Vancouver

and Chicago O’Hare have installed

a ground run up pen. The pens

work by either diverting or

absorbing sound and reduce

ground noise from engine running

by up to 50% or between 10 to

15 dB. Although the pen reduces

the sound, the same engine testing

restrictions apply as if it was taking

place outside the pen.

Case Study - Both Los Angeles

And San Francisco have engine

testing monitoring systems

consisting of cameras and sound

monitors. The system is used to

track compliance with the

restrictions and the approved

testing request. The system at

Los Angeles is publicly available

through a website address as

shown across.

Ground and gate operations - Engine run ups

The ground run-up enclosure at

Vancouver airport Source:

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-

management/ground-run-up-enclosure

The publicly available ground running

monitoring system at Los Angeles

Airport Source:

http://wama.airportnetwork.com/

Airports applying engine run up restrictions

6 Airports applying a

limitation on engine

run ups

15

5

Additional noise

management initiatives

No publicly available

information

Case Study - In Auckland, engine ground testing is monitored

using a maximum noise value of 55dBA Ldn with an Lmax of

75dBA over a 7 day period. Effectively moderating the noise

output from engine testing over a weekly period.

49

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-management/ground-run-up-enclosure

http://wama.airportnetwork.com/


Ground and gate operations - Engine run up benchmarking

50



Just over 50% airport researched with information available

applied some form of restriction on the use of APU.

The restrictions varied in terms of stringency, but all

intended minimise use of the APU when the aircraft is on

the stand with the restrictions using the following wording

‘the APU should be shutdown as soon as practical

following parking on the stand’. Often these restrictions

also stated how long after (i) arriving on stand the APU

should be shut down and (ii) how many minutes before

departure it should be switched on.

All European airports, along with Istanbul Ataturk, applied

these APU restrictions at all times of the day. LA, John-

Wayne and San Francisco applied limited restrictions

based upon stand location and time periods. For example,

San Francisco only applies limitations at the domestic

terminal between 2200 and 0600.

Heathrow and Gatwick were the only airports to undertake

audits and on the spot checks. These audits are publicly

available in the flight performance reports.

Monitoring, reporting and enforcement - APU operating restrictions

51

Airports applying APU operating restrictions

4

No publicly available

information

10 Applied no APU restrictions

12 Airports applied APU

operational restrictions

Case Study - Both Heathrow and Gatwick apply the same

restrictions on APU usage, this is included within the airports

aeronautical information publication within a section controlled by

the Department for Transport. The restrictions are shown below:

Extensions to these times are allowed in specific conditions such

as when the aircraft is under tow or if the temperatures reach

high or low extremes to manage passenger comfort.

The airport operational teams at both airports conduct audits on

compliance. The results

of the audits are publicly

reported in yearly reports.

Aircraft type Before scheduled departure After arrival

on stand

Narrow Body aircraft No more than 15 minutes 10 minutes

Wide body aircraft,

A300, A310, A330,

A340, B747, B777,

B787 etc.

No more than 50 minutes

Or not more than 90 mins prior to

departure when the FEGP has not

been upgraded to provide enough

power to support the FMS.

10 minutes

APU operational limits as per the AIP, Source EGKK

AIP:http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-

703A80648F8F74C6A637AC48FC23D00B/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2

_EGKK_en_2017-02-02.pdf

Reported APU compliance

Source Gatwick Flight Performance Team

Annual Report, source:

http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-

community/aircraft-noise-airspace/noise-

reports/fpt-reports-publications/

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-703A80648F8F74C6A637AC48FC23D00B/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2_EGKK_en_2017-02-02.pdf

http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/aircraft-noise-airspace/noise-reports/fpt-reports-publications/


Monitoring, reporting and enforcement - Special and unique practices

52

Case Study - following the opening of the 5th runway at Schiphol

airport residents in the area were subjected to an increase in low

frequency noise from take-offs. Due to the low-lying and flat

terrain surrounding Schiphol, this noise could be heard up to 18

miles away.

To mitigate the impact of noise, the airport undertook a study

which reported that there was a reduction in noise following the

end of the harvest and the ploughing of the fields as the furrows

both deflected and absorbed the sound. To build upon this finding

the airport undertook a large scale landscaping project was

commenced to create parks made up of numerous ridges to both

absorb and deflect the noise.

In total 150 perfectly straight and symmetrical six foot (1.82

metre) ridges were created over an area of 80 acres (0.36 km

squared). When complete the park reduced the noise by 5.5dB at

a cost of 3million euros.

Other airports including Gatwick and Los Angeles have made use

of similar civil engineering projects to reduce the impact of noise

around the airport.

Aerial photo of the

Schiphol Buitenschot Land

Art Park, source:

http://www.hnsland.nl/en/p

rojects/land-art-park-

buitenschot

Case Study - There are options available to reduce emissions on

the airport surface, this focusses on a reduction in engine use.

The procedures in this area varied and can often be airline

specific rather than airport specific but our research has

highlighted the following practises/technologies:

• Frankfurt applies restrictions on engine use so that any

manoeuvre that doesn’t lead to take-off must be done with a tug.

• Airlines are adopting reduced engine operations (e.g. single

engine taxi on a twin engine aircraft). These procedures tend to be

within the airline specific Standard Operating Procedures to

reduce fuel burn rather than being specific to a particular airport

• Airlines and system manufacturers are developing electric

systems to allow aircraft to taxi with no engine power. This

includes the:

• WheelTug system is currently under FAA certification on

the Boeing 737NG. This system has been trialled at

Montreal in association with Air Transat.

• A Honeywell and Safran joint venture which has

developed a system which will enter service in late

2016/early 2017 as a retrofit for A320 family and Boeing

737 jets.

A WheelTug system installed on an

Air Transat Boeing 737, Source

http://www.airtrafficmanagement.ne

t/2017/01/air-transat-to-test-

fuelsaving-taxiing-system/

http://www.hnsland.nl/en/projects/land-art-park-buitenschot

http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2017/01/air-transat-to-test-fuelsaving-taxiing-system/

Research summary

Land use planning


Introduction

This area of research investigated how aviation noise

influenced land use in the vicinity of an airport.

Typical practices

In relation to land-use and airport/aircraft noise, the

research has focussed on two main areas – land use

planning and noise mitigation schemes.

Land use planning: 20 of the 26 airports researched

published, or provided access to City, State or Federal

websites covering rules on land use around their airport.

In the majority of cases rules will be set regarding land use

around airports. Typically these rules that will state, within

a given noise contour, either to restrict development

altogether, restrict development of certain land uses or

allow the development subject to certain conditions (e.g.

requirements for noise insulation).

Rather than having a single set of rules, a number of

airports have a tiered approach to land use around an

airport. 3 or 4 zones are be defined, with each zone having

more stringent land use restrictions the closer it is to the

airport.

Policy on land use around an airport is typically provided by

the Federal Government for the entire country. These rules

are then often augmented by local authorities.

Noise insulation schemes: Land use zones around an

airport can also specify the need for sound insulation to be

provided for dwellings and public buildings such as

schools. Just over half of the airports researched currently

have, or have operated a noise insulation scheme.

Almost all airports made use of noise contours, along with

other criteria, to determine which properties were eligible

for sound insulation. Some airports had different insulation

zones (i.e. higher levels of insulation were provided the

closer the zone to the airport) or provided daytime and

night-time insulation schemes.

The type of insulation provided varied from

ventilation/double glazing in bedrooms only to insulation of

roofs, doors and all windows. Whether this was full or partly

funded again varied by airport, distance from the airport

and type of scheme (e.g. daytime/night time).

The impetus for schemes included those being voluntarily

set up by airports, the availability of government grants or

as part of expansion plans. Schemes were found to be

administered by a mixture of local authorities, airports and

government departments. Typically funding comes from the

government (sometimes via aviation taxes) or the airport

(via noise charges levied on airlines – see quieter fleet

section).

Land use planning - Overview

54


Land use planning - Best practice from around the world

55

• AOA not formally defined but noise contours

available.

• Land use policy varies between countries but is

typically based upon zones based on noise

contours. Both Amsterdam and Copenhagen have

clear policy based upon contours and zones as

defined below:

• Copenhagen note that no-one should be

exposed to sound levels above 55 dB Lden at

airports and 45dB Lden at airfields.

• Amsterdam use 4 zones, zone 1 (safety) and

zone 2 (noise) involve purchase and

demolish. Zone 3 involves no new building.

Zone 4 is restricted building.

• Almost all airports have a noise insulation scheme,

based upon 60/65 dBA noise contours adapted for

local or geographic boundaries. The scope and

level of insulation varies depending on the contour

and some airports apply different day/night

contours to determine the scope of the noise

insulation program.

• Funding is often provided by the airport, but the

State provides funding in Amsterdam, Brussels

and Copenhagen.

• Limited information could be

found, only 1 airport defined the

AOA as the NEF 25 contour.

• Zoning laws based upon the NEF

25 and 30 contours depending

on country.

• AOA defined using NEF contours between 25 and 30.

• Transport Canada guidelines apply to:

• Discourage development above NEF 30

• Insulate between NEF 25 and 30

• Municipal/provincial guidelines can overrule Federal guidance. Ottawa notes that weather insulation mitigates

sound and Montreal applying the following restrictions:

• Discourage development above NEF 35

• Insulate between NEF 30 and 35

• Typically construction allowed inside NEF25/30 contour if building is sufficiently insulated.

• Limited information could be found on specific local noise insulation program.

• Vancouver requests realtors to inform buyers of noise impacts.

• AOA not formally defined but a similar metric is

the noise contour typically based upon the 65

DNL metric.

• FAA Part 150 study required to develop current

and future noise impacts to align local land

policy.

• Land policy rules are typically as follows:

• No build above 70 LDN with compulsory

purchase of extant properties in some

areas

• Insulation between 65 and 70LDN and

realtors will need to inform buyers of noise

impacts

• No build of noise sensitive buildings within

65 LDN contour

• Local rules can overule FAA guidance, JFK

airport notes that if local noise is higher than

aviation, construction can go ahead regardless

of contour.

• Noise insulation schemes are used. These are

majority funded by the FAA with input from

Airport and aim to cut interior noise by at least

5dB.

• There are limits on noise insulation applicability

dependant on housing age.

• No information on land use

planning could be found.

• Sydney AOA is defined as the airport perimeter, whilst it is based upon the

55dB contour in Auckland.

• Cities have guidelines on the type of construction allowed in specific areas

based upon noise contours.

• Houses affected by noise have a note listed on their land registry record.

• Noise insulation schemes in operation and funded by the airport, this is based

upon the contour in which you reside. ANEI 25 in Australia and 60dBA contour

for airborne and 57dBA for ground noise in Auckland.

• Auckland must make a noise insulation offer every year and tracks progress.


Land use restrictions

Policy on land use around an airport was typically provided

by the Federal Government for the entire country. These

were typically in the form of restrictions based upon noise

contours which either:

• Restrict development all together: Sometimes including

mandatory purchase of buildings already inside the

contour.

• Restrict development of certain land uses: Such as

residential developments or public buildings.

• Allow the development subject to certain conditions:

For example, the use of noise insulation programmes or

identification in the land registry that a residential building

is subject to aircraft noise.

Although guidance was provided by the Federal

Government, in some areas this could be augmented by

local planning laws. In some cases this has led to a

variation in planning rules between different

neighbourhoods that are close to an airport but fall under

the jurisdiction of different local authorities. In the United

States a Part 150 study seeks to review and align policy

with the future development of the airport. This process is

covered in a case study on the next page.

Despite being a national/local government responsibility,

20 of the 26 airports researched either directly provided

information of land use rules around their airport or

provided information on how to access this information.

Land use zones and noise contours

A number of airports have a tiered approach to land use

around an airport. 3 or 4 zones are be defined, with each

zone having more stringent land use restrictions the closer

it is to the airport. Examples are shown in the case study

below, and on the following page.

Land use planning - Land use restrictions

56

Case Study - In Auckland land use planning is based upon

noise contours as follows:

• High Aircraft Noise Area (HANA) above 65 dBA Ldn,

• Moderate Aircraft Noise Area (MANA) 60-65 dBA Ldn,

• Aircraft Noise Notification Area (ANNA) 55-60 dBA Ldn.

These areas are used to apply certain planning restrictions on

new buildings and make use of mitigation strategies for those

already affected. For new educational buildings, this includes

an assessment of the current noise environment to determine

the required noise insulation, of which 50% of the costs will be

paid for by the developer with the remainder provided by the

airport authority.

A land use memoranda is added to the land registry if a

property is within these zones to note that it is currently

subject to, or may be subject to, aviation noise in the future.

Case Study - Transport Canada provide guidelines on land

use within certain areas. Development within the NEF 30

contour is discouraged and insulation is recommend within the

NEF 25 contour. However in Montréal, city guidance prohibits

residential development within the NEF 35 contour and

requires soundproofing within the NEF 30 contour.


The following airports either publicly state their land use zoning guidelines, or have links to the relevant local, state or

federal guidance:

Land use planning - Land use zone and noise contours

57

Airport Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Notes

United States

airports

• 70 dB DNL, no new build,

potential for compulsory

purchase

• 65 to 70 dB DNL, noise

insulation area

• 65 dB DNL, no new build of noise

sensitive buildings

Canada /

Toronto

• NEF 30 and above, no

new residential

development

Australia

• Above ANEI 40, (70dB

Ldn) mandatory purchase

and conversion to parks

• ANEI 30 to 40, residential

sound insulation

• ANEI 25 to 40, public building

sound insulation

Public building is

defined as a school,

church, hospital, day

care centres etc.)

New Zealand

• Above 65dB, 100%

funding for noise

insulation programs

• Above 60dB, 75% funding

for noise insulation

programs

• Above 57dB, (ground noise) noise

insulation program

No percentage co-

funding is reported

for the 57dB ground

noise contour

Amsterdam

• Demolition for safety or

high noise levels typically

located around runway

ends

• No new build of housing or

businesses. Areas for noise

insulation

• Previously restricted new housing

development but now permits

development in urban areas only

Zones based upon

the national spatial

study


Land use planning - Land use zoning case studies

58

Case Study - In the US, Code of Federal Regulations Part 150

Airport Noise Compatibility Planning outlines a methodology for

the production of:

• Noise exposure maps.

• Development of land use compatibility programs.

This includes the development of noise abatement procedures.

Although the study is voluntary, the results are the primary

vehicle for the application of federal grants for noise abatement

projects, in particular noise insulation.

The study involves the production of noise contours for the

current and future (5 year) fleet mix. This is used to review the

current and future land use plans and noise abatement

procedures. Although looking at current and future land use

and development, it is not an update to the airports master

plan.

Local citizens, public agencies and airport users were

encouraged to engage in the study through public workshops

and hearings. The final report along with the noise maps are

publicly available.

San Francisco airport is currently updating its part 150 study to

ensure the continuation of funding for its noise mitigation

programs including the sound insulation program. The study

involved two public workshops and information sharing. The

study has developed noise contours to align current and future

land use planning based upon:

• 70 dB CNEL no new build, potential for compulsory purchase,

• 65 to 70 dB CNEL, noise insulation area,

• 65 dB CNEL no new build of noise sensitive buildings.

Case Study - Following the Independent Arrivals Review at

Gatwick Airport, it was identified that a joint review of land use

policy was required. The airport has engaged with local

planning authorities to share best practice and align working

relationships using a land use workshop. Ongoing works have

been identified to create an airport owned planning portal to

provide information on noise contours, aircraft tracks and other

relevant aviation information for planning purposes.

Case Study - Within its 2033 master plan, Sydney airport

provided a summary of the land use surrounding the airport.

This included specific areas allocated by the City of Botany

Bay to the airport and infrastructure works to support ongoing

development, along with the management of the areas

surrounding the airport. The area dedicated to the airport is

shown in yellow, with zoning around the runway ends in

industry allocated in purple and low density residential shown

in red.

Sydney 2033 Master

plan Figure 11.2,

existing land use around

Sydney Airport, Source:

https://www.sydneyairp

ort.com.au/corporate/~/

media/files/corporate/en

vironment%20plan/mast

er%20plan/2033/chapte

r%2011_land%20use%

20plan.pdf?force=1

https://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/~/media/files/corporate/environment plan/master plan/2033/chapter 11_land use plan.pdf?force=1


Land use planning - Land use zoning case studies

59

Case Study - Following a National Spatial Study looking at

current and future land use, the zones around Amsterdam

Schiphol airport were updated and expanded. The zones which

are outlined in the figure opposite and includes zones for

airport development and corresponding areas for building

demolition on both safety and noise grounds along with zoning

covering limited and restrictive development.

A recent review of airport usage and housing requirements has

since led to the adaptation of the previous rules as highlighted

in figure opposite. As it is now forecast that an extra 300,000

homes will be required in the Greater Amsterdam Metro area

by 2040, the following restrictions have changed/been updated

in the short term:

• The area allocated to the airport, in the centre of the coloured

zones has been updated to take account of future development

and traffic levels.

• Accordingly the areas marked in red, orange and green have

also been updated but this has not increased their overall size.

• National planning restrictions in the purple zone have been

relaxed in urban areas, it has been agreed that municipalities

will enforce planning policy. This relaxation is focused on urban

areas only and continues to restrict development outside these

areas to allow aviation to develop.

In the medium to long term, the Schiphol Airport Environment

Council has been tasked to develop a framework to support

and balance the future development of the airport, airspace

and construction of housing and businesses in the surrounding

areas.

The Amsterdam

Schiphol land

use zoning.

Source:

http://www.bezo

ekbas.nl/#

Demolition zones (safety).

Demolition Zones (noise).

No new build of offices,

business and homes, and

insulation zone.

No new build of housing or

redevelopment allowed

http://www.bezoekbas.nl/


Existence of noise insulation schemes

Of the airports researched, just over half currently have, or

have operated a noise insulation scheme. Most put the

emphasis on residents to make applications. However, 6

airports operated proactive schemes which directly engaged

with local communities (see Auckland case study).

Insulation provided

The type insulation provided varies greatly from the

installation of double glazing and ventilation through to

complete sound insulation schemes. For the airports which

published information, the following works were included:

• 7 airports offered ‘complete’ home sound insulation

programs, which included aspects such as double glazing,

loft/wall insulation and ventilation systems. The majority of

these airports were in the US.

• 6 airports offered double glazing or ventilation systems.

Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Zurich provide more

than one insulation scheme. For example, Heathrow has

day-time, night-time and quieter homes schemes, each of

which provides different levels of sound insulation (see page

67). In addition, some airports offer to purchase housing

which was affected by the worst noise levels.

Eligibility for sound insulation

Almost all airports made use of noise contours to determine

which properties were eligible for sound insulation. Examples

of eligibility criteria as a follows (further information can be

found in the case studies):

• The 6 US airports used the 65dB CNEL contour;

• Copenhagen used the 65dB Lden contour;

• Sydney airport used the ANEI 25 contour; and

• Auckland airport used the 60dBA contour.

As mentioned above, airports such as Heathrow apply more

than one scheme, with each scheme have a different

eligibility criteria. Heathrow and Gatwick have also taken

pragmatic steps to adapt their contours to ensure, for

example, that the scheme doesn’t stop half way along a

street.

In addition to the noise contours, eligibility criteria often

apply. This includes:

• Properties must be built before a certain year (in the US this

is set as 1998 and is based upon Federal Legislation), but

varies depending on when the scheme was established;

• Claims can’t be made for previous insulation works;

• In the US, interior noise within an eligible property must be

above 45dB DNL.

Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes

60

Airports with a noise insulation scheme

6 Proactive insulation

schemes

10 Has a noise

insulation scheme10 No information

available or no scheme


Impetus for noise insulation schemes

The reasons for starting a noise insulation scheme varies,

but in most cases it is part of a plan for airport development,

government initiatives or a voluntary plan. Our research has

shown that:

• Legislation, voluntary schemes & development: Both

Heathrow and Gatwick undertake insulation programmes

voluntarily under Section 79 of the UK Civil Aviation Act of

1982, but both airports have recently expanded the offering

as part of expansion plans.

• Airport development: Copenhagen, Sydney and Frankfurt

all undertook noise insulation schemes in response to

expansion plans such as new runways. However, for

Frankfurt this was through a voluntary scheme not enforced

by Government.

• Availability of Government funding: In the US, under a

Part 150 airport noise compatibility study, noise insulation

programmes were identified as a potential mitigation method

eligible for federal funding. Due to the availability of funding

and community concerns, noise insulation schemes were

started.

Source of funding for noise insulation schemes

Funding was linked to the reasons for the program and the

country in which the airport was located. For the airports that

provided information, the following funding was used:

• Federal Grants: In the US, 6 airports used a Part 150 airport

noise compatibility study as a means to implement a noise

insulation program. This was supported through Federal

Grants which can provide between 75% to 90% of the total

cost. Funding comes from the taxation of airspace users.

• Noise charges: Four airports made use of noise charges

levied on airlines and/or passengers to fund noise insulation

schemes

• Government funds: Two airports made use of Government

funds for which the exact source could not be identified.

Provision of insulation to recipients

All of the insulation programmes researched used an

external contractor to assess, process and install noise

insulation at the recipients property. Although all

programmes made use of the same process, the funding

provided to cover the work varies, for the airports which

provided information this ranged between the following

values:

• The provision of a fixed amount: Two airports, Gatwick

and Paris Charles de Gaulle provides a fixed amount

towards total cost determined by the airports contractor.

• Part funding: Three airports provided funding toward the

total cost of the insulation, this ranged between 50 and 75%

with the total cost determined by the airports contractor.

• Complete funding: Seven airports, of which five were in the

US, provided complete funding towards the cost of the noise

insulation provided under the program.

Auckland was the only airport which funded 75% of the cost of

noise insulation at newly constructed schools in the insulation

area.


61


Scheme management

The insulation schemes are either managed by the airport

directly, or more commonly by a public body such as the

local City or central Government. Of the airports

researched that published information, the following bodies

were responsible for the management of the program:

• Local authority: The six US airports assign the

management of the scheme to the relevant local City,

which can often involve more than one City per airport;

• Airport: Four airports manage the programme internally;

• Government department: Three airports had schemes

managed directly by Government departments such as

Infrastructure or Environment.

Scale of airport noise insulation programmes

The scale of the noise insulation programmes varies

significantly. By comparing the total funding available and

the number of properties insulated the various noise

insulation programmes can be compared as shown in the

figure below.

The following noise insulation schemes are closed (figures in

brackets denote the year of closure - John Wayne (2009), Sydney

(2000), Brussels (2004) and Copenhagen (2016)). For these

schemes the spend per building at the time of closure has been

recalculated to 2017 values.


62

Case Study - Heathrow airport has three noise insulation schemes

which are based upon noise contours and time of day:

• Day noise scheme which based upon the 69dB Leq 18h contour. It

includes 8,500 houses that are affected by noise after 0600 and during

the day. It covers free loft insulation and ventilation and 50% of the

cost of double glazing.

• Night noise scheme which is based upon the 90dB SEL noise footprint

of the noisiest aircraft. It includes 41,000 houses that are affected by

noise between 2330 and 0600. It covers free loft insulation and

ventilation and 50% of the cost of double glazing in the bedroom.

• The quieter homes initiative includes the 1,200 homes closest to the

airport and includes custom made noise solutions. This is undertaken

at no cost to the resident.

The airport manages the programme internally and makes use of a single

contractor to undertake the works.


Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes and case studies

63

Case Study - The residential noise insulation Program at Chicago

O’Hare is one of the largest schemes in the United States and to date

the program has insulated 10,900 homes. The program has reached a

total expenditure of $200 million (US dollars) which is made up of a

mixture of FAA grants and airport funds. In 2005 the FAA determined

the noise insulation programme to be the best mitigation as part of

expansion at Chicago O’Hare and therefore allowed for the use of

Federal Grants. Prior to this date the airport had funded the programme

itself. The decision made the by FAA required all properties within the

65dB DNL noise contour and built before 2005 to be insulated.

The programme is overseen by the Chicago O’Hare Noise

Compatibility Commission (ONCC) with the assistance from external

building contractors who are certified to undertake works and carry

specific airport supplied ID badges. The contractors will conduct an

initial survey and will offer options to insulate the property. The option

offered are based upon the interior noise level and will include works

such as window modifications, improvements to main and storm doors

along with the installation or upgrade of air conditioning systems.

In any case, the home owner is responsible for choosing the insulation

option that meets there needs. ONCC contractors conduct a post

installation survey to confirm that the insulation has reduced interior

noise by at least 5dB in accordance with FAA guidance.

The noise insulation programs are managed by six local jurisdictions,

or cities, who use a variety of methods to select properties including:

• first come first served,

• lottery and

• noisiest first.

These jurisdictions have the authority to choose which buildings they

are interested in insulating, this includes public buildings, mutli-family

residences and/or rental properties in addition to housing.

Chicago O’Hare online GIS

tool for sound proofing

assessment and awareness

Source:

https://gisapps.cityofchicago

.org/AviationPropertyLocator

Web/

Eligible properties are identified on a yearly basis and the city will write a

letter to the properties which have been selected in each phase. The

letter asks the owner if they would like to participate in the programme,

and outlines the process involved. The letter is supported by a handbook

which provides an overview of how noise propagates in properties and

the works which can be undertaken to limit the impact of noise. This

handbook is also given to residents who are not in the insulation program

for information. In addition to the letter, the airport conducts informative

briefings on the programme and maintains a showroom of the available

insulation treatments.

Progress is tracked and reported publicly to the ONCC and in addition an

online mapping tool is publicly available from the City of Chicago, as

shown below. This tool shows the homes insulated to date along with the

locations of the homes which are planned for insulation in future phases

of work.

The ONCC has previously conducted surveys on residents who had

participated in the scheme. The survey reported that 94% of residents

had an improved or greatly improved quality of living, with 98% saying

that they would recommend the scheme to their neighbours.

https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/AviationPropertyLocatorWeb/


Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes and case studies

64

Case Study - Auckland airport has a noise insulation scheme

which is funded by the airport. The scheme is based upon noise

contours which denote the funding level available:

• Within the 65dBA Ldn contour the airport must provide 100% of the

costs of insulation

• Within the 60dBA Ldn contour the airport must provide 75% of the

costs of insulation, however a 25% top-up is available from the

community fund to assist lower income residences.

• Residences within the 57dBA ground noise contour are eligible

The insulation package includes the installation of heating and

ventilation systems to maintain a healthy home with the windows

closed. Only housing built before 2001 is eligible for the scheme,

however the airport is required to fund noise insulation schemes at

new schools built within the contour, to a total value of 75% of the

works. The airport produces several documents to introduce the

noise insulation program, the potential works on offer and the

process for consultation and installation. In addition the airport is

required to actively engage with residents and will make an offer

every 12 months to affected properties, even if that property has

previously declined the offer.

Case Study - Sydney airport had a noise insulation scheme which

was managed by the Department of Infrastructure. It was introduced

following an increase in noise complaints after the opening of a new

runway. The programme was funded by a noise levy on airlines and

sought to insulate properties based upon the:

• ANEI 30 contour for residential properties,

• ANEI 25 for public buildings.

The program included insulation, double glazing and air conditioning

works and insulated a total of 4,083 houses and 99 public buildings.

In addition, 147 properties were brought, demolished and turned into

parkland.

The scheme had a maximum cap of 60,000 Australian dollars per

property, but at the end of the project, an average of 81,000 dollars

was spent due to the number of noise sensitive public buildings and

lightweight housing.

The program has since been subjected to a detailed independent

review on its effectiveness, conducted by the University of New South

Wales, with the results publicly available. The report noted that the

overall improvement delivered by the program had been good. A

suitable reduction in sound level had been achieved for brick based

structures, however lightweight structures required more extensive

work to take account of the additional sound insulation required in the

walls.

The report noted that there was a reliance on the installation

contractor to identify and install suitable insulation systems. A lack of

detail on the correct installation of items such as door and window

seals, along with limited post installation survey was the main reason

for a low reduction in interior noise following the works. A post

installation review of any sound insulation works was recommended.

Auckland airport noise insulation information brochure and background information

Source: https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/corporate-responsibility/managing-aircraft-

noise/being-a-good-neighbour/noise-mitigation-packages

https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz/corporate-responsibility/managing-aircraft-noise/being-a-good-neighbour/noise-mitigation-packages

Research summary

Noise complaints


Introduction

Airports receive complaints about aircraft noise from local

communities. Complaints have been researched three

areas:

• Complaints process – how complaints are made.

• Complaints policy – how the complaints are handled.

• Complaints reporting - how complaints are reported

upon and analysed.

Typical practices

Complaints process – how complaints are submitted:

Airports typically provide a number of different options for

communities to submit complaints. This is to account for

the different demographics that can be affected by aircraft

noise. Online forms, dedicated online tools and phone lines

were the most prevalent methods available. Dedicated

online tools, such as the WebTrak system used at Toronto

Pearson can link the complaint to an individual aircraft. The

majority of airports accepted complaints about specific

aircraft and/or general complaints.

Complaints policy – how complaints are handled: Half

of the airports researched provided some information on

how complaints were handled. Some of these detailed the

conditions under which they would provide responses, their

target response time and specific policies on

communication with high frequency complainants.

Complaints reporting: Several airports reported on the

number of complaints received each month, quarter or

year. The methods of reporting and level of additional detail

provided varied significantly. It was most common for

airports to provide complaints data in traditional “print

friendly” report which included data on the number of

complaints and location of complainants. However, other

information, such as the number of complainants and

reason for the complaint was provided less often.


Responding to complaints: In addition to responding to

complaints in writing/by phone, San Francisco airport

provides responses to complaints via Community Round

Table events. These events are a useful forum for

acknowledging and addressing complaints and can also

help improve the airport’s understanding of noise concerns.

Use of online tools: Gatwick airport provides an

interactive platform for viewing complaints data as part of

its Casper system. It is a useful method of providing

relevant, detailed and up to date complaints data.

Regional trends

Whether or not an airport chose to accept complaints and

provide any additional related information is not dependent

on the region. It appears to be up to the airport’s discretion

although proximity to local communities is a key factor.

Noise complaints - Overview

66


Noise complaints - Best practice from around the world

67

• Complaints can be made via phone, email, online form or Webtrak (where applicable).

Schiphol require you to create an account and fill in a detailed questionnaire to register a

complaint.

• Complaints policy is not readily available but where it is, they will be typically responded to

within 3-10 days. Responses provide as much information as possible.

• The reporting of complaints is carried out at some airports including Amsterdam, Gatwick and

Heathrow, where provided they typically include the total number of complaints and

complainants. Gatwick reports on the geographical spread of complainants, this information

is also available online via their Casper flight tracking tool.

• For regular complainers, if no new information is available, complainers will be notified of the

airport’s intention to register but not respond to complaint (Heathrow, Gatwick).

• Brussels has an independent noise complaints body and Amsterdam has a joint airport/ANSP

complaints handling team.

• Complaints and complaint policy is reviewed by the NATMAG group at Gatwick, a joint

industry and community working group.

• Complaints in Hong Kong

can be made to CAD via

24hr hotline, fax, email or

in writing. Complaints are

investigated and a

response provided.

• HK report complaints in

the airport sustainability

performance indicators as

per 1 million passengers.

• Online complaint forms are widely used. Hotlines are also available (24/7 at YVR and Calgary).

Montreal and YVR also accept email complaints. Toronto and Vancouver accept Webtrak complaints.

• Complaints are logged and investigated. GTAA responds on request whereas Vancouver, Calgary,

Ottawa respond if appropriate. Calgary provide a response time of 3 days.

• Complaints reporting varies per airport but includes total complaints broken down into reasons and

geographical locations including numbers of complainants. Vancouver separates top 5 chronic

complainers from graphs and charts to avoid skew.

• Complaints are reported to the Montreal Community consultative committee.

• Complaints are accepted through the

normal means. O’Hare are considering

introducing a web chat to accept

complaints.

• Complaints policy is only available for San

Francisco and Los Angeles. San

Francisco investigates to see if NAP has

been broken. Response are provided in

writing, phone or at community round

table. At Los Angeles, staff investigate up

to 5 complaints a month per complainant.

Responses provided by letter if requested.

• Monthly reports describe number of

complaints and complainers in a table and

on a map, and per aircraft type.

• Los Angeles provide a record of all noise

complaints and responses online -

provides a transparent record.

• No information available

on complaints.

• All complaints are handled by AirServices rather than the airport.

• Complaints can be made via phone, CASPER/Webtrak, online, mail. In Sydney an

interpreter is also available 24/7 in 18 languages.

• Airports investigate and respond to complaints. Sydney caveat by saying they will respond

within 21 days if complaint is relevant and not abusive.

• Sydney produces quarterly reports which covers complainants only.

• In Auckland a written responses are provided to all complaints.

• Auckland reviews complaints in community consultation group.


Submission of complaints

Complaints were accepted via the following methods.

Of the 16 airports accepting complaints by phone, 5

specified that their phone lines are open 24 hours a day, 7

days a week. Examples of airports using newer

approaches were also found. Chicago O’Hare is

investigating introducing a live web chat function to accept

complaints. Los Angeles airport has introduced a mobile

application that can accept complaints

Information requested

Thirteen airports enabled complaints to be made against a

specific aircraft, typically via online flight tracking tools such

as WebTrak and Casper. This enables the investigation

process to be more targeted and efficient. Two airports

were found to only accept complaints about a specific

aircraft type via their online systems.

For the seven airports accepting general complaints only,

complainants were given a general comment box to

comment but no specific aircraft information was requested

by the airport.

Noise complaints – Complaints process

68

Complaint method Number of airports

Online form 17

Online tools (e.g WebTrak, Casper) 10

Phone 16

Email 6

Letter 6

Other 3

Case study – 24/7 interpreters. The complaints process at Sydney

airport is similar to other airports in that it accepts complaints via an

online form, WebTrak, mail or telephone. To accommodate all those

potentially affected by aircraft noise a telephone interpreter service is

available in 18 different languages. The service is available at all hours

and is free to use. It is noted that complaints for Sydney and other

airports in Australia are managed by the air navigation service

provider, Airservices Australia, which may provide some economies of

scale to provide a translator service.


Availability of policy

Thirteen of the 26 airports researched made some aspect

of complaints policy available to the public. Some

complaints policies detailed the conditions under which

responses will be provided to complainants. This includes:

• When responses will be provided.

• How long complainants can expect to wait for a response.

• Limits on the number of complaints that can be handled for

each complainant.

Response to complaints

Policies on responses to complaints can be grouped as

follows:

• Response always provided: Five airports indicated that

they always provide responses to complaints. This is

typically a written response. Amsterdam Schiphol note that

although they will always provide a response, only causes

of noise can be investigated.

• Response provided on request: Five airports provide

responses to complaints on request. Some airports such

as San Francisco allow complainants to specify whether

they would like a call back or an email response. Heathrow

airport will invite high frequency complainants to visit the

airport at their discretion. Los Angeles airport state that

their reply will look at noise trends and comment on issues

in the area.

• Response provided if appropriate - 3 airports.

• Complaints against specific aircraft must be made

within 10 days of the event: Amsterdam Schiphol airport

state that noise complaints can only be accepted for

aircraft that have operated within the past 10 days.

Response time

Only 6 airports specified a response time to complaints.

Noise complaints – Complaints policy

69

Airport Response time

San Francisco 1 day (for call backs)

Calgary, Frankfurt 3 days

Heathrow 5 days

Amsterdam 7 days *

Sydney 21 days

* Amsterdam Schiphol

state that complainants

will be notified if

responses are not

possible within 7 days


High frequency complainants

A number of airports receive a high proportion of their

complaints from a small number of complainants (see

graph on the next page). Many of these airports have

defined policies for high frequency complainants:

• Los Angeles airport state that their staff will investigate up

to 5 noise complaints per person per month.

• Sydney airport states that if they have been contacted

previously and a response has been provided, they may

not respond if no further information can be provided.

Additionally Sydney only reports on number of

complainants.

• Heathrow and Gatwick airports have a policy on regular

complainants (see case study below).

Responsibility for complaints handling

Most complaints are handled by the airport. However, it is

not unusual for complaints to be handled by other bodies

and organisations.

Noise complaints – Complaints policy

70

Case study – Handling regular complainants. Gatwick airport

receive approximately 15,000 complaints per year. To ensure that they

are able to give due consideration to all of those affected by the

airport’s activities, they have adopted a clear policy on handling regular

complainants. It is expressed as follows:

“where we have repeatedly explained the policies and noise

measures which affect a complainant’s postcode area and

previously supplied sufficient information to the extent that we are

unable to further enhance understanding, we will notify the

complainant of our intention only to register – rather than respond

to – all future complaints”

Gatwick airport’s noise complaints policy. Source

http://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business--community/b_7_aircraft-

noise/yla-complaints-handling-policy-2016.pdf

Responsible party Number of airports concerned

Airport 16

Local Government 2 (Chicago O’Hare, New York JFK)

Air Navigation Service Provider 1 (Sydney)

Airport Committee 1 (Amsterdam Schiphol)

Civil Aviation Authority 1 (Hong Kong)

Independent body 1 (Brussels)

Unknown (or no complaint

information available)

5

http://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business--community/b_7_aircraft-noise/yla-complaints-handling-policy-2016.pdf


Heathrow

Heathrow has a short description of what happens to

complaints on its website with a link to a more detailed

policy1.

Noise complaints – example complaint

policies published by airports

71

1 www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/make-a-complaint-about-noise/what-happens-with-complaints, and www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/noise_complaints_policy.pdf.

What happens with complaints

Receiving complaints: We will respond to all complaints within five

working days (as long as we have all the contact details we need). If we

need to do more investigation, we will let you know within the five days

and tell you when you will get a complete answer.

Providing information: We aim to provide a full and comprehensive

information service but we do have to consider the resources we have

available, to ensure all complainants are treated equitably.

Type of information provided: We supply information which explains

the relevant procedures and includes maps for a complainant’s postcode

area. We will also do our best to provide details of particular flights.

Use of complaint data: We only use your personal details for registering

complaint details. We do not make them public or use them for any other

purpose.

All complaints are reported daily on our Heathrow Operational Data

website, in the airport’s quarterly Flight Performance Reports and to the

Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC).

We monitor complaints for trends to inform our noise management

priorities but flight paths are not changed purely on the basis of the

number of complaints received from a particular area.

For more information read our complaints policy.

Text taken sourced from: www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-

do/make-a-complaint-about-noise/what-happens-with-complaints

http://www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/make-a-complaint-about-noise/what-happens-with-complaints


72


Gatwick

Source:

http://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business--

community/b_7_aircraft-noise/yla-complaints-handling-

policy-2016.pdf



73

http://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business--community/b_7_aircraft-noise/yla-complaints-handling-policy-2016.pdf


74


San Francisco

Source: www.flysfo.com/community/noise-

abatement/file-a-complaint

Noise complaints – example complaint policies published by airports

75

Reports to Airport Community Roundtable

Call tallies along with trends and recent events are reported on a bi-

monthly basis to the Airport Community Roundtable during its public

meetings.

Response to Citizens

When making a complaint, if you request a call back or more information,

you will receive a response from a noise abatement specialist. In general,

first time complaints receive a written response. In some cases, especially

at Community Roundtable meetings, responses are made personally. If

you wish to be contacted by telephone, two attempts will be made to

reach you and at least one message is left, if possible. During normal

business hours (Monday–Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm) a member of the

Noise Abatement staff is available at 650.821.5100, the main office

number.

How do I File a Noise Report?

Noise Complaint Hotline: 650.821.4736

Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: 877.206.8290

Noise Complaint Email: [email protected]

Mailing Address:

Aircraft Noise Abatement

San Francisco International Airport

P.O. Box 8097

San Francisco, CA 94128

All information submitted is secure and not shared with other

agencies.

Members of the community can view flight tracks of aircraft operations at

SFO either in real-time with a 10 minute delay or playback the desired

time period. Click here to view flight tracks. When viewing a playback of

flight tracks, double-clicking on the flight track gives detailed information

for the flight.

Investigating Noise Events

The SFO Noise Monitoring System uses a combination of microphones

and radar data to record and track aircraft events throughout the Bay

area. Flight track information gathered includes single event and

cumulative (over time) noise levels, time of day, aircraft type, altitude and

airline. Using this data, staff can determine whether the event in question

violated any noise regulations or established noise abatement

procedures.

http://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/file-a-complaint


Sydney

Source: www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-

content/uploads/11-

147FAC_Complaints_management_WEB.pdf

Note: Complaints made against Sydney Airport are

managed by the Australian Air Traffic Control provider,

Airservices.



76

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/11-147FAC_Complaints_management_WEB.pdf


77


Vancouver

Source: www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-

management/noise-faqs

.



78

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-management/noise-faqs


• Some airports (e.g. San Francisco) reported on the number of complainants each month (cannot be annualised).

• Chicago and San Francisco receive a high proportion of their complaints from a small number of complainants (e.g. in June 2016, San Francisco received 79,307 complaints from 437 residents).

• Sydney reports on complainants only.

• Amsterdam Schiphol received 120,000 complaints from 35 complainants in 2015.

Noise complaints – Statistics on the number of complaints and complainants

Figure: Number of complaints and complainants per year. Note that data comes from either 2015 or 2016 (whichever had complete annual data). Source: Airport

noise reports

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Vancouver

Toronto

Calgary

Montreal

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Chicago O'Hare

John Wayne (SNA)

Sydney

Amsterdam

Heathrow

Gatwick

Number of complaints/complainants

Air

po

rts

(th

at r

epo

rt o

n c

om

pla

ints

)

Number of complaints and complainants at different airports in the study

complainants (where data is available) complaints

3,542,781

167,890

4,058,1611

108,255


Reporting of complaints

The majority of airports researched report on complaints.

These were grouped as follows:

• Traditional noise reports: The majority of airports

produced ready to print reports on their website. These are

produced monthly, quarterly or annually. Such reports vary

greatly in terms of level of detail – some (e.g. Montreal)

report monthly on the total number of complaints and

reasons why, while others (e.g. Chicago O’Hare) provide

additional information including the geographic distribution

of complaints/complainants and times of day.

• Web-based reports: Four airports reported complaints

data via their website. Heathrow’s website provides

statistics on the number of complaints received each day.

Amsterdam Schiphol reports on complaints on a website

as well as in traditional reports. A table is available on their

website separating the number of high frequency

complainants from others.

• Online platforms: Gatwick reports complaints using an

online platform. Gatwick’s Casper platform is interactive

allowing users to obtain more specific information related

to their postcode or time frame of interest. (see case study

on next page).

Analysis of complaints

In addition to reporting on number of complaints, some

airports further segment complaints or allow members of

the public to do so. Some examples are summarised below

and expanded upon in cases studies on the following

pages.

• Vancouver provides data on complaints, complainants,

type of operation and geographical location.

• Sydney segments complaints into reasons such as aircraft

height, runway choice etc. It also provides a quarterly

commentary of changes in complainants, the main issues

raised and associated explanations.

• For a given post (zip) code Gatwick allows users to

segment complaints by number of complainants, aircraft

type/number of engines, hour and reason for the

complaint.

Noise complaints – Reporting and analysis of noise complaints

80

11

121

11

noise reports (ready for print)

dedicated online platform

website & reports

website only

none


Case study – use of online tools. Gatwick provides an

interactive platform for complaints reporting via its Casper

noise lab. The platform has been in use since 30th September

2016 and provides live updates of not only complaints data

but also noise monitor data and flight tracking.

Complaints are presented on a map of the airport locale with

each postcode (ZIP code) coloured according to the number

of complaints received. The date range for viewing complaints

can also be altered if the user wishes to understand the

number and location of complaints during specific periods.

Further detail is presented to the user if a specific postcode is

selected. Charts are presented showing:

• Number of complainants and type of complaints – this

chart describes the number of individuals complaining and

whether they submitted a generic complaint or complained

about a specific aircraft.

• Complaints per aircraft type – the top 3 most complained

about aircraft types are presented in this chart.

• Complaints by hour – this chart describes the number of

complaints received each hour within the desired time

period.

• Complaints by number of engines – this chart describes

whether the complaint related to 2 or 4 engine jet aircraft or

otherwise.

• Complaints by issue/statement – this chart provides an

overview of the key points made in complaints (e.g. aircraft

should fly higher, flight paths should be dispersed over a

wide area).

Noise complaints – Case study

81

Gatwick

noise lab

complaints

reporting.

Source:

http://noisela

b.casper.aer

o/lgw/#page

=complaints

http://noiselab.casper.aero/lgw/#page=complaints


.

Noise complaints – Case study

82

Case study – Online reporting on the number of complainants

only. Sydney airport reports on the number of complainants only.

This is to help enable Airservices Australia to focus on analysis of

noise issues and causal factors. Data is reported on an online

platform in a clear and understandable manner. This includes a

series of charts showing:

• Main issues of concern.

• Complainant location.

• Data explaining possible reasons for a spike in complainants.

When Airservices Australia made the change from reporting on

complaints to complainants only, the total number of complaints

decreased by 70%. It is important to note that Sydney airport is the

only airport in the study that reports on complainants only.

Noise concerns for the 869 complainants registered in 2016.

Source: http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/complaints/

Case study – Separating complaints complainants. Vancouver

airport reports on complaints within its annual noise reports. To

avoid skewing the data and to enhance the airport’s understanding

of local noise concerns, the data is split between complaints and

complainants. The reports contain simple maps and charts showing:

• Numbers and locations of complaints and complainants – For

example, in 2015, the airport received 1,667 complaints from 298

individuals. This was a 5% decrease in complaints and a 7%

decrease in individuals compared to the previous year.

• Types of operation – For example, in 2015, 25% of noise

complaints were due to jet departures, 25% were due to jet arrivals

and 2% were due to helicopters

Frequency and Geo-

distribution of Noise

Concerns. Source:

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-

yvr/noise-

management/publications

Complaints and complainants per year

(2015 Annual Noise Report). Source:

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-

management/publications

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/complaints/

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-management/publications


Research summary

Community outreach


Introduction

Airports undertake various activities to engage with local

communities on aircraft noise. The purpose of engagement

with local communities typically includes sharing

information, gaining feedback and addressing specific

topics.

Research in this area primarily focuses on community

forums similar to the CENAC group at Toronto.

Typical practices

Community forums: Are used to bring together the

stakeholders who have a direct impact on, or are directly

impacted by, aviation noise. This includes both industry

and local stakeholders (i.e. elected officials and/or

community representatives).

Information sharing: Almost all airports will share

information with communities. For example, online

publications explaining the operation of the airport,

activities to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise and

reporting on noise metrics (e.g. complaints, noise monitor

information etc.).

Regional trends

With the exception of airports in the Middle East and Asia,

almost all airports researched undertaken some form of

engagement with the local community. This varies from

basic information sharing using websites or reports through

to collaboration using community engagement forums.

Some airports undertake additional activities such as noise

labs to further engage communities and provide an

opportunity to share information.


Noise exhibits: Madrid-Barajas airport has an

‘expoambiente’ area which is used to raise awareness of

noise, highlight the airports work to improve the noise

environment and provide an area for debate and

presentation of environmental topics.

Community engagement vehicles: Chicago O’Hare

airport, has a community engagement vehicle which attend

local events to share information on airport operations and

provide an opportunity for the local community to ask

questions.

Community outreach - Overview

84


Community outreach - Best practice from around the world

85

• 50% of European airports have a community committee. Others have

community engagement spaces or “noise labs”.

• Where committees exist they include airport, airline, community and

Government representatives. They are usually chaired independently.

• Groups meet approx. 4 times a year. Aims are to discuss issues at the airport

through engagement with community, develop workable solutions to problems.

• Some airports have additional groups that focus on specific tasks such as

Gatwick’s Noise and Track Keeping Group.

• Gatwick have recently undertaken an Independent Arrivals Review which has

developed a number of recommendations to improve noise and created a Noise

Management Board to oversee progress and the development of new actions.

• No formal committees

exist. Community outreach

at Changi is charitable. At

Hong Kong the Civil

Aviation Department visited

some councils to explain

aviation noise.

• Community forums are common throughout Canadian airports. Consultative and

have no express authority.

• Generally, committees are chaired by the airport and attended by NAVCANADA,

airline representatives, airport, Transport Canada, councillors and residents.

• Vancouver also invites tribal group representatives, industry groups and

Department of Health.

• Only Vancouver and Toronto publish ToR: Relate to noise mitigation, adherence

to targets and NAPs, land use etc.

• Meeting minutes highlight group have positive impact on NAP development and

reporting (Calgary).

• Vancouver undertakes annual noise survey.

• Other than Hartsfield-Jackson, all other US airports have

airport committees.

• Committees usually do not have direct engagement with

communities as elected representatives are involved

instead.

• There is a drive towards community roundtable events

involving airport, city officials, FAA, airlines and community

representatives (public allowed to watch and engage at

certain times).

• Committees are usually chaired by somebody other than

airport (Los Angeles use independent consultant).

• Groups usually meet every 2-3 months. Large groups

(O’Hare) meet more often.

• Groups often have sub-committees to focus on technical

or other matters which are then brought to the main group.

• Community groups have improved NAPs: at Los Angeles

this includes satellite departures, minimum overflight

altitudes. At San Francisco and O'Hare, the groups

introduced the FQ program.

• FAA has setup a national website which acts as a

repository of knowledge to aid noise enquiries. Airport

have own fact sheets as well as news feeds, twitter

(although usage varies).

• O’Hare has a community engagement vehicle.

• No information

available on

community groups.

• Independently chaired community groups composed government officials, airline representatives, elected

MPs, community representatives. Public forums also exist at Auckland airport.

• Responsible for identifying community noise concerns, identifying mitigations to reduce impact and

meeting minutes are published online.

• Sydney airport has a sub-group which monitors operations and noise.

• Both Sydney and Auckland engage with the community using either online information (videos) and an

experience centre to explain how the airport operates and how it might impact residents.

• Sydney makes an concerted effort to engage: websites, phone lines, email, adverts, and direct postal to

100,000 addresses, forums and FAQ sessions and door to door visits.


Which airports have a dedicated forum

Of the 27 airports investigated, 13 airports have a dedicated

community engagement forum. Of the remaining 13 airports,

4 airports have undertaken ad-hoc community engagement

activities such as consultations, studies and the provision of

information.

Membership of the community forum

All of the forums included the following organisations:

• The airport,

• The Air Traffic Control Provider (ANSP),

• The safety regulator (and/or the relevant government

department),

• A pilot or airline representative,

• Community members.

Community members were drawn from one or both of the

following:

• Elected officials i.e. councillors / members of parliament,

• (Non-elected) community representatives.

If the community representatives were involved they were

required to represent a local area. No clear trend was seen in

the inclusion of either community groups or elected officials.

Some airports involved local noise lobby groups to provide

this representation.

If community representatives did not sit on the forum,

common practice was to include a public session as part of

the forum. This could take the form of a Q&A session or a full

public meeting. The structure of the Q&A sessions varied,

from requesting questions in advance to a holding drop-in

sessions.

Typically all organisations represented on community forums

were allowed to nominate a primary and reserve

representative. 5 airports prescribed terms of between 2 to 4

years before these representatives require re-election.

No airports applied restrictions on the seniority of forum

representatives. However, representatives were generally

required to be is competent in their position and able to make

decisions on behalf of that organisation. Typically,

community forums were found to involve leaders of lobby

groups, mayors or members of parliament, senior managers

and company directors.

Community outreach – Membership of community forums

86

Airport community engagement programs

13

4

9

Community

committee

No engagement

Ad-hoc engagement

Case Study - To determine which community groups sat on the

newly created Gatwick Noise Management Board, Gatwick

asked the 14 local noise action groups to nominate candidates to

share 4 positions on the NMB. 8 groups were nominated and a

consensus was developed amongst all 14 groups to determine

the pairings to allow these 8 candidates to share the 4 positions.


Authority and Chairmanship

All groups researched held an advisory status (i.e. they

could make recommendations but not mandate

enforcement or apply penalties).

All groups had a Chairman with some groups also using a

Vice Chairman. More than 50% of the committees were not

Chaired by the local airport. Instead the Chair and Vice

Chair was typically another member on the forum who was

elected by the committee, or a Chair selected for their

independence.

In some cases, it is understood that the election of a Chair

was difficult and instead a mayor, member of parliament or

an independent consultant was used.

Structure

The community forums researched typically involved up to

20 members, with the majority operating as a single group.

However in some cases where the membership of these

groups was larger, working groups or sub-committees are

used to manage specific tasks.

The Frankfurt Airport and Regional Forum, which has 60

members, provides a good example of committee structure

involving a main committee and sub-groups. A case study

is shown opposite.

Although only five of the community forums researched use

sub-groups, almost all forums held the mandate within their

Terms of Reference to create subgroups, with the sub-

group chair nominated by the chair, on an ad-hoc basis, to

tackle specific issues.

.

Community outreach – Governance of community forums

87

Case Study - The Frankfurt airport and regional forum includes

60 representatives from the airport, airlines, pilots, research

institutes, government and trade unions. The group is

structured as follows:

• A 3 person board of directors (one from the airport operator,

one community representative and a neutral (currently the head

of the European Space Agency) representative).

• Steering committee – decides the work of the forum.

• Expert group on active noise abatement – researches and

examines different options for active noise abatement.

• Airport and Region group – undertake constructive dialogue on

the airport and its effect on communities through discussion of

environmental issues and supports the Steering committee.

• Environment and Communication centre – inform communities

of the forum’s activities.

Board of Directors

Steering committee

Expert group on Active Noise Abatement

Airport and Region group

Environment and Communication

centre

Structure of Frankfurt Airport and Region Forum, Source

http://www.forum-flughafen-region.de/en/about-us/arf/overview/

http://www.forum-flughafen-region.de/en/about-us/arf/overview/


Sub-groups and workplans

The committees followed two clear trends with the majority

operating with a dedicated workplan, or undertaking works

to actively identify options for improvement. The remaining

airports focused on reviewing the works undertaken by the

airport.

If a workplan was in place, it had been developed by the

committee before being recommended to the airport or

ANSP. These workplans typically covered similar topics

including:

• Noise and tack monitoring.

• Monitoring and reducing the impact of departures.

• Monitoring and reducing the impact of arrivals.

• Providing input into consultations, policy and legislation.

The workplan would be regularly reviewed with progress

reports made by the airport or ANSP to the committee.

These reports would be made publicly available to ensure

transparency.

Community outreach – Community forum workplans

88

The workplan of community engagement committees

8 Workplan and active

engagement with

airport 6

Passive role mainly

reviewing airport

works and reports

Case Study - The Los Angeles community roundtable has

developed an extensive work program to “identify noise

impacts in the surrounding communities and to recommend

courses of action to reduce noise without shifting noise

between communities”.

The workplan was developed and agreed by the entire

roundtable. It is reviewed on an annual basis and was updated

in January 2017, it currently covers the following topics:

• Provide input to, and review the FAA airspace redesign project;

• Monitor departures, go-arounds, arrivals, engine run-ups and

the noise insulation scheme;

• Engage airlines on the A320 family ‘whine’;

• Review noise metrics to update processes including the metrics

used within the noise insulation programme;

• Establish relationships with other roundtables to increase

influence;

• Engage with technical, legislative and regulatory updates.

Each topic on the workplan is assigned a priority and workload

from airport personnel to manage key topics with the available

resources. Progress updates on each topic on the workplan

are provided at the roundtable meetings. The minutes from

these meetings are made publicly available on the airports

website.

The group has recently engaged with Untied Airlines who have

committed to undertake the modification to their A320 family

fleets to fit the vortex generators to reduce the impact of the

‘A320 whine’. This initiative was part of a joint action with San

Francisco and Chicago O’Hare community committees.


,

Community outreach - Additional case studies

89

Case Study - In the US is it is becoming more common for

airports to host community roundtables. The San Francisco

Community roundtable is a good example.

The group meets every 2 to 3 months and is chaired by a

member of the roundtable. The chair is elected by the other

members with the position held for 12 months.

Membership consists of elected officials who volunteer to

represent their community and may take part in one of 5

standing sub committees which include the:

• Work programs subcommittee,

• Operations and efficiency subcommittee,

• Legislative subcommittee,

• Departures technical working group,

• Arrivals technical working group.

Members of public can raise issues through their roundtable

representative although time is provided for public comments.

The forum has a dedicated website explaining their work and

many resources available to help public understand noise

issues.

Evidence of the roundtable’s activities/successes is publicly

available as the round table:

• Publishes their annual work program online,

• Updates the public on the progress of its projects online and via

social media.

The round table’s most significant success is the introduction of

the airport’s Fly Quiet program.

Case Study - The Gatwick Noise Management Board (NMB)

was formed as a result of an independent review of aircraft

arrivals.

The group is made up of representatives from the airport, tower

and approach ANSP, the safety regulator, government

transport department, local, parish and county councillors and

community noise lobby groups.

The group is chaired by an independent consultant and meets

every 3 months with a public forum held once a year.

The NMB is currently tasked with providing oversight on the

implementation of the remaining 22 recommendations of the

independent arrivals review to reduce the impact of arrivals

noise. In just less than a year the board has supervised the

implementation of the following changes:

• The introduction of a revised charging regime to promote the

FOPP modification of the Airbus A320;

• Reviewed land use planning rules around the airport and

shared best practice between planning authorities;

• Reviewed procedures to improve Continuous Descent Arrivals

and have identified follow-on initiatives;

• Changed the minimum ILS joining point to reduce the

concentration of approaching aircraft;

• Undertaken a review on the implementation of new technology

including Time Base Separation along with AMAN and DMAN

integration.

To ensure transparency, the group publishes its meeting

agendas, minutes and presentations online on a dedicated

page on the airports website.


Community outreach - Additional community engagement initiatives

90

Case Study - Chicago O’Hare airport is publicly owned and its

engagement forum, the O’Hare Noise Compatibility

Commission (ONCC) is made up of elected and city officials. In

total 58 members are represented with a full time executive

director and administrative assistant which manages three

standing committees covering technical matters, the residential

and schools noise insulation schemes.

Ad-hoc standing committees are used to manage the fly quiet

program, budgeting and governance. Across all of the standing

and ad-hoc committees, the ONCC held 39 meetings in 2016,

of which more than 20 were open for public attendance and the

raising of comments.

In addition, to the regular community engagement meetings,

the ONCC has a mobile community engagement vehicle which

travels to community events, festivals, schools, and libraries

through out the year. The vehicle has video presentations and

computer demonstrations that explain, among other things, the

O'Hare Airport Noise Management System and noise profiles

of different types of aircraft.

Case Study - Sydney airport has a dedicated community

engagement forum which is Independently chaired. Its

membership includes Government officials, airline

representatives, community representatives and Members of

Parliament. It meets quarterly and allows 30 minutes for pre-

arranged questions from the public.

In addition to the community forum, the airport undertakes a

dedicated and proactive process to engage with the public as

part of infrastructure and airspace changes. The most recent

engagement was undertaken as part of a runway upgrade and

involved the following actions:

• Setup and management of a dedicated consultation

website.

• Setup and management of phone lines for comments.

• Directed emails providing information and updates.

• Adverts in the local media.

• Production and distribution of information brochures to over

100,000 residences.

• The organisation of community and stakeholder consultation

meetings.

• The organisation of community question and answer

sessions.

• Door to door visits.

The Chicago Department of

Aviation community engagement

vehicle attending an event,

Source

http://www.oharenoise.org/resour

ces/publications/303-oncc-trifold-

04-15-final-web/file

http://www.oharenoise.org/resources/publications/303-oncc-trifold-04-15-final-web/file

Research summary

Noise ombudsman


Overview

A noise ombudsman is an independent body or person

responsible for oversight and intervention in noise

activities. Their typical responsibilities include:

• Complaints: Handling of complaints or oversight of the

complaints process;

• Community: Review consultation processes and

community concerns related to aircraft noise; and,

• Reviews: Reviews of specific aspects of noise

management.

More recently, proposals for ombudsman in the United

Kingdom and United States have moved the emphasis of

the role towards involvement in the airspace change

process, in particular community engagement during this

process.

Existing ombudsman

Currently, only Australia, the United States and Belgium

have noise ombudsman:

• In Australia, a noise ombudsman has existed since 2010.

The role of the ombudsman is to review complaints

handling, monitor community consultation processes,

monitor the presentation of noise data to the public and

undertake targeted reviews of specific aspects of noise

management. The ANO can make recommendations but

these are non-binding.

• In the United States, the noise ombudsman is part of the

FAA. The role is being revised through the FAA

Community Accountability act, which is currently with the

Senate. This act will put more emphasis on the

ombudsman liaising with communities, including the

appointment ‘community ombudsman’ in each FAA region.

• In Belgium, the Airport Mediation Service acts as a

complaints management service rather than a review and

action body.

• In the UK, an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation

Noise (ICCAN) has been proposed following the Airports

Commission review into future aviation capacity. Although

the role of ICCAN is still to be finalised, it is proposed to be

focussed on airspace change and assisting communities.

Case studies for each of the above are provided in the

following pages.

Noise ombudsman - Overview

92


Noise ombudsman - Best practice from around the world

93

• Brussels has the Airport

Mediation Office which acts as

an independent flight

performance team for the

airport, by collecting

information, complaints and

providing support to forums.

• Noise ombudsman

recommended in the UK as

part of the Airports

Commission work onto future

airport capacity. Ombudsman

is currently under consultation.

• No noise ombudsman

exists in the Far East,

however in Hong Kong the

Civil Aviation Department

is responsible for noise

management.

• No noise ombudsman,

Transport Canada has ultimate

responsibility.

• Noise ombudsman is part of

the FAA.

• It acts as "serve as a

liaison with the public on

issues regarding aircraft

noise" and "be consulted

when the Administrator

proposes changes in

aircraft routes so as to

minimize any increases in

aircraft noise over

populated areas.

• No reports of

implementation or progress

to meet the targets. It also

has no jurisdiction over

military matters.

• No noise ombudsman

exists in the Middle East.

• Noise ombudsman in existence in Australia .

• Time limits apply for historic complaints.

• Noise ombudsman is a single person.


Noise ombudsman - Case studies

94

Case Study - The Noise Ombudsman in the United States is part

of the FAA and was established in 1996 as part of the Federal

Aviation Reauthorisation Act. The role is defined as follows,

however no public reports are available after 1999:

• Review route changes over noise sensitive areas to assure

process have been followed with appropriate consultation.

• Communicate with local officials on aircraft noise.

• Review noise concerns and facilitate resolution.

• Review noise concerns.

• Prepare and issue public reports.

The role of the FAA ombudsman is being revised through the FAA

Community Accountability which is currently with the a Senate.

The proposed revisions focus on the noise ombudsman:

• Acting as a liaison between communities affected by aircraft noise

and the FAA Administrator.

• Monitor the impact of the FAAs NEXTGEN (Next Generation Air

Transportation System) programme on communities in the vicinity

of airports.

• Appointing ‘community ombudsman’ for each FAA region.

Case Study - The Australian Noise Ombudsman (ANO) was

founded in 2010 following a white paper on future aviation. The

Ombudsman exists as an independent office funded by the

Department of Infrastructure and regional development that:

• Reviews handing of complaints.

• Monitors and reports on the effectiveness of community

consultation.

• Monitors the presentation and distribution of noise information.

• Provides targeted reviews of specific aspects of noise management.

The ANO has a Service Charter which is publicly available and

outlines its working practices, including timescales for responding

to complaints, practices for investigation and information sharing

throughout the investigation. Unlike other ombudsman, the ANO

also has jurisdiction over military aviation.

The ANO can take direct complaints but prefers to settle upon

cases that have already been investigated and considered

unsatisfactory by the complainant. The ANO has also published

reviews on complaints handling and the presentation of noise

information at Sydney/Perth.

On conclusion of its investigations the ANO will provide an initial

response to either Air Services or the Department of Defence to

resolve the matter. If the ANO believes the response is not suitable

the ANO has the power to make recommendations. If these are

made, they are delivered to the responsible party in advance with

60 days to respond. The recommendations are non-blinding and

they can either accept or reject the recommendations, but

regardless of the decision the report is made public alongside a

joint ANO, air services/department of defence press statement

outlining the issues and the relevant response. (continued)

The ANO will track and publicly report on progress against the

recommendations generated by these reviews. The ANO also

investigates specific noise issue such as the handling of airspace

improvement proposals, specific peaks in complaints and military

flying.

The ANO has a legal/policy background and is supported by three

staff. A new ANO was placed in post in February 2017 on a 3 year

term.


Noise ombudsman - Case studies

95

Case Study - Following the Airports Commissions study into

new airport capacity in the South East of the UK, a

recommendation was made to establish a UK Independent

Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN).

The exact roles and responsibilities of this body are currently

under consultation by the Department for Transport as part of a

wider public consultation on airspace policy, but could include:

• Involvement in any CAA Tier 1 or 2 airspace change

processes*.

• Work with both large and small aerodromes.

• Review plans and make recommendations on behalf of

communities on airspace/noise changes.

• Assisting communities to understand proposed changes.

• Review engagement plans to ensure accessibility and

awareness of proposed changes.

Although the role of ICCAN is still to be finalised, it is proposed

to be more focussed on airspace change and assisting

communities. In addition, ICCAN:

• Could have the power to publish data to improve noise

management, which could include airline statistics and the use

of league tables, and

• Produce best practice guidelines for noise management and

community engagement.

* CAA Tier 1 or 2 airspace change includes

permanent/temporary changes, trials or procedural changes

resulting in the redistribution of air traffic.

Case Study - The Belgium Airport Mediation Service was

established in 2001 Royal decree to develop an independent

mechanism for residents, municipal administrations and

airlines to:

• Collect and handle complaints and suggestions from residents

on the use of the Brussels-National airport.

• Collect and disseminate information on the trajectories followed

and the nuisance caused by aircraft using the Brussels-National

airport according to the complaints received.

• Collect, record and analyse all relevant information to address

and determine causes of complaints from airport residents.

• Keeping up-to-date documentation on aircraft noise and

trajectory at Brussels-National airport.

• Facilitate mediation between all parties involved in the activities

of Brussels-National Airport.

• Provide logistical and administrative support to the Consultation

Forum, which should bring together periodically the various

parties concerned by the nuisances caused by overflights of

aircraft (Regions, Provinces, Municipalities, operators,

associations of local residents).

The service is an independent mediator for handling

complaints rather than a reviewer of complaints such as a

typical ombudsman. In addition, the service is focused on

Brussels-National airport, in comparison to the other

ombudsman researched which covered a much wider area.

Limited information is publicly available from the service.

Research summary

Fly Quiet programs


Fly Quiet programs - Best practice from around the world

• Heathrow airport has a FQ program which

ranks airline performance against noise

related metrics (CDAs, track keeping, early

arrivals, noise certification etc.). Reports are

published quarterly.

• No Fly Quiet programmes.

• No Fly Quiet programmes.

• Vancouver has a FQ program which directly measures aircraft noise and

compliance with noise abatement procedures. Best performers are publicly

reported upon.

• San Francisco has a voluntary FQ program. It

tracks several metrics and has a useful video on

the website. Metrics include: fleet noise quality,

noise limit violations, night runway protocol

compliance etc.

• Chicago O’Hare has run a voluntary Fly Quiet

program since 1997. It is designed to encourage

airlines to use night time runway use and flight

tracks The program tracks performance across 6

metrics - night time runway usage, night time

flight tracks, complaints, ground run-ups and night

time aircraft noise.

• No Fly Quiet

programmes.


What is a Fly Quiet program?

‘Fly Quiet program’ is a term used to describe a voluntary

initiative designed to encourage airlines to adopt new

aircraft or fly existing aircraft in a manner which minimises

their noise impact on the communities surrounding the

airport. Typically, Fly Quiet programs include the following:

• A set of metrics used to measure noise performance.

• Comparison of performance between different airlines.

• Public reporting of results.

• Awards for the best performing/most improved airlines.

Fly Quiet metrics

Fly Quiet programmes typically have 5 to 6 metrics. The

decision to use a given metric depended on a number of

factors such as ease of measurement, importance to local

communities and whether it was linked to the airport’s

noise abatement procedures (NAP)s. Some metrics

measure noise directly using noise monitors, while others

are “proxy” metrics that give a strong indication of if the

aircraft is being flown in the quietest way possible (e.g.

departure route adherence or continuous descent approach

achievement are two such proxy metrics). In general,

metrics used in Fly Quiet that can be categorised as

follows:

• Strategic metrics: These metrics are easier for airlines to

influence in the longer term such as ‘average’ aircraft noise

certification or fleet composition (e.g. Chapter number

certification).

• Operational metrics: These relate to how aircraft are

being flown and whether they are compliant with NAPs

(e.g. Continuous Descent Approach).

• Night metrics: These are based on restrictions on aircraft

operations at night (e.g. night-time flight tracks).

Comparison of performance

A key element to Fly Quiet programmes is comparing

performance across airlines – either for individual metrics

or across all metrics. This allows airports to identify and

publicise which airlines are having the lowest noise impact.

Airports typically score airline performance in each metric

and based on the results, will work with airlines to address

any identified issues.

Public reporting of results

The incentive for an airline to improve its performance is

the publication of quarterly Fly Quiet reports. As per above,

these reports can include rankings relative to other airlines,

and also how the airline’s performance complies with

minimum criteria set for each metric. Some airports also

have annual awards ceremonies to recognise the best and

most improved performers.

Public reporting in this way is a major incentive to airlines

as FQ reports are often of interest to media outlets who will

“name and shame” the worst performers, particularly if they

are based in the same country.

Fly Quiet programmes - Introduction to the area

98


Reporting

An annual awards ceremony each year to recognise the best

performers in different aircraft categories. The categories and

2015 winners are:

• Propeller aircraft - WestJet Encore.

• Narrow body jet aircraft – American Airlines.

• Wide body jet aircraft – All Nippon Airways.

Vancouver is the only airport with a Fly Quiet program that

does not produce reports on airline performance.

Where are Fly Quiet programs used?

Fly Quiet programs have been implemented at 4 of the 26

airports researched in this study. They are:

• Vancouver,

• London Heathrow,

• San Francisco,

• Chicago O’Hare.

Case studies of each are provided on the following pages.

Fly Quiet programs - Introduction to the area

99

Case Study – Vancouver airport. Vancouver has had a Fly

Quiet programme for 12 years. The program is based on noise

monitor data and compliance with NAPs.

Qualification criteria

Airlines qualify for the program if they fly a regular service to

the airport.

Metrics used

Two metrics are used:

• The airline must not be in suspected violation of any of the

published Noise Abatement Procedures.

• The airline must have the lowest average annual noise level

for their aircraft category (as measured by the Aircraft Noise

& Operations Monitoring System).

Vancouver Fly Quiet award winners (2012-2014) (source:

http://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/noise-management/publications)


,

Fly Quiet programs - Case studies

100

Case Study - Heathrow airport. Heathrow airport has run a

Fly Quiet program since 2013. The program is intended to

further encourage airlines to use quieter aircraft and to fly them

in the quietest way possible.


Airlines qualify for Heathrow’s Fly Quiet program if they ranked

in the top 50 in terms of number of movements in a given

quarter. This covers over 90% of the flights at Heathrow airport

and is done to avoid airlines with low movements at Heathrow

achieving inconsistent rankings due to small variations in

actual performance (i.e. one extra violation could cause such

an airline to drop significantly in terms of overall ranking).

Metrics used

The program tracks airline performance across 6 metrics.

These are split between strategic, operational and nigh-time

metrics:

• Quota count/seat/movement: This strategic metric is

based on the quota count system described as part of the

“quieter fleet initiatives” section. The aim of this metric is to

score the noise produced per flight whilst accounting for the

fact that different aircraft operate with different frequencies

and carry a different number of passengers.

• Chapter number: This strategic metric accounts for the

average ICAO noise chapter certification of an airline’s fleet.

• Track keeping achievement: This operational metric

measures how closely a departure follows its planned route.

• Continuous descent arrival achievement: This

operational metric measures whether aircraft on arrival

descended in accordance with the published definition

which focuses on the use of continuous descent, with

minimal level segments until touchdown. This method of

flying reduces the noise impact on communities.

• Pre 0430 arrivals: This is the first of two night metrics.

Aircraft are not allowed to arrive at Heathrow before 0430. A

violation is registered when an aircraft arrives before this

time without a dispensation (which are granted in

exceptional circumstances).

• Unscheduled pre 0600 arrivals: Aircraft that are scheduled

to arrive at Heathrow after 0600 may not arrive before that

time (without a dispensation). This metric measures the

number of violations of this restriction.

(continued on next page)


,


101

Case Study - Heathrow airport (continued)

Reporting

Heathrow airport publishes quarterly FQ reports /league tables

which describe the performance of each airline in two different

ways:

• Overall ranking & league table: Each airline’s score in the

6 metrics is combined to give an overall Fly Quiet ranking.

• RAG score: Instead of providing a numerical score in each

metric, Heathrow airport sets Red-Amber-Green thresholds

for performance in each metric. For example, if over 75% of

an airline’s flights use CDAs, then a green score is

awarded. Above 55% (but lower than 75%) an amber score

is awarded. Measurement of each metric and the thresholds

are described in the fly quiet reports.

Reports are publicised via the airport’s website and via press

releases. These have often been picked up by the media and

prompted airlines to work with the airport to improve their

performance. Heathrow airport does not currently hold an

awards event to recognise good performance.

An example report can be found here:

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Fly

Quiet_Q4_2016.pdf

Working with ‘red dot’ operators

If an airline has a ‘red dot’ in a particularly area of the leagues

table, Heathrow works closely with them to improve

performance.

Extract of Q3 2016 league table showing airline rankings and RAG scores. Source:

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/FlyQuiet_Q3_2016.pdf

Media headlines related to Heathrow Fly Quiet program

Source: various – ITV, The Daily Telegraph, News 24




,


102

Case Study – San Francisco airport. San Francisco’s Fly

Quiet program is a Community Round table initiative

implemented by the Aircraft Noise Abatement Office. The goal

of the program is to reduce single event and total noise levels

by influencing airlines to operate as quietly as possible in the

San Francisco Bay area. The San Francisco airport website

contains a 15 minute video explaining the program, its goals

and the rationale for the metrics used.


There is no information available on qualification for the

program.

Metrics used

The program consists of 6 metrics, 4 of which are specific to

the local environment:

• Fleet noise quality rating: This strategic metric is similar to

the chapter number metric at Heathrow airport. It grades the

overall noise performance of each airline’s fleet. This is

likely to be based on certified noise levels (although that is

not explicitly stated).

• Noise exceedance rating: The airport sets maximum limits

on the noise levels allowed at each of its noise monitors.

This operational metric measures the number of violations

for each airline.

• Night time runway use rating: San Francisco airport

implemented voluntary preferential runways

scheme in 1988 to maximise the number of night flights that

operated over water. This operational metric measures the

use of these preferential runways.

• Shoreline departure quality rating: This operational metric

measures track keeping on a VFR route designed to keep

aircraft over industrial areas

• Gap departure quality rating: Flights departing runway 28

use a procedure that involves them flying straight out over

urban areas (referred to locally as gap departure). This

operational metric scores aircraft depending on their altitude

at on mile intervals over these areas.

• Foster city arrival quality rating: This operational metric

scores approaches to the airport depending on whether or

not they arrived using an over water procedure at night and

thereby avoided overflying Foster City

Reporting

San Francisco produces a quarterly Fly Quiet report which ranks

airline performance across the 6 metrics. It also presents awards

each year in the following categories:

• Quietest overall airline.

• Most improved airline.

• Chairperson’s award for exceptional commitment to all aspects of

the Fly Quiet program.

An example report can be found here: http://media.flysfo.com/SFO%20Fly%20Quiet%20Report%204Q201

6.pdf

http://media.flysfo.com/SFO Fly Quiet Report 4Q2016.pdf


,


103

Case Study – San Francisco airport (continued) Case Study – Chicago O’Hare airport. Chicago O’Hare has

had a Fly Quiet program since 1997. It is a voluntary program

that is designed to encourage the use of night time preferential

runways and flight tracks. Chicago O’Hare’s Fly Quiet program

is slightly different to others as it combines elements of

traditional noise reports with elements of a Fly Quiet program.


There is no information available on qualification.

Metrics used

The program measures five metrics, two of which are used to

compare airline performance.

• Night time runway usage: summarises night time runway

usage on each of the 7 runways. Graphs and charts are

presented showing the number of movements by aircraft per

runway, per hour and per airline.

• Night time flight tracks: This operational metric compares

the average deviation from planned flight tracks for each

airline departing from 09R or 28R at night.

• Night-time complaints: This metric tracks complaints and

complainants per community.

• Ground run-ups: This metric describes the number and

location of engine run-up tests for different airlines and

aircraft types. Unlike other metrics it is measured throughout

the day.

Extract of Q4 2016 league table showing airline rankings, scores for each metric

and overall scores. Source:

http://media.flysfo.com/SFO%20Fly%20Quiet%20Report%204Q2016.pdf

http://media.flysfo.com/SFO Fly Quiet Report 4Q2016.pdf


,


104

Case Study – Chicago O’Hare airport (continued)

• Night time aircraft noise: This metric presents the average

Leq measured at each noise monitor during the night for a

given quarter.

Reporting

Chicago O’Hare publishes Fly Quiet reports quarterly. Data is

presented for each metric using a number of graphs, tables

and charts (depending on what is appropriate) to illustrate how

performance has changed over time.

Red-Amber-Green (RAG) scoring is to emphasis different

levels of performance for the night flight tracks and night time

aircraft noise metrics.

An example report can be found here:

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Commun

ity/Noise/OHare/FQ/QuaterlyReports/2016/2016-Q2.pdf

Extract of Q2 2016 Fly Quiet report for average deviation from night-time

preferential runway. Source:

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Community/Noise/OHare/FQ/

QuaterlyReports/2016/2016-Q2.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Community/Noise/OHare/FQ/QuaterlyReports/2016/2016-Q2.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Community/Noise/OHare/FQ/QuaterlyReports/2016/2016-Q2.pdf


The diagram on the right

summarises the metrics that have

been used in airport Fly Quiet

programs.

Metrics have also been categorised

into either strategic, operational,

night (or a combination of two).

Although complaints are part of

Chicago O’Hare’s Fly Quiet program,

this metric does not fit into any of the

categories.

Where metrics used are similar at

different airports they have been

grouped into a generic description

(e.g. Heathrow’s chapter number

metric is similar to San Francisco’s

fleet noise quality rating and

therefore these have been grouped

into ‘fleet noise certification’).

Fly Quiet programmes – Summary of metrics used

105

QC/seat/movement

Fleet noise certification

Continuous descent

arrivals achievement

(CDA)Flight track keeping

achievement (TK)

Pre 0430 arrivals

Unscheduled

pre 0600

arrivals

STRATEGIC

OPERATIONAL

NIGHT

Noise exceedances

Night time

runway use

Over water

departure

achievement

Minimum

height

achievement

Night time over water

departure achievement

Complaints

Night time

TK

Average

measured

night noise

Ground run up

monitoring

Violation

of NAPs

Average annual noise

Research summary

Reporting of noise monitor data


Introduction

This area of research investigated how airports report on

aircraft noise. It concentrates on the types of noise

measures used and how noise information is presented to

the public.

Typical practices

Traditional metrics: A number of different metrics were

used by airports to measure noise. The majority of these

were internationally recognised, such as Leq, or a variation

of these. Decibel units were commonly used but these are

considered difficult to understand on paper as they are a

logarithmic measure.

Online platforms: Online flight tracking tools such as

WebTrak or CASPER were commonly used to report live

and historical noise data. The tools displayed the location

and noise measurements at each noise monitor,

accompanied by a colour scale to provide an idea of

relative volume.

Traditional noise reports: Many airports produced “print

friendly” noise reports, either monthly, quarterly or annually.

These typically presented charts and graphs of noise

monitor. The level of detail varied significantly, with some

including additional explanation of data and others, only

graphs.


Number above metrics: Sydney airport uses “number

above” metrics to report on noise data. This metric

describes the number of noise events that exceed a

threshold set by the airport.

Bespoke noise reports: Heathrow, Chicago O’Hare and

Sydney airports use temporary noise monitors to produce

bespoke noise reports for specific communities.

Noise contours: Some airports produced noise contours

either based on historical or forecast noise data. Typically

contours were based on traditional noise metrics.

Regional trends

There were no significant regional trends in this research

area. The majority of airports measured and reported

noise, although the specifics of how this was done were up

to the discretion of each airport.

Reporting of noise monitor data - Introduction to the area

107


Reporting of noise monitor data - Best practice from around the world

108

• Airports have noise monitoring systems which are

sometimes integrated with flight tracking systems. Data is

reported as Leq, LAeq and dBA depending on the airport.

• Airports prepare reports available online. In general these

present data in bar charts or similar.

• Reports are generally either too simple to be meaningful or

too technical to be understandable. However, online tools

are useful.

• Heathrow produces specialist noise reports for specific local

areas.

• Hong Kong has 16 noise

monitors along with a flight

track monitoring system.

Reported in a table online

but cannot be sure how

often it’s updated. Covers

all noise monitors and the

percentage of noise levels

between various limits

(<65, 65-69, 70-74 and

>75.).

• Airports use online tools which are integrated with web tracking

tools, Data reported in Leq in Sydney and dBA in Casper.

• Reports are generated on a annually. However they are

technical and could be improved with description and layout.

• Sydney identifies the number and location of noise events

above 70dBA and reports these online along with the aircraft

type which broke the limit.

• Sydney reports are also not easy to understand as noise is

reported in dBA which is different to the online tool.

• YVR, Toronto and Montreal use Leq as reported in online

monitoring tools.

• Reports are produced annually and summarise data over

the entire year. However, by the time the reports are

produced they are often out of date.

• Airports have online tracking systems

which are integrated into noise monitor

systems. Data is reported using a variety of

metrics but Leq and CNEL are most

common.

• Noise reports are produced annually but

these could be considered to be a “data

dump”.

• O’Hare provides noise monitor information

in Lmax, Leq and Sel for each monitor.

However, although this provides a detailed

overview it could be considered confusing.

• No information

available on noise

reporting.


Noise metrics – Overview of research

The key findings of the research were:

• 22 of 26 airports researched used noise monitors.

• A number of different metrics were used by different

airports to report noise monitor data.

• The Leq metric was used most frequently.

• All metrics have advantages and disadvantages in terms of

usefulness and understandability.

Traditional noise metrics

The majority of airports reported noise in terms of

traditional acoustic measures such as decibels. A variety of

metrics are used to report on aircraft noise. Some are

internationally recognised such as Leq, while others are

national metrics such as the Australian Noise Exposure

Index (ANEI), often based on variations of internationally

recognised metrics. Traditional noise metrics are often

regarded as difficult to understand by the general public as

they are logarithmic and can be difficult to equate to an

individual’s perception of a noise event.

Number above metrics

Sydney airport reports on the number of aircraft events

above 70 decibels (dBA), referred to has the N70 metric.

The advantage of this metric is that it is simple to

understand and gives an indication of how noise would

change if traffic increased or decreased. For example, if the

number of flights doubled the number of events about

70dBA would double – this of course relies on all things

being equal and does not account for changing in traffic

mix. Another weakness of this metric is that it treats all

events above 70dBA the same. Conversely it is argued that

this does not matter as long as the 70dBA threshold

reflects the point at which aircraft noise becomes an

annoyance. In any case, if necessary it is possible to report

on the number of events over other thresholds.

Number above metrics are typically reported either in

tabular format or using noise contours. If a tabular format is

used, then the table shows the number of events in a fixed

area. If noise contours are used, the number of events is

fixed and the area within the contour varies.

Further detail on the use of the number above metrics at

Sydney airport is provided in a case study on the following

pages.

Reporting of noise monitor data – Noise metrics

109


Case study – N-above metrics

Sydney airport is the only airport in the study that currently uses

the N-above metric to publicly report noise data and has done so

since 1997. The decision to use the metric arose from extended

consultation with community representatives on understandable

methods of reporting noise data as part of the development of

Sydney’s Long Term Operational Plan (LTOP). Discussions initially

focussed on creating single event dBA noise contours for each

aircraft type and flight path. However, this proved too complicated

to implement for the large number of people concerned and the

multiplicity of flight paths and aircraft types involved. Thus the N-

above metric was deemed more suitable.

Sydney airport currently uses the N70 metric (the number of noise

events above 70dBA) and

produces contour maps for day

time hours and sensitive times of

day (0600-0700 and 2000-2300).

These are available in the Sydney

airport Australian Noise Exposure

Index (ANEI) reports which are

published on a quarterly and

annual basis

Sydney airport Q4 2016 ANEI

report N70 contours. Source:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.co

m/wp-content/uploads/Sydney-

N500-ANEI-Report_Q42016.pdf

Reporting of noise monitor data – Metrics

110

In addition to producing noise contour reports, Sydney airport also

reports on N-above metrics on an online platform. Maps are

presented for each quarter which display the average daily noise

events over 70dBA at each noise monitor. Charts are also

presented showing the hourly distribution of noise events over

70dB, distribution by event noise level and average noise level per

aircraft type.

Short term noise monitoring

Sydney airport also has a number of temporary noise monitors

which are typically installed for a period of 3 months. These are

used to assess the impact of a procedural change, obtain data to

refine the airport’s noise modelling or assess a site’s suitability for

a permanent noise monitor. The airport produced noise reports for

these monitors, focussing on the number of events over 60dBA

and 75dBA.

.

Average daily noise events over 70dBA for Q4 2016. Source:

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/noise-monitoring/

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Sydney-N500-ANEI-Report_Q42016.pdf

http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/sydney/noise-monitoring/


Challenges of establishing suitable noise metrics

Establishing a suitable metric for airports to measure and

report noise is challenging. Noise is a complex

phenomenon and as such no one metric is perfect. Each

has its merits and drawbacks. Useful insight into the

challenge is provided by the UK CAA in its survey of noise

attitudes.


111

Case Study – UK CAA survey of noise attitudes

The UK CAA published its survey of attitudes to noise in 2017.

The overall aims of the survey included understanding current

attitudes to aviation noise, what influences these attitudes and

to examine whether the currently used measure of annoyance

in the UK, LAeq, is the appropriate measure of annoyance for

measuring the impact on people living around major airports.

Methodology

The main body of the survey was composed of two parts:

• Social survey: This aimed to understand the household

characteristics, attitudes to noise (from all sources), noise

sensitivity and attitudes towards the environment of

survey participants.

• Correlating noise exposure and annoyance: The

second part of the survey asked more specific questions

on annoyance caused by aviation noise, combined these

results with the social survey and then with actual noise

data to determine the correlation between noise exposure

and annoyance.

Conclusions

One of the main conclusions of the survey was that, compared

to other noise indicators, the traditional LAeq metric correlated

best with annoyance with aircraft noise, but the population

struggled with the metric. It therefore summarised that ‘there is,

therefore merit in considering greater use of Nx [number

above] metrics as supplemental indicators to help portray noise

exposure, but recognising that evidence-based decisions

should continue to use LAeq’

Source: UK CAA Survey of noise attitudes 2014, CAP1506, 2017.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201506%20FEB17.pdf

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP 1506 FEB17.pdf


Noise reporting – Overview of research

Four main ways of reporting measurements of aircraft

noise were identified by the research – online platforms,

reporting of noise monitor data, bespoke noise reports for a

given community and noise contours.

Online platforms

12 of the airports researched had an on online platforms

with all except one providing both live and historical noise

data. In general, these presented flight tracking data,

together with the location of noise monitors. As aircraft

passed a given monitor, some form of colour coding was

used to visualise the change in noise levels – typically

louder events were presented as being towards the red end

of a colour scale, and quieter events as towards the green

end of the colour scale. An example for Copenhagen

airport is shown on the right. The peak in aircraft noise due

to the arriving aircraft is clearly visible.

In addition to live data, online platforms are now starting to

emerge which summarise noise data in a given timeframe.

For example, Gatwick’s Casper system presents a series of

charts (see case study on the following page). These can

be updated by the user for a specific timeframe and/or

noise monitor. Sydney uses a simple website to report

quarterly on noise monitor data. For a given

monitor/community the site provides the hourly number of

noise events about 70dBA, number of noise events at

different dBA levels and average noise generated by

aircraft types (see case study regarding N70 metrics on

previous pages).

Best practice

Gatwick’s Casper system presents a series of simple and

easy to understand charts to the user. These can be

updated based on timeframe or for a specific noise monitor

and are provided in addition to “live” reporting. Gatwick’s

system is therefore best practice.

Reporting of noise monitor data – Methods of reporting

112

Copenhagen airport’s WebTrak system showing a single noise event. Source:

http://webtrak5.bksv.com/cph

http://webtrak5.bksv.com/cph



113

Case study – Simple, automatically generated graphs and

charts

Online tools such as Webtrak and Casper are being

implemented by an ever increasing number of international

airports and are proving to be the most effective means of

presenting noise monitor data to communities. This is

particularly true as they are designed for live updates of noise

data and tracking of individual aircraft. Members of the public

can select an individual aircraft and can view the aircraft type,

height, speed and flight path. Furthermore, when an aircraft

passes a noise monitor, users are able to observe the ‘spike’ in

registered noise. Noise monitor data is typically presented with

colour scales to aid understanding of the ‘relative volume’ of

the noise event.

Gatwick’s Casper system also presents noise monitor data in a

series of graphs including (for each monitor):

• Distribution of noise level measurements (top left),

• Noise events per hour (top right),

• Noise events per day (bottom left),

• Cumulative distribution of noise (bottom right).

Live noise monitor data from Gatwick’s Casper system. Source

http://flighttracking.casper.aero/lgw/

Graphs of noise monitor data from Gatwick’s Casper system. Source

http://noiselab.casper.aero/lgw/#page=databrowser

http://flighttracking.casper.aero/lgw/

http://noiselab.casper.aero/lgw/#page=databrowser


Traditional noise reports

13 airports produced traditional “print friendly” noise

reports. These were typically produced either monthly or

annually and typically provided information on noise

monitor data only, focussing on data such as the number of

single noise events, average and maximum noise levels,

and noise contours. The level of detail in noise reports

varied significantly. For example, Vancouver airport

presented charts on night operations, runway use, run-ups,

noise concerns and noise monitoring data, all with

accompanying explanations (see case study opposite).

This was particularly useful as it allowed the reader to draw

meaningful conclusions from the information presented.

Other airports published a series of automatically

generated charts per noise monitor.

Bespoke noise reports

Chicago O’Hare, Heathrow and Sydney place temporary

monitors in local communities and produce bespoke noise

reports for that area (see case study on the following

page). These report on both aircraft tracks and noise levels

in the area. For noise, background noise levels, aircraft

noise levels and maximum aircraft noise levels are typically

reporting upon.


114

Case study – Vancouver airport annual noise reportsVancouver airport produces annual noise reports that describe the

airport’s noise management initiatives, noise monitor data, operational

statistics and complaint summaries. Detailed tables and graphs are

presented in each section of the report. Most importantly, the reports

contain clear explanation of each graph/chart and any trends that

should be noted. This helps the reader better understand the impact

on them.

Data reported

Specifically, the reports cover the following:

• 2015 highlights: This section details the main changes introduced

by the airport including any new procedures that have been

introduced and the conclusions of any trials/studies.

• Operations in review: This section describes movements and

passenger statistics including graphs showing the change over

time, movements per hour, night flights and fleet noise certification.

• Air traffic flow: This section presents a graph of the monthly

percentage of operations in the easterly or westerly directions.

• Runway use: This section describes the percentage of operations

on each runway on a map of the airport.

• Run-ups: This section describes the number of engine run ups

over the past few years, their locations and a graph of the types of

run-up and percentage of run-ups conducted per hour.

• Noise concerns: This section described the number of complaints

and complainants (see noise complaints section for further details).

• Community survey: The airport conducts an annual survey to

track public opinion of aviation noise. A graph is presented of

percentage of respondents not annoyed by aviation noise each

year.



115

Case study – Vancouver airport annual noise reports

(continued)Noise monitoring data: This section describes the location of

noise monitors, a table of average annual noise (in dBA) for the

past 5 years, the number of single event noise levels above 70dBA

per district and the average daily number of noise events at each

noise monitor.

Case study – Chicago O’Hare bespoke noise reportsChicago O’Hare uses portable noise monitors to provide aircraft

noise information at specific residential areas of interest to citizens.

Noise monitors are typically placed at a site for 2 weeks. Reports

are typically 15 pages long and contain several charts and graphs

describing:

• Daily average noise level (DNL metric) and daily noise events.

• Noise events per hour.

• Average noise level per hour (Leq).

• Average aircraft and average “other community noise” per day.

• Cumulative distribution of aircraft noise events.

• Ranking of loudest noise events (including date, time, operator, max

noise level (Lmax), type of operation, aircraft type).

Extract from one of

Chicago O'Hare's

bespoke noise

reports. Source

https://www.flychicag

o.com/community/O

RDnoise/ANMS/Pag

es/portable.aspxExtract from Vancouver airport 2015 noise report. Source


https://www.flychicago.com/community/ORDnoise/ANMS/Pages/portable.aspx



Noise contours

Some airports also produce noise contours, presenting

both historical and forecast future noise levels. These are

produced for a variety of reasons – statutory obligations,

future planning, assessing the impact of new aircraft

types/operational changes and noise insulation schemes.

Similar to noise monitor data, noise contours usually use

traditional noise metrics based upon noise exposure over a

given period of time. The exception is Sydney which

includes contours based upon the number of events above

70dBA.


116

Sydney airport N70 contours for an average day in 1998. Source

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/expanding/4.aspx

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/expanding/4.aspx

29 Hercules Way

Aerospace Boulevard I AeroPark

Farnborough I Hampshire

GU14 6UU I UK

Tel: +44 1252 451 651

www.askhelios.com

Management and technology consultants

GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study · GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study. ... Francisco...

Documents

Transcript of GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study · GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study. ... Francisco...