Considerations for Community Noise Interactions - … for... · best practices across CANSO Members...

Considerations for Community Noise Interactions

civil air navigation services organisation

Contents

1_ Introduction_p3

2_ Purpose of this paper_p4

3_ Aircraft Noise Issues_p4

4_ ICAO Balanced Approach_p5

5_ Assessing noise impacts on communities_p6

6_ Measures of impact_p7

7_ Temporal assessment issues_p9

8_ Community consultation_p9

9_ Noise targets_p10

10_ Concentration of noise versus dispersion and new versus old noise_p10

11_ Approach and Departure Noise_p11

12_ Environmental Impact Reduction Measures for ANSPs_p12

13_ Future Opportunities_p13

14_ Case Studies_p16

Appendix 1 Noise Metrics

Appendix 2 Metric Example

© Copyright CANSO 2013

This paper is for information purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the quality and accuracy of information in this publication, it is made available without any warranty of any kind.

www.canso.org


1Introduction

Aircraft technology is the biggest driver in airport noise reduction. Jet engines today are 50% quieter than 10-year old counterparts and plans are to make them 50% quieter again by 2020.1 It is estimated that the noise footprint of each new generation of aircraft is at least 15% lower than that of the aircraft it replaces.

However, as total scheduled traffic passenger-kilometres performed has continually grown through this period (figure 1), noise continues to be a major issue for many communities near airports or close to major flight paths.

New technologies such as Performance Based Navigation (PBN) allow more precise flight paths that reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions and may decrease the number of people affected by aircraft noise. However, these new arrival and departure procedures change the existing noise footprint and while they may impact fewer people overall, they introduce changes to traditionally accepted noise practices. While decreasing noise for many, these changes may introduce noise in new areas and lead to an increase in the concentration of flights over some areas.

The aviation industry has faced complex challenges while ‘improving’ flight paths due to the strong public outcry against new noise. Often these noise impacts are from areas outside the current levels supported by legislation for noise abatement funding (e.g. insulation of houses). These issues require resources for the industry to manage. They also require skill sets broader than most CANSO Members currently have.

Noise, of course, is a local domestic issue while aviation CO2 is discussed in terms of ‘global-impact’ or responsibility. Because of community activity regarding local air traffic changes around an airport, new procedures that reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions may be stopped due to noise concerns. There are several examples from CANSO Members where a proposed procedural change has not been implemented even though the new route would decrease both fuel and CO2 and might even decrease the number of people impacted by noise (the ‘no new noise’ issue). The CANSO Environment Work Group has identified an opportunity to share best practices across CANSO Members and identify issues that must be addressed by the broader aviation community.


2_3

Figure 1. Total scheduled passenger traffic 2002-20112

1 http://www.iata.org/pressroom/airlines-international/april-2012/Pages/noise.aspx 2 http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/InternationalTrafficCharts.pdf

2Purpose of this paper

This paper has been prepared by the CANSO Environment Workgroup to highlight aviation noise impact issues and to identify best practices for managing airspace changes and community engagement related to noise. Additionally, opportunities will be documented where stakeholder support must be included to achieve broader aviation environmental sustainability outcomes.

The key audience for this paper is CANSO Members and Associate Members; this is an internal CANSO publication to help Members deliver environmental outcomes and improve their interactions with industry partners and aviation policy makers.

The information in this paper complements the following CANSO guidance documents:

—— Draft—-—Environmental—Impact—Reduction—Measures—for—ANSPs—Guidance—Document - February 2008

—— Draft-—A—CANSO—Guide—to—Measuring—Operational—Environmental—Performance—2nd—Ed. - May 2010

3Aircraft Noise Issues

Traditionally, aircraft noise has been a local issue for communities in close proximity to an airport. More recently noise impact has become an issue for communities at some distance (often 20-30 km) from airports. This has resulted in the management of aircraft noise becoming an air traffic management (ATM) ‘fixed’ constraint in determining (and planning) both air traffic growth and operational efficiency improvement.3 Communities often take issue with even a minor modification to procedures if they do not gain a localised noise benefit, or a perceived noise benefit. While safety/security imperatives will always drive necessary operational change, to date, we have seen at some locations that fuel and CO2 savings alone are not considered a sufficient benefit for communities to accept living with a perceived increase in local noise or a change resulting in ‘new’ local aviation noise.

In the absence of defined government policies for managing noise in the context of the trade-off to improved efficiency, noise issues will continue to constrain capacity worldwide and result in CANSO Members sub-optimising efficiency improvements.4

It is recognised that CANSO Members cannot satisfactorily address aircraft noise issues alone. It is an industry-wide issue requiring industry cooperation and engagement with other stakeholders such as regulators, policy makers, airport authorities, local community leaders, and land use planning authorities to manage it effectively. However CANSO Members do have an opportunity to introduce improved noise and efficiency outcomes in the short term while technological improvements, e.g. reducing noise at the source, are introduced in new, quieter airplanes.

3 A ‘fixed’ constraint in ATM is one that is considered essential in planning operational improvements. An example would be the managing for and application of ‘wake turbulence standards’.

4 Not managing the impact of noise on communities can lead to less optimal arrival paths, or the introduction of curfews or inefficient runway modal operations.

4_5Considerations for Community Noise Interactions

4ICAO Balanced Approach

The importance of a broad approach to managing aircraft noise is reflected in the ICAO document “Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management”.5 This document was developed to address:

— Aircraft noise problems that have led to operational limitations and opposition to airport expansions/constructions; and

— Uncoordinated policy developments to address aircraft noise that could hinder the role of aviation in economic development.

The ICAO Balanced approach has four principal elements:

1. Reduction of noise at its source; 2. Land-use planning and management;3. Noise abatement operational procedures;

and4. Operating restrictions on aircraft.

Generally, CANSO Members are directly involved in the third element - noise abatement operational procedures. However, the implications of land-use planning and management and operating restrictions on aircraft require an industry wide approach to engage all affected stakeholders.

The importance of effectively engaging communities was acknowledged in 2007 when the Balanced Approach Guidance was expanded to include ‘people issues’ such as information on communication strategies and enhanced information for public access.

Many CANSO members and international organisations support the ICAO balanced approach. As an example, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) acknowledges the ICAO balanced approach and has summarised the document on its website. The following extract captures the essence of its position.6

“The—goal—is—to—address—the—local—noise—problem—in—the—most—cost-effective—manner,—on—the—

understanding—that—the—solutions—need—to—be—tailored—to—the—specific—characteristics—of—the—airport—concerned.—Similar—solutions—should,—therefore,—be—applied—if—similar—noise—problems—are—identified—at—different—airports.”—

“The—Balanced—Approach—calls—for—the—reconciliation,—as—far—as—practicable,—of—two—opposite—parameters:—on—the—one—hand,—noise—mitigation—measures—have—to—meet—local—requirements—that—can—vary—from—one—airport—to—another—and—on—the—other—hand,—the—selected—measures—have—to—be—universal—enough—to—satisfy—the—global—requirements—of—airlines—and—manufacturers—who—cannot—modify—their—services—or—products—beyond—certain—limits.”—

“According—to—the—Balanced—Approach,—only—airports—with—documented—noise—problems—are—entitled—to—take—specific—measures.—Furthermore,—these—measures—must:——

—— be—the—most—cost-effective—options;—and———— fall—within—the—four—principal—elements—of—the—

Balanced—Approach.”—

“ICAO—also—urges—States—and—airports—to—be—transparent—when—considering—mitigation—measures,—by:—

—— assessing—the—noise—problem—at—the—airport—concerned—based—on—objective,—measurable—criteria—and—other—relevant—factors;—

—— evaluating—the—likely—costs—and—benefits—of—the—various—measures—available—and,—based—on—that—evaluation,—selecting—measures—that—achieve—maximum—environmental—benefit—most—cost-effectively;—and

—— disseminating—the—evaluation—results—for—the—purposes—of—stakeholder—consultations,—in—particular—with—airlines,—and—for—dispute—resolution.”

It is very important that industry regulators adopt the ICAO Balanced Approach – as was stressed at the 35th ICAO Assembly, where ICAO urged regulators around the world to fully implement the ICAO Guidance Material.

5 The ICAO document is available on the ICAO Secure Portal to approved users and can be found at: http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Publications/Guidance_BalancedApproach_Noise.pdf

6 http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/balanced-approach-to%20noise-management-around-airports.pdf

5Assessing noise impacts on communities

While it is relatively simple to quantify the noise levels of aircraft (e.g. in terms of decibels) it is much more difficult to determine the likely impact on communities due to the subjective nature of individual responses.

Cumulative noise metrics, such as the day, evening, night level (Lden) in Europe, day/night average level (DNL) in the USA (24 hour day/night equivalent) or the ANEI (Australian Noise Exposure Index) in Australia have often proven inadequate in highlighting specific noise impacts using noise contours for operational changes.7,8 While these are used in many countries to assess the impact of operational changes; determine land use and/or eligibility for noise insulation programs, they may not adequately reflect changes and noise impacts at greater distances from an airport. Some air navigation service providers (ANSPs) compute values for these metrics at grid or population points, allowing for the opportunity to show changes in noise values at those grid points. In addition to cumulative metrics, additional noise metrics have been defined such as LAmax and ‘Number Above (NA)’ that are more readily understood by non-technical community members.7 The use of these additional noise metrics is consistent with the ICAO Balanced Approach in terms of enhancing information for public access.

When computing noise at lower levels at some

distance from the airport, there are a few things that need to be kept in mind. First, there may be limitations with the existing noise modelling tools (e.g. Integrated Noise Model) in computing low noise levels. Second, there are the locations where the noise levels being computed may be close to or lower than the ambient sound levels at those locations.

In some cases, regardless of noise levels, communities may accept what they consider to be their ‘fair share’ of aircraft noise. As a result, the concept of respite is gaining acceptance with some

communities and perhaps also in some political arenas. Using this concept, airports (e.g. Heathrow, Sydney) use different operational runway modes to ensure that communities near airports experience periods of reduced or even no aircraft noise, thus receiving a ‘respite’ from noise. To manage this ‘fair share’ of noise impact, governance structure and operating procedures may be required including detailed reporting to inform communities of the noise and respite outcomes and provide transparency of the process.9

Finally, given a single flow with the same number of aircraft, no consensus exists yet on what is the greater noise benefit; a flow consisting of high peak periods with a respite in between, or a continuous moderate flow with no respite.

7 See Appendix 1 for explanation of these metrics8 An example of such graphics is provided at the end of this document.9 Sydney Airport operates an agreed Long Term Operating Procedure to manage community respite. More details can be found at: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/pdf/LTOP_general_information_fact_sheet.pdf


6Measures of impact

While each community will have specific needs and use-specific criteria for assessing impacts, there are a number of common themes that can be considered. Some of these themes constitute questions for which answers are not readily available, or they may require complex consultation and policy development to form an accurate opinion. Some of these, inter alia, may include:

—— Altitude—below—which—noise—is—considered—to—be—a—significant—issue. This may vary with locations based on local land use (farming, industrial/commercial, or residential), local noise requirements or local definitions of noise sensitive periods, e.g. night-time, weekends. Examples of this approach include:

—— UK—NATS. Below 4,000 ft, where there are noise receptors, NATS optimises airspace design to minimise noise whereas above 7,000 ft the design is optimised to minimise fuel use with a balance struck between 4,000 ft and 7,000 ft.

—— Airservices—Australia. Airservices has relied on 5,000 ft as the altitude below which noise is more likely to affect communities. However in recent years this altitude (and associated LAmax noise level) has been subject to substantial criticism and may no longer reflect community expectations. However the benefit of a prescribed altitude for noise abatement provides air traffic control (ATC) and industry some guidance and certainty when designing procedures and managing traffic.

—— France—DSNA. It is generally acknowledged that noise above 6,000 ft is not a sensitive issue. Therefore some environmental restrictions do not apply above this limit and public enquiries for major changes only concern altitudes below it.

—— SESAR (Single European Sky Applied Research). The ERM (Environment Reference Material) that has been

produced to assist the environmental practitioner in scoping for environmental assessments recommends that although the actual levels should be decided at the local level, up to 10,000 ft should be considered the upper limit for noise assessment for departing aircraft and 7,000 ft for arriving aircraft.

—— USA. The FAA’s ‘Examples of Potential Environmental Risks’ include:

Above 18,000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) – En Route

— Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) Between 10,000 feet and 18,000 feet AGL

— CatEx — Noise Screening required if there are

any National Parks or Wilderness Areas under the change where a quiet setting is a generally recognized purpose and attribute.

Between 3,000 feet and 10,000 feet AGL — Noise is a potential issue and some

sort of noise analysis is needed. If noise screening shows no potential for significant impacts over noise sensitive areas and potential does not exists for extraordinary circumstances, then there is a possibility to CatEx or complete an environmental assessment.

Below 3,000 feet AGL — High potential for significant impacts over

noise sensitive areas that will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) where significant is defined as a 1.5 dB increase within the DNL 65 or higher contour area.

—— Threshold—criteria. There may be a benefit to determine threshold levels not only for noise levels, but also for number of aircraft. Previous research has indicated that there may be a community tolerance for a specific level of noise if the numbers

of over-flights remains at a reasonable level. However the actual noise level and numbers is likely to vary considerably depending on individual community characteristics.

—— Sensitivity—for—time—of—the—flight. There may be different local sensitivities for day vs. night and weekend vs. weekday over-flights. This will likely require different (or adjusted) criteria for the more noise sensitive periods.

—— Change—Threshold. In determining the potential impact of a change to ATC practices and procedures, how much change in a threshold criterion is considered to be significant? Many variables such as noise levels, number of flights, aircraft types, type of operation (visual, instrument), and the number of people affected enter the analysis of impact. Even if it were possible to scientifically determine a threshold value, it is again unlikely that it would be the same for all communities, or satisfy local requirements and overlying local and national legislation. The result would still require consideration on a case-by-case basis.

—— Quality—of—life—considerations. Different threshold criteria will likely be required for the natural environment including birds, cetaceans, green space, and national parks. The concept of tranquillity is an important factor in the UK. Many national parks in the United States have specific threshold criteria. In Australia noise impact is considered significant if it affects the quality of life of a community. Should a choice need to be made between an impact on communities or a natural environment, how should it be made – what effect does science, policy and political sensitivities play?

—— Variability—of—definitions. There are no standard global definitions of ‘community’ or ‘residential area’. This has implications if flights are moved to fly over less densely populated rural areas instead of heavily populated urban areas in order to

minimise the number of people exposed to the noise. Similarly, a negative reaction to a changed ATM procedure can be from a very small number of people within a larger community that are similarly affected but should that small number of people be considered a community?

—— Ambient—noise—level. Local ambient noise levels affect the threshold of tolerance. Flights over a quiet ambient area are more noticeable than if they flew over a noisy ambient area where the community is already exposed to other noise sources. How this should be considered and what role does it play in local procedure designs?


7Temporal assessment issues

The nature of proposed change to ATC procedures and practices may have a bearing on the type of assessment and consultation process needed. These issues include:

— How quickly the change is implemented. Implications and reactions to immediate changes (a new Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or Standard Arrival Route (STAR) that will take effect “immediately”) may be stronger than to a change that is implemented incrementally. The introduction of advanced navigation procedures that take time before most aircraft are eligible to fly them may engender less community reaction. Change and associated impact for the former are “immediate” and readily observed; while for the latter the perception of change may not even be noticed for some considerable period of time, perhaps years.

— Staleness of impact assessment. The perceived validity of assessments for new procedures can vary with the length of delay between the assessment and actual implementation of the procedure. If the delay between impact assessment and procedure implementation is long, it may be best to consider a re-assessment and a new consultation to consider interim changes that have happened or may occur such as demographic changes or addition of new residential developments.

8Community consultation

Community consultation must be determined at each local airport community level. Any community consultation or inquiry takes considerable resources: time, money and effort. Best practices for consultation should be developed beforehand to identify who should be involved. Should it be only the newly over-flown or impacted people or should everybody and all communities be involved and what criteria should be presented to communicate effectively? What weight should be given to each stakeholders in the consultation; e.g., community, industry, government, etc. Many of these questions may be addressed in national framework or governance structures – but this is not the case for all CANSO Members.

For example, Austria has decided to invite all citizens’ initiatives, political parties, official bodies and a group of non-aviation representatives of the economy, the unions and others into the community consultation. While this approach had previously been successful, two misjudgements became visible after three years in the process.

First, the number of groups that considered themselves affected by aircraft noise was much larger than expected. It quickly turned out that even people living over 20nm away from the airport claimed membership in the ‘Dialogue forum’. Many reasons for this expansion could be identified, from real noise problems to the plain wish of wanting to be included ‘in the game’. Secondly, no procedure for dealing with newly established groups – either wishing to join the team or expressing opposition – had been set up in advance. This only created one more difficult issue to be resolved.

The direct participation of ATC has been one of the key elements in the entire process as the institution responsible for all procedures lost its anonymity and took its share in the search for solutions. This ‘Dialogue forum’ achieved solutions for the neighbourhood which were by far better than anything a court could decide as all new regulations are based on mutual understanding and respect of many individual demands. Finally and most significant, the entire agreement does not limit the options for further growth for both the airport and the airlines.

9Noise targets

Some locations have targets for aircraft noise such as reducing the number of people exposed to a particular cumulative noise level such as the 65 DNL in the USA or more broadly the World Health Organisation (WHO) noise guidelines.10 Impacted areas are usually close to the airports and over-flown by the total amount of the arrival or departure flow. The implications of some of these metrics are that noise targets may restrict the growth of airports if aircraft cannot be made substantially quieter or if the noise targets are simply unachievable with current technology. Any reduction of noise at the source may allow a greater number of over-flights while still remaining within the defined cumulative metric. While the mathematical impact may have remained the same, the greater volume of flights (with a small reduction at the source) may still drive annoyance and have further impact on communities.

10Concentration of noise versus dispersion and new

versus old noise

The adoption of modern technology such as PBN is resulting in a concentration of flight paths. Where this can be accomplished over non-residential areas there are major noise benefits for communities. However, due to past land use planning decisions, many residential areas around existing airports cannot be easily avoided. Therefore, while concentrating flight paths will reduce the total number of people exposed to aircraft noise, it will result in a reduced number of people being exposed to more frequent over-flights and hence greater noise exposure (e.g. is it better to overfly one hundred people once or ten people ten times?)

Additionally, experience with new arrival procedures into Sydney, Frankfurt, and Paris Charles de Gaulle, clearly shows that trying to reduce overall noise will normally create areas of “new noise”. Populations with increased or “new noise” levels are more vocal than those benefitting from noise reductions. Communities affected by “new noise” are often unwilling to accept changes as part of a balanced noise outcome and politicians struggle to enforce changes for the betterment of the whole. Without new incentives or measures to address those who are now impacted or share greater burden of the impact in an airspace change, overall noise reduction targets may not be met.

Communities must be provided with best practices for managing “new noise.” Formerly, thinking has focused on communities supporting solutions for the overall good of the industry and all communities. The reality is that noise impacts are localised within communities and for many, any noise is not an acceptable outcome. Some new policy instruments looking at ways to compensate those experiencing increased noise or aircraft noise for the first time must be considered. While any future compensation ideas may open ‘Pandora’s Box’ and possibly fuel an endless push for compensation, new community noise and continual increasing frequency of traffic must be addressed fairly. An example might be to look at new policy triggers around the impact on housing prices, that may change based on any noise

10 http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html


impact change and to allow property tax concessions. For longer term planning, communities may need to consider changing land use strategies under areas where aircraft drive noise. As discussed previously communities may also benefit from guidance on how best to administer noise sharing and respite.

The—key—point—is—for—CANSO—Members—to—work—within—the—ANSP—community—to—share—and—help—define—best—practices—gained—from—previous—experiences—and—successes—around—the—world.——While—noise—is—local,—the—behaviour—of—citizens—to—its—impact—around—airports—has—universal—similarities.

The question of whether it is better to overfly one hundred people once or ten people ten times is a real community issue that cannot be answered by the ANSP. This is a policy-level decision that is never taken in isolation. Even though on the surface this seems a simple question, there are economic and political drivers behind any answer. If congestion at an airport is limiting economic growth, then decisions to change flight paths or increase runway capacity may be taken. Similarly, when operations around an airport are compromised or if safety risks are identified, then a decision to resolve these issues may result in an increase or decrease in noise impacts. Both of these decisions may answer the question, but it won’t be the same for every location, region or airport.

A similar question relates to overflying already noisy areas in cities and adding to the residents’ overall noise exposure or selecting quiet areas and distributing the overall noise impact. Again this is not a question that can be addressed solely by the ANSP. This also raises the issue of communities currently exposed to noise as opposed to those not experiencing aircraft noise. Where communities are not currently exposed, changes that result in relatively low noise levels that would normally be considered acceptable can trigger an unexpected negative reaction. This concept of ‘new’ noise vs. ‘old’ noise is an important consideration when developing new ATM procedures.

11Approach and Departure Noise

Historically, the general consensus has been that departure noise from an aircraft has a greater impact than approach noise. However that consensus is now being questioned, particular where fleets are predominantly composed of modern Chapter 3/4 aircraft. The climb performance of modern aircraft is such that departing aircraft are now much higher than their predecessors. This performance combined with the quieter engines substantially reduces the noise levels experienced below the departure flight path. The ability to turn aircraft close to the airport to avoid noise sensitive areas or spread flight paths is also a factor in reducing departure noise impact. However, approaching jet aircraft are still generally required to be on the runway centreline within 3 – 4 nautical miles from the threshold, or even further out for an instrument approach and on a 3 degree glideslope (3 NM per 1000 ft).

For approaching aircraft, while aircraft engines have become quieter, airframe noise still exists, there has been no increase in height over communities and there are limited options to spread noise or avoid noise sensitive communities. While PBN approach procedures can assist with avoiding noise sensitive communities, mitigating approach noise is largely limited to Noise Abatement Procedures (NAP), Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), Instrument Landing System (ILS) interception altitudes and delaying deployment of gear/flaps. Also, the existing fleet mix includes new, quieter aircraft as well as many older, noisier aircraft. NAPs should be considered that provide greater access to quieter aircraft with more efficient approaches and thereby incentivise their use, over noisier less capable aircraft. While, reducing approach noise at the source is being researched by the manufacturers, ANSPs have a role in implementing effective approach NAPs based on which type of noise is the major issue for a community.

12Environmental Impact Reduction Measures for

ANSPs

A number of environmental impact reduction measures aimed at addressing noise were published in a draft guidance document prepared by the CANSO Environment Work Group and posted on the ATM-Net11 in February 2008. The following table from that document summarises the opportunities available to ANSPs to reduce noise impacts, improve local air quality and /or improve fuel burn efficiency.

Table 1. Opportunities to reduce noise impacts

11 http://www.canso.org/atm-net The CANSO ATM-Net is available for CANSO Members


13Future Opportunities

—— Collaborative—Environmental—Management. To support the division of responsibilities, CANSO recognises the importance of an approach to environmental management such as Eurocontrol’s Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM). CEM is an effective tool for implementing a partnership between aviation stakeholders (airport and aircraft operators) to address environmental issues and improve outcomes. For further information on CEM, Eurocontrol12 has developed guidance material to assist operational stakeholders. European examples of CEM include successes at Prague and Manchester Airports.

— Prague Airport needed to minimise the impact of aviation noise on its surrounding areas while also enhancing runway capacity. Consequently, a stakeholder team was established (the ANSP, airport operator and the main airlines) to solve the critical environmental issues. Special noise charges for visual approach procedure violations were implemented at Prague Airport. The rules were implemented in the descent phase of flight after passing 2500 ft AMSL (above mean sea-level). Excursions of more than 5 degrees laterally during the final phase of the visual approach were penalised. This penalty was applied during the period from May to October in 2010 and 2011. The penalty system is no longer required as visual approach procedures have stabilised. Through the positive approach of the stakeholders, the area affected by aircraft noise has not increased despite the increased

number of take-offs and landings. Furthermore, the necessity for increased runway capacity was identified by the team. In order to achieve the goal, early turns at 1700 ft AMSL were introduced for turboprop aircraft departures. The procedures have now been published as standard instrument departures (SIDs). These SIDs enable succeeding departing aircraft (e.g. commercial jets) to take-off in a shorter interval after the turboprops and hence depart along the extended centre line of a runway, increasing runway capacity and minimising noise impact.

— Manchester Airport had a policy of concentrating departures on Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) until reaching 3,000 ft. As the single runway throughput was reaching maximum capacity, non-standard instrument departures were being issued, which took the aircraft away from the NPRs. It became clear that only through operational collaboration could this problem be addressed. A technical working group of all relevant stakeholders worked on the issue as a shared problem with no attempt to maximise individual objectives. As a result of the sharing best practices, a suite of measures were jointly developed and adopted such as SID re-design to avoid major population centres, tactical early turn procedures for turboprops together with a logging system for non-standard departures. As a result of the collaboration, the number of off-track aircraft was reduced by 50%, the overall track

12 http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/operational-measures-minimise-aviations-environmental-impact

adherence accuracy increased and the number of non-standard departures decreased by 50%. In addition, runway capacity was increased by 2 movements an hour, and the physical act of collaboration added weight to the public consultation process to secure the operational improvements.

—— Engaging—communities. Experience has shown that conventional ways of describing aircraft noise have significant limitations and ANSPs need to use aircraft noise descriptors that are less technical and more transparent to the non-expert. Improving how we describe aircraft noise will benefit the dialogue of all parties involved in aircraft noise management. In simple terms people want to be told about aircraft noise exposure in their own language - where the flight paths are, how many movements, what time of the day, etc. - but in many situations the official response has generally been to provide information in the form of a single figure, e.g. a cumulative noise value. This leads to frequent breakdowns in communication between noise experts and the community, which can often be at the expense of both industry and the community. Communities require time to understand detailed technical background, especially as it relates to changes in noise and its impact on them. This is evident at many local community meetings when expert knowledge is often challenged. Stakeholders find it very difficult to reach agreement on multiple options for new operational procedures and/or flight paths. Involving communities early in the process is considered a ‘best practice’ in order

to work towards agreeable or at least understandable solutions.

—— Increased—support—of—the—ICAO—Balanced—Approach. ANSPs should apply these balanced approach principles by actively engaging land use planning authorities together with governments and regulators. Communication of information is an essential aspect in the engagement of communities. Much of the communication to date has been centred on noise contours. In Australia, the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) system is a ‘one size fits all’ approach to land use planning. The ANEF noise dose criterion for ‘acceptable’ land use is the same whether the land is in the vicinity of a major international jet airport or a small regional non-jet aerodrome. The system makes no allowance for local conditions. An airport on a greenfield site is treated the same as one that has already been ‘built out’. Furthermore, for the smaller airports the threshold ANEF contour for restricting development, in most cases, does not extend much beyond the airport boundary. This can result in noise sensitive buildings such as houses being built in areas that have high levels of aircraft over-flight activity. Consultation with airports, aviation authorities, planning, transport and environment agencies is required to gain a broad appreciation of the issues and to communicate information about aircraft noise in a meaningful way.

—— Noise—Abatement—Procedures. As detailed in the ICAO Balanced Approach the active implementation of noise abatement rather than a passive application can result in improved noise


outcomes. This may include using reciprocal runway operations as early as possible (traffic/conditions permitting) in the evening or by using different runway modes of operation that manage both departure and arrival noise and associated impact and respite.

—— Engaging—Industry—around—complex—performance—and—interdependencies. Engaging the industry to collectively diagnose, understand, determine and communicate the interdependency of noise and efficiency is required. Trade-offs may be required between improvements to operational efficiency or noise. For example, industry may be prepared to accept longer noise abatement approach or departure procedures at night in order to sustain more efficient procedures during the day when a greater number of flights occur in order to obtain a net improvement in system efficiency. Flying extra track miles at night to avoid residential areas may also be an alternative to a night-time curfew at an airport. The airlines, other operators and key airport and ANSP stakeholders need to be engaged to correctly diagnose and determine the necessary airport performance.

14Case Studies

14.1_Noise abatement prevented efficiency improvements, Cairns, Australia

RNP procedures for a specific airline operator’s B737-800 aircraft were introduced at Cairns in 2007. Three arrival and two departure procedures were introduced. A key procedure was the departure procedure from RWY 15 as it provided reduced track miles, increased payload and an enhanced engine out procedure particularly given the high terrain around the airport. The figure below shows B737-800 departures from RWY 15 prior to the introduction of the RNP procedures (left) and RNP departure procedure (right). As good as it may seem, there was substantial community reaction to noise issues south of the airport. While considerable time and effort was invested in community engagement and testing alternative procedures, this consultation took place after the community raised the noise issue and the RWY 15 RNP departure procedure was ultimately withdrawn.

Figure 2. Cairns Departure Efficiency Example

14.2_Effective noise management has facilitated efficiency improvements, Canberra, Australia

The introduction of RNP approach and departure procedures for a specific airline operator’s B737-800 aircraft resulted in increased payload and an enhanced engine out procedures while reducing the noise impact on the community to the south of the Canberra airport. Noise reductions of up to 10 dB(A) from individual arrivals using the RNP approach procedure have been recorded at the noise monitor. Similarly, departures can also largely avoid residential areas. As a result of the improvement in noise impacts, the new procedures have broad community support.


Figure 3a. Canberra Runway 35 approaches – RNP approaches avoid residential areas overflown by non-RNP approach procedures.

Figure 3B. Canberra Runway 17 RNP departures avoiding southern residential areas.

14.3_Reducing community noise while improving efficiency, Cologne, Germany.

An international operator flying out of Cologne/Bonn Airport wanted to continue to use evening departures with large aircraft but community complaints were becoming an issue. In 2012, the operator worked with the airport and with PBN departure designers to modify the departure SID routing for runway 14L just enough to significantly reduce community overflights and complaints with the added benefit of slightly reducing fuel use during departure.

Figure 4. Cologne/Bonn Departure Runway 14L: old departures (blue), new routing (red/green)

Conclusion

This paper has been prepared by the CANSO Environment Workgroup to highlight aviation noise impact issues and to identify best practices for managing airspace changes and community engagement related to noise. Additionally, opportunities will be documented where stakeholder support must be included to achieve broader aviation environmental sustainability outcomes.


Appendix 1. Noise Metrics

Noise—Metrics definitions are based on the draft CANSO Guide to Measuring Operational Environmental Performance (2nd EDITION, May 2010).

Aircraft noise can be assessed using a number of metrics. The factors taken into account may include the level of the noise, its frequency content, its variability over a period of time, and the time of day at which it occurs.

Most noise measurements are given in terms of dBA, which means the A-weighted sound level (decibels). For aircraft noise certification purposes, a more elaborate method is used, and the noise level metric is the EPNdB – Effective Perceived Noise Level (decibels).

A summary of the more commonly encountered metrics applied to aircraft noise are:

—— Maximum—Noise—Levels—(LAmax,—PNLmax). The noise level is assessed in terms of the instantaneous maximum sound level that is reached during an overflight.

—— Noise—Event—Levels—(SEL,—EPNL).— A measure that combines the sound level and its duration is the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), which assesses the total noise energy from the overflight, not just the maximum instantaneous level. The SEL will normally be numerically greater than the LAmax. Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is mainly used for certification purposes and is a complex, single number metric which approximates human annoyance responses. It includes correction terms for the duration of an aircraft flyover and the presence of audible pure tones of discrete frequencies (such as the whine of a jet aircraft) in the noise signal.

—— Statistical—Sound—Level—(Ln). A metric often used to describe noise levels that vary over time, e.g. a L95 gives the noise level which is exceeded 95% of the time during a certain time interval and will give a background sound level which is interspersed with the higher levels of aircraft overflight.

—— Average—Noise—Levels—(ANEF,—ANEI,—Leq,—Ldn,—Lden). Varying noises are expressed in terms of the average noise level over a period of time. For aircraft applications, these averages are normally determined over the full 24 hours of a day and may be additionally determined for periods of the day, e.g. for the night-time or the daytime. So, ‘dn’ implies day-night, ‘den’ is day-evening-night, and so forth while ‘eq’ implies an average or ‘equivalent’ level.

—— Noise—Exposure—Forecast—(NEF). Is applied to aircraft noise only and is derived from the more elaborate PNL-type measurements referred to above. It includes a penalty loading (in dB) for aircraft movements occurring within restricted times and is often used for compatible land use planning around airports. Leq, Ldn and Lden may be applied to all types of environmental noise. Leq or the equivalent noise level is the average energy metric over a period of time. In aviation the A-weighed Leq is used. Parameters like Ldn, the day night level, and Lden, give weighted Leqs over a 24 hour period, but with a penalty of 10 decibels for night noise and for the Lden additionally a 5 decibel penalty for the evening period.

—— Others: Time above a given level (TAxx) may also be quantified where ‘xx’ is the time, in minutes per day, during which the noise level due to aircraft will be greater than a given level. Number of exceedances, or ‘Above’ a given level (NAxx) quantifies the number of times that a given noise level is exceed in a day.

LAmax example

LAeq example

Appendix 2 Metric Example

Example of cumulative metric based assessment – Sydney Airport ANEF13


13 http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Australian%20Noise%20Exposure%20Forecast%20Map%20(ANEF).pdf

Com

paris

on b

etw

een

DN

L 65

and

LDE

N 5

5 fo

r on

e da

y of

arr

ival

s at

Par

is-C

harle

s de

Gau

lle

The

BLU

E d

ots

(•) a

re t

he

Fin

al A

pp

roac

h F

ix (F

AP

) - (3

000

ft

on

the

No

rth

runw

ay a

nd 4

000

ft o

n th

e S

out

h R

unw

ay).


Notes

Full Members - 78—— Aeronautical—Radio—of—Thailand—(AEROTHAI)—— Aeroportos—de—Moçambique—— Air—Navigation—and—Weather—Services,——

CAA—(ANWS)—— Air—Navigation—Services—of—the—Czech—Republic—

(ANS—Czech—Republic)—— Air—Traffic—&—Navigation—Services—(ATNS)—— Airports—and—Aviation—Services—Limited—(AASL)—— Airports—Authority—of—India—(AAI)—— Airports—Fiji—Limited—— Airservices—Australia—— Airways—New—Zealand—— Angkasa—Pura—I—— Austro—Control—— Avinor—AS—— AZANS—Azerbaijan—— Belgocontrol—— Bulgarian—Air—Traffic—Services—Authority—

(BULATSA)—— CAA—Uganda—— Civil—Aviation—Authority—of—Bangladesh—(CAAB)—— Civil—Aviation—Authority—of—Botswana—— Civil—Aviation—Authority—of—Singapore—(CAAS)—— Civil—Aviation—Regulatory—Commission—(CARC)—— Department—of—Airspace—Control—(DECEA)—— Department—of—Civil—Aviation,—Republic—of—Cyprus—— DFS—Deutsche—Flugsicherung—GmbH—(DFS)—— Dirección—General—de—Control—de—Tránsito—Aéreo—

(DGCTA)—— DSNA—France—— Dutch—Caribbean—Air—Navigation—Service—Provider—

(DC-ANSP)—— ENANA-EP—ANGOLA—— ENAV—S.p.A:—Società—Nazionale—per—l’Assistenza—al—

Volo—— Entidad—Pública—Aeropuertos—Españoles—y—

Navegación—Aérea—(Aena)—— Estonian—Air—Navigation—Services—(EANS)—— Federal—Aviation—Administration—(FAA)—— Finavia—Corporation—— GCAA—United—Arab—Emirates—— General—Authority—of—Civil—Aviation—(GACA)—— Hellenic—Civil—Aviation—Authority—(HCAA)—— HungaroControl—Pte.—Ltd.—Co.—— Israel—Airports—Authority—(IAA)—— Iran—Airports—Co—— Irish—Aviation—Authority—(IAA)—— ISAVIA—Ltd—— Japan—Civil—Aviation—Bureau—(JCAB)—— Kazaeronavigatsia—— Kenya—Civil—Aviation—Authority—(KCAA)—— Latvijas—Gaisa—Satiksme—(LGS)—— Letové—prevádzkové—Služby—Slovenskej—

Republiky,—Štátny—Podnik—— Luchtverkeersleiding—Nederland—(LVNL)—— Luxembourg—ANA

Lighter—areas—represent—airspace—covered—by—CANSO—Members

CANSO Members

Correct—as—of—7—May—2013.—For—the—most—up-to-date—list—and—organisation—profiles—go—to—www.canso.org/cansomembers

—— Maldives—Airports—Company—Limited—(MACL)—— Malta—Air—Traffic—Services—(MATS)—— NATA—Albania—— National—Airports—Corporation—Ltd.—— National—Air—Navigation—Services—Company—

(NANSC)—— NATS—UK—— NAV—CANADA—— NAV—Portugal—— Naviair—— Nigerian—Airspace—Management—Agency—(NAMA)—— Office—de—l’Aviation—Civile—et—des—Aeroports—

(OACA)—— ORO—NAVIGACIJA,—Lithuania—— PNG—Air—Services—Limited—(PNGASL)—— Polish—Air—Navigation—Services—Agency—(PANSA)—— PIA—“Adem—Jashari”—-—Air—Control—J.S.C.—— PT—Angkasa—Pura—II—(Persero)—— ROMATSA—— Sakaeronavigatsia—Ltd—— S.E.—MoldATSA—— SENEAM—— Serbia—and—Montenegro—Air—Traffic—Services—

Agency—(SMATSA)—— Serco—— skyguide—— Slovenia—Control—— State—Airports—Authority—&—ANSP—(DHMI)—— State—ATM—Corporation—— Tanzania—Civil—Aviation—Authority—— The—LFV—Group—— Ukrainian—Air—Traffic—Service—Enterprise—

(UkSATSE)—— U.S.—DoD—Policy—Board—on—Federal—Aviation

Gold Associate Members - 14—— Abu—Dhabi—Airports—Company—— Airbus—ProSky—— Boeing—— BT—Plc—— FREQUENTIS—AG—— GE—Air—Traffic—Optimization—Services—— GroupEAD—Europe—S.L.—— ITT—Exelis—— Lockheed—Martin—— Metron—Aviation—— Raytheon—— SELEX—Sistemi—Integrati—S.p.A.—— Telephonics—Corporation,—ESD—— Thales—

Silver Associate Members - 63—— Adacel—Inc.—— Aeronav—Inc.—— ARINC—— ATCA—–—Japan

—— ATECH—Negócios—em—Tecnologia—S/A—— Aviation—Advocacy—Sarl—— Avibit—Data—Processing—GmbH—— Avitech—AG—— AZIMUT—JSC—— Barco—Orthogon—GmbH—— Booz—Allen—Hamilton,—Inc.—— Brüel—&—Kjaer—EMS—— Comsoft—GmbH—— CGH—Technologies,—Inc—— Abu—Dhabi—Department—of—Transport—— Dubai—Airports—— EADS—Cassidian—— EIZO—Technologies—GmbH—— European—Satellite—Services—Provider—(ESSP—SAS)—— Emirates—— Entry—Point—North—— Era—Corporation—— Etihad—Airways—— Guntermann—&—Drunck—GmbH—— Harris—Corporation—— Helios—— Honeywell—International—Inc.—/—Aerospace—— IDS—–—Ingegneria—Dei—Sistemi—S.p.A.—— Indra—Navia—AS—— Indra—Sistemas—— INECO—— Inmarsat—Global—Limited—— Integra—A/S—— Intelcan—Technosystems—Inc.—— International—Aero—Navigation—Systems—Concern,—

JSC—— Iridium—Communications—Inc.—— Jeppesen—— JMA—Solutions—— LAIC—Aktiengesellschaft—— LEMZ—R&P—Corporation—— LFV—Aviation—Consulting—AB—— Micro—Nav—Ltd—— The—MITRE—Corporation—–—CAASD—— MovingDot—— New—Mexico—State—University—Physical—Science—Lab—— NLR—— Northrop—Grumman—— NTT—Data—Corporation—— Project—Boost——— Quintiq—— Rockwell—Collins,—Inc.—— Rohde—&—Schwarz—GmbH—&—Co.—KG—— RTCA,—Inc.—— Saab—AB—— Saab—Sensis—Corporation—— Saudi—Arabian—Airlines—— SENASA—— SITA—— STR-SpeechTech—Ltd.—— TASC,—Inc.—— Tetra—Tech—AMT—— Washington—Consulting—Group—— WIDE

CANSO—–—The—Civil—Air—Navigation—Services—Organisation—–—is—the—global—voice—of—the—companies—that—provide—air—traffic—control,—and—represents—the—interests—of—Air—Navigation—Services—Providers—worldwide.—

CANSO—members—are—responsible—for—supporting—over—85%—of—world—air—traffic,—and—through—our—Workgroups,—members—share—information—and—develop—new—policies,—with—the—ultimate—aim—of—improving—air—navigation—services—on—the—ground—and—in—the—air.—CANSO—also—represents—its—members’—views—in—major—regulatory—and—industry—forums,—including—at—ICAO,—where—we—have—official—Observer—status.—For—more—information—on—joining—CANSO,—visit—www.canso.org/joiningcanso.—

Considerations for Community Noise Interactions - … for... · best practices across CANSO Members...

Documents

Transcript of Considerations for Community Noise Interactions - … for... · best practices across CANSO Members...