Heathrow operational noise abatement procedures benchmarking study (2013)

Transcription

1 Heathrow operational noise abatement procedures benchmarking study (2013) 29 Hercules Way Aerospace Boulevard AeroPark Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6UU UK T F E info@askhelios.com W

2 Document information Document title Author Produced by Produced for Helios contact Heathrow operational noise abatement procedures benchmarking study (2013) Kevin Tucker, Ailis Gavan, Steve Leighton, Helios Helios 29 Hercules Way Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6UU UK Rachel Thomas, Noise and Flight Advisor, Flight Performance, Airside Operations Steve Leighton Tel: Fax: steve.leighton@askhelios.com Produced under contract P/O Version 1.0 Date of release 4 th February 2014 Document reference P1744D001 P1744D001 HELIOS 1 of 97

3 BRU LHR AMS LGW STN MAD MAN ZRH YYZ GVA DUS SNA LCY SYD PRG MSP CPH BCN FAB ORD CDG LAX FRA ARN SFO DCA AKL SZG ORY MUC OSL ATL LGA JFK HKG MCO HND PEK SIN DXB Benchmark score COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Executive summary Background Action 5.1 of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (NAP) states that working with members of the NTKWG we will commission research by independent consultants to benchmark internationally our ranking in airport operational noise management with other comparable airports in 2011 and We will publish the summary results on our website. This document is the 2013 study and is an update of the study conducted in 2011/2012. Approach taken This study uses the same approach as the earlier study. Heathrow s operational noise abatement procedures have been compared to (benchmarked against) those of 39 other airports. Similar to the previous study: The currently published version of the Heathrow NAP 1 has been used as a basis for the individual benchmarks 2. The benchmarking has been grouped into seven areas (referred to as Key Performance Areas (KPAs)) - operating restrictions, aircraft fleet, arrivals, runway operations, ground movements, gate operations and departures. Noise abatement procedures at other airports have been reviewed. Summary of the benchmarking and interpretation of results The table below summarises the scoring for the benchmarking (the scoring includes a simple weighting to reflect that some airports in the sample do not have a comparable amount of traffic, capacity, airspace complexity and number of runways as Heathrow, but operate in a similar environment (regulatory, geographic location, traffic mix)) Summary of benchmarking (weighted scores only) 1 Heathrow Airport, Environmental Noise Directive Noise Action Plan , adopted and approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs May The currently published NAP is different from the one used for the previous study. Additionally, Heathrow is developing an updated version of its NAP for consultation. P1744D001 HELIOS 2 of 97

4 The figure on the previous pages shows Heathrow to be ranked second based upon the methodology used. In the previous study Heathrow was ranked third. Part of the change in position can be explained by changes in the Heathrow NAP actions/benchmarks and some changes at Heathrow (e.g. the Fly Quiet Programme and reporting of airlines that infringe the 1,000 foot departure rule). Practices at other airports Of equal importance to the benchmarking, noise abatement procedures at other airports have been reviewed. This identified examples of other airports applying more stringent procedures in a particular area (e.g. tighter procedures for starting/shutting down aircraft auxiliary power units) or measures not used at Heathrow (e.g. innovative night-time runway alternation). These are listed in the main text and some have been used to formulate the recommendations below. High-level conclusions The high-level conclusion of the previous study remains valid. Heathrow is a mature airport in the procedures it uses to manage noise at an operational level. The majority of the processes identified at other airports are currently in operation at Heathrow. There are a number of specific procedures/trials at other airports which Heathrow should investigate to determine their applicability to its own operation. However, a detailed interpretation of specific scores and rankings is cautioned against for the following reasons: Benchmarking framework: The benchmarking framework is based upon the Heathrow NAP. While this provides a broad set of noise abatement procedures, not all may be applicable to other airports. Benchmarking of procedures: In addition to having different noise abatement procedures, airports also report compliance with them in different ways (both how they report and the amount of public reporting). Therefore, with a small number of exceptions, this study focuses on benchmarking procedures rather than performance against them. Public sources: Only publically available sources have been used, with the amount of detail varying form airport to airport. Therefore, there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity in using this information to derive benchmarking scores. Recommendations With reference to the last point above, the following recommendations are made. It is noted however, that these are drawn purely from a noise perspective. They do not consider the potential impact their implementation could have on capacity, safety, connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented/investigated further. The previous study also made several recommendations. These are not repeated by this study, but are summarised in Annex A. Operating restrictions It is recommended that Heathrow compares its departure noise limits with those of other airports (noting that (i) Heathrow s noise limits are set by the Department for Transport, (ii) the noise limits at other airports will be influenced by factors such as the location of the monitor). Consider the use of noise monitor data to further understand the Heathrow operation. P1744D001 HELIOS 3 of 97

5 Fleet monitoring Similar to Geneva, consider the usefulness of applying night-time departure charges from 2200 to encourage the use of the quietest aircraft possible. Similar to Amsterdam Schiphol, consider the value of a cargo incentive programme to further reduce the limited number of movements by cargo aircraft classified as QC/8 on departure. Arrivals The implementation of more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) was recommended in the previous study and is not repeated in this study. With several airports intending to implement CDAs throughout the day, and SESAR conducting advanced CDA trials, it is recommended that Heathrow monitor developments at other major European airports (Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels, Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris Charles De Gaulle). Similar to Frankfurt, investigate the noise benefits of implementing steeper approaches at Heathrow (trialling steeper approaches is proposed for development/testing in the A quieter Heathrow document). A number of U.S. airports use natural features such as the coastline or rivers for arrival and departure routes. While the local geography is different around Heathrow, the airport could consider the use of night-time P-RNAV arrival and departure routes to overfly less densely populated areas. Runways Review the over the ocean night-time runway procedure used at Los Angeles International to determine the merits of studying a novel night-time runway alternation system for Heathrow (e.g. easterly arrivals and westerly departures at certain times of the night). If easterly alternation is implemented at Heathrow, consider (i) measuring how aircraft noise is distributed across the different combinations of runway operation (i.e. 09R departures/09l arrivals, 09L departures/09r arrivals etc) and (ii) measures to address any imbalances (if they are found to exist) for a certain direction of operation. Ground noise Investigate the automated ground run-up detection system operated at San Francisco and determine its applicability to Heathrow. Similar to Toronto, consider the applicability to Heathrow of only permitting night-time engine runs for aircraft departing the next morning. Report on compliance with night-time targets for engine run-ups in the appropriate airside reports. Consider the benefit of monitoring aircraft noise on the ground, for example at night, and/or conducting ground noise studies. Gate operations Review APU start and shut-down restrictions at other airports and determine if tighter restrictions are applicable to Heathrow. P1744D001 HELIOS 4 of 97

6 Produce public targets for compliance with APU restrictions and report against them in the appropriate airside reports. Departures Fines for non-adherence to track keeping and reporting the details of flights that do not adhere to track keeping, were recommended in the previous study and are not repeated in this study. No new recommendations are made for departure noise abatement procedures. Charts and reports Although this study did not assess communications, a number of public reports have invariably been reviewed as part of this study. Review the reports produced by a number of the airports benchmarked and determine if similar analyses would be of benefit (i) to provide more insight into the Heathrow operation and support future improvements, and (ii) to aid communication to both others involved in the operation (airlines and ATC) and the general public. Future benchmarking If Heathrow plans to continue to rank its operational noise management every two years, it should consider whether a third iteration of this study using the same methodology (i.e. publically available material) will provide further insight into the operational noise abatement procedures at other airports, or if a new approach would be more suitable. For example, Heathrow could consider benchmarking both noise abatement procedures and performance against them for a subset of the airports in this study. This could take the form of: Face-to-face interviews with noise managers at a small number of airports based upon the existing benchmarking framework (i.e. the Heathrow NAP), or Heathrow forming a small group of airports, possibly in collaboration with ACI (Airports Council International) Europe, which agreed upon a number of noise related benchmarks to compare one another against. P1744D001 HELIOS 5 of 97

7 Contents 1 Introduction This study Background Structure of this document Overview of methodology Introduction General approach Limitations of the methodology and interpretation of results Summary of the benchmarking findings Introduction Summary of the benchmarking - overall Summary of the benchmarking by KPA Notable practices at other airports Noise abatement procedures at Heathrow & example practices at other airports Introduction Operating restrictions Fleet monitoring Arrivals Runway Ground movements Gate operations Departures Examples of charts and reports produced by other airports Conclusions and recommendations High-level conclusions Recommendations A Recommendations from the previous benchmarking study B Examples of operational noise abatement procedures at other benchmarked airports B.1 Introduction B.2 Operating restrictions B.3 Fleet monitoring B.4 Arrivals B.5 Runway B.6 Ground movements B.7 Gate operations B.8 Departures P1744D001 HELIOS 6 of 97

8 C Methodology C.1 Analysis framework C.2 Data gathering C.3 Data analysis D Changes in the Heathrow Noise Action Plan D.1 Introduction D.2 NAP changes D.3 Changes in the benchmarks/kpis E Methodology Heathrow NAP actions and associated competence levels F Methodology weighting F.1 Normalised results F.2 Establishing a fair comparison F.3 Weighting the KPI scores F.4 Weightings G References List of figures Figure 1: Overview of methodology Figure 2: Deriving benchmarks from the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (NAP) Figure 3: Summary of benchmarking (weighted scores only) Figure 4: Summary of Heathrow scoring operating restrictions Figure 5: Night-time restrictions at Heathrow Figure 6: Summary of the duration of the night-time period for benchmarked airports Figure 7: Comparison of QC systems at Brussels, Heathrow and Madrid Figure 8: Summary of Heathrow scoring fleet monitoring Figure 9: Summary of Heathrow scoring arrivals Figure 10: Summary of Heathrow scoring runway Figure 11: Summary of Heathrow scoring ground movements Figure 12: San Francisco monthly reporting of night-time power run-ups Figure 13: Summary of Heathrow scoring gate operations Figure 14: Summary of Heathrow scoring departures Figure 15:Scores for inherent and structural drivers of difference across all the airports P1744D001 HELIOS 7 of 97

9 List of tables Table 1: Mapping of NAP actions to benchmarks, Table 2: Summary of benchmarking (un-weighted and weighted) Table 3: Summary of benchmarking by KPA (weighted only) Table 4: Noise limits for departing aircraft at Heathrow (excluding adjustments for individual monitors) Table 5: Examples of practices for individual aircraft noise limits Table 6: Examples of fines Table 7: Summary of noise control schemes Chicago, Heathrow, San Francisco and Stansted Table 8: Noise element of Heathrow s landing charges (Fixed wing aircraft exceeding 16 metric tonnes) Table 9: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Amsterdam Schiphol Table 10: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Frankfurt Table 11: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Geneva Table 12: Examples of practices for reducing marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft Table 13: Examples of definitions for continuous descent/level flight during a CDA Table 14: Examples of runway alternation plans used to avoid built-up areas and sharing noise Table 15: Examples of engine testing practices Table 16: Examples of voluntary reduced engine taxi procedures Table 17: Examples of ground noise practices during the night Table 18: Heathrow APU restrictions for start and shut-down when other ground power sources are available, Table 19: Example APU restrictions for start and shut-down at other airports when alternative power sources are available Table 20: Examples of charts and reports produced by other airports Table 21 List of competence levels for the night time definition KPI Table 22: List of comparator airports Table 23: Changes in the NAP documents that influenced the benchmarking Table 24: Example drivers of differences in procedure Table 25: Driver scoring difference between a given airport and Heathrow Table 26: Drivers of difference score table for inherent and structural drivers Table 27: Scores, weighting and ranking for weighted airports Table 28: Summary of benchmarking/changes in rankings (un-weighted and weighted) P1744D001 HELIOS 8 of 97

10 1 Introduction 1.1 This study This report is an update of the Heathrow operational noise abatement benchmarking study (2011/12). Using publically available information, this study compares Heathrow s noise abatement procedures to those of 39 other airports. 1.2 Background The Heathrow Noise Action Plan (NAP) has a Key Performance Indicator (KPI-12) to undertake a biennial ranking of Heathrow s operational noise management against other airports. This is supported by two actions in the NAP which, working with members of the Noise and Track Keeping Working Group (NTKWG), are to benchmark internationally Heathrow s ranking for: Airport operational noise management (action 5.1) Aircraft noise communications (action 5.2) This report is an update of the operational noise management benchmarking study (action 5.1) that was worked upon in 2011/12 and published in Noise communications (action 5.2) are outside the scope of this study. The currently published Heathrow Noise Action Plan has been used as the basis for this report, but it is noted that there is an updated version being developed for consultation. 1.3 Structure of this document Overview of the methodology (section 2) provides a brief overview of the methodology used. More detail is given in annexes C to E. Summary of the benchmarking (section 3) provides a summary of the benchmarking by both overall score and seven Key Performance Areas (KPA). Noise abatement procedures at Heathrow and example practices at other airports (section 4) summarises (i) Heathrow s scores for individual benchmarks, (ii) Heathrow s noise abatement procedures and (iii) provides examples of procedures at other airports. More detail on these examples is given in Annex B. Conclusions and recommendations (section 5) gives the conclusions and recommendations from this study. The recommendations from the previous study can be found in Annex A. It is noted that recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective. 3 Heathrow Airport, Environmental Noise Directive Noise Action Plan , adopted and approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs May P1744D001 HELIOS 9 of 97

11 2 Overview of methodology 2.1 Introduction The following section provides an overview of the steps undertaken in this study. Further details can be found in Annexes C, D and E. 2.2 General approach This study benchmarks the operational noise abatement procedures at Heathrow against those of 39 other airports world-wide using publically available information. The steps taken to do this are summarised in the figure below and the remainder of this section. The 39 other airports benchmarked are listed in Table 2 (section 3.2). Benchmarking framework from previous study Currently published Heathrow NAP Step 1: update of the benchmarking framework Step 2 - initial benchmarking Heathrow + 39 airports Step 3 - review of benchmarking Step 4 - weighted benchmarking Step 5 - comparison of Heathrow to other airports Step 6 - conclusions & recommendations Figure 1: Overview of methodology Step 1 - update of the benchmarking framework: The framework for the benchmarking is based upon the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (NAP). Simplistically: - NAP actions are developed into a set of benchmarks (24 were developed for this study). As per Figure 2, five competence levels are developed for each benchmark (5 being the highest level of competence). For each airport a score of 1 to 5 is given for each benchmark based upon the information identified. Although the NAP actions are specific to Heathrow, P1744D001 HELIOS 10 of 97

12 the competence levels were made as general as possible to allow benchmarking across the 39 airports. - For ease of summarising the findings, benchmarks are grouped into Key Performance Areas (KPAs) (see Table 1 for the mapping used in this study). A new NAP has been published since the previous study. Therefore the benchmarking framework was updated to reflect this version of the NAP 4. This resulted in changes to the benchmarks. Currently published Heathrow NAP Benchmarks developed from NAP actions Benchmarks grouped into KPAs Operating restrictions Fleet monitoring Arrivals Runway Ground movements Gate operations Departures Heathrow NAP action Benchmark Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5 We will continue to administer the current DfT night restrictions regime and take steps as required to ensure that the number of operations at night is within the limits prescribed. Night time restrictions - definition of night time hours 5 hours or not defined 6 hours 7 hours 8 hours 9 hours Figure 2: Deriving benchmarks from the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (NAP) Step 2 - initial benchmarking: Each benchmark was scored for each airport using publically available documents. The sources used included airport websites and associated publications, associated consultative committee and community websites and reports, and aeronautical information publications (AIPs). A further source used was the Boeing airport noise and emissions database which contains information on noise abatement procedures at all of the airports benchmarked. However, as this site has not been recently updated it was only used to fill gaps in the research. Sources reviewed for each airport are listed in Annex F. Step 3 - review of benchmarking: Following the initial benchmarking, the benchmarks/scores were reviewed to remove any unintentional bias towards Heathrow (and UK airports in general). A small number of benchmarks were removed (i) those where an airport would receive a low score across more than two benchmarks if it did not use certain practice (e.g. fines) or (ii) performance related benchmarks where the majority of airports did not publically provide any information. After this process the scoring for each airport was updated accordingly. Step 4 - weighted benchmarking: A simple weighting technique was applied to the benchmarked scores. The purpose was to reflect that some airports in the sample do not have a comparable amount of traffic, capacity, airspace 4 Heathrow Airport, Environmental Noise Directive Noise Action Plan , adopted and approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs May P1744D001 HELIOS 11 of 97

13 complexity and number of runways as Heathrow, but operate in a similar environment (regulatory, geographic location, traffic mix). The weighting is explained in Annex D. Step 5 - comparison of Heathrow to other airports: The scores for Heathrow, both overall and by KPA, were compared to the scores for the other airports. Of equal importance, noise abatement procedures at other airports were identified and compared to Heathrow s. This allowed recommendations to be developed. As per section 1, it is emphasised that all recommendations are made purely on the basis of noise. Step 6 - conclusions and recommendations: Conclusions and recommendations were developed. It is noted that recommendations from the previous report have not been duplicated. These recommendations can be found in annex A. 2.3 Limitations of the methodology and interpretation of results This is discussed in section 3.1. P1744D001 HELIOS 12 of 97

14 Key Performance Area (KPA) Category Primary Secondary Tertiary Operating restrictions Movement count Noise limits Noise monitoring Overall Day Evening Heathrow Noise Action Plan references Night 1,2.11, , , (KPA1.1) Runway DEN Day Evening Night Background noise levels Aircraft noise levels (KPA1.2) Feedback, fines and punitive measures 1.2.2, 1.2.6,1.2.7 (KPA1.3) Contour and population exposure (KPA 1.4) Fleet monitoring Arrivals Runway Ground movements Gate operations Departures Differential Noise Overall (KPA 2.1) charges Aircraft fleet Current fleet (KPA 2.2) Noise abatement procedures Reduced flight delay Noise abatement procedures Noise abatement procedures Reduced flight delay Reduced use of noisegenerating airport equipment Noise abatement procedures Future fleet 1.1.3, (KPA 2.3) CDA 1.2.5, (KPA 3.1) Increased landing gradient LPLD Non-CDA noise abatement procedures (KPA 3.2) Reduced stacking Reduced rate of missed approaches Displaced threshold Alternation (KPA 4.1) Segregation/mixed mode Runway use timing restrictions Reverse thrust Engine test/run-up (KPA 5.2) Gate holding Half-engine taxiing and tugging to/from runway Reduced ground holding Use of fixed electrical ground power and pre-conditioned air (KPA 5.4) , (KPA 6.1) Non-routing NAPs for departures 1.2.1, (KPA 7.1) De-rated thrust take offs Increased take-off gradient Routing (KPA 7.2) Table 1: Mapping of NAP actions to benchmarks 5,6 5 NAP actions and have not been benchmarked as they relate to actions to be undertaken by Heathrow at the DfT Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee (ANMAC). NAP action has not been benchmarked as guidance is required from the Government on Quiet Areas. P1744D001 HELIOS 13 of 97

15 BRU LHR AMS LGW STN MAD MAN ZRH YYZ GVA DUS SNA LCY SYD PRG MSP CPH BCN FAB ORD CDG LAX FRA ARN SFO DCA AKL SZG ORY MUC OSL ATL LGA JFK HKG MCO HND PEK SIN DXB Benchmark score COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE 3 Summary of the benchmarking findings 3.1 Introduction This section provides a summary of the benchmarking scores. It also provides an overview of noise abatement procedures at Heathrow and other airports. More detail on Heathrow s noise abatement procedures (NAPs) and further comparisons with the other benchmarked airports are provided in section Summary of the benchmarking - overall Figure 3 and Table 2 summarise the scoring for the benchmarking Figure 3: Summary of benchmarking (weighted scores only) 6 There are no benchmarked KPAs 3.2. and 5.1 as increased landing gradient and reverse thrust are not part of the currently published NAP. There is no KPA 5.3 as this has been incorporated into KPA 6.1. P1744D001 HELIOS 14 of 97

16 Airport IATA code Original score Weighting Weighted score Weighted Rank Brussels BRU Heathrow LHR Amsterdam AMS Gatwick LGW Stansted STN Madrid MAD Manchester MAN Zurich ZRH Toronto YYZ Geneva GVA Dusseldorf DUS San Ana SNA London City LCY Sydney SYD Prague PRG Minneapolis MSP Copenhagen CPH Barcelona BCN Farnborough FAB Chicago ORD Paris - CdG CDG Los Angeles LAX Frankfurt FRA Stockholm ARN San Francisco SFO Washington DCA Auckland AKL Salzburg SZG Paris - Orly ORY Munich MUC Oslo OSL Atlanta ATL LaGuardia, NY LGA JFK, NY JFK Hong Kong HKG Orlando MCO Tokyo HND Beijing PEK Singapore SIN Dubai DXB Table 2: Summary of benchmarking (un-weighted and weighted) P1744D001 HELIOS 15 of 97

17 Change in Heathrow s ranking Figure 3 and Table 2 show Heathrow to be ranked second based upon the methodology used. In the previous study Heathrow was ranked third. Changes in Heathrow s scores since the last study are summarised below. They are presented in two groups to differentiate between changes at Heathrow and changes in the benchmarking. Changes at Heathrow Benchmark (noise control scheme): The main change at Heathrow since the last study has been the implementation of the Fly Quiet Programme which ranks airlines against a number of noise related metrics. Benchmark (non track-keeping departure noise abatement procedures): Another change has been Heathrow s Flight Performance Team reports reporting the airlines that infringe the 1,000 foot rule. Benchmark (number of noise infringements): The previous study based the score on night-time infringements, for consistency, this study has based the score on total infringements. Benchmark (APU usage): The level of compliance with APU restrictions is published in the Flight Performance Team reports, but there is no publically reported target. Changes in the benchmarking Benchmark (runway alternation): The change in score is due to the benchmark being made more general to compare runway alternation practices between airports. In addition changes in the Heathrow NAP resulted in some new benchmarks being introduced/others being deleted. This has also influenced Heathrow s score. Changes in benchmarks as a result of the new Heathrow NAP are summarised in Annex C. Change in rankings for other airports In terms of other airports, within the top ten ranked airports, no airport has changed its position by more than two places compared to the previous study. Given the methodology used, this gives a good indication that the approach taken for this study is broadly consistent with that used for the previous study. For airports ranked 11 to 25, the position changes tend to be greater. However, reference to Figure 3 shows a narrow band of scores for this group of airports where a small score change can result in a notable change in ranking. Interpretation of results The benchmarking has been undertaken against a structured framework and iterated several times to ensure consistency, limit any bias and identify additional sources. It therefore gives a good comparison of Heathrow s noise abatement procedures against other airports. However, detailed interpretation of specific scores and rankings is cautioned against for the following reasons: Benchmarking framework: The benchmarking framework is based upon the Heathrow NAP. While this provides a broad set of noise abatement procedures, not all may be applicable to other airports. P1744D001 HELIOS 16 of 97

18 Benchmarking of procedures: In addition to having different noise abatement procedures, airports also report compliance with them in different ways (both how they report and the amount of public reporting). Therefore, with a small number of exceptions, this study focuses on benchmarking procedures rather than performance against them. Public sources: Only publically available sources have been used, with the amount of detail varying form airport to airport, therefore there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity in using this information to derive benchmarking scores. 3.3 Summary of the benchmarking by KPA Table 3 summarises the average score by KPA for the top 10 ranked airports (it is noted that this uses the weighted score, hence a small number of scores being above 5 for Brussels and Zurich). Compared to the other airports, Heathrow is particularly strong in fleet monitoring, arrival procedures, ground movements and gate operations. However, it is also clear that many other airports have comparable scores for a number of KPAs. Each KPA is covered separately below, with more detail being provided in section 4. Airport KPA1 Operating restrictions KPA2 Fleet monitoring KPA3 Arrivals KPA4 Runway KPA5 Ground movements KPA6 Gate operations KPA7 Departures Brussels Heathrow Amsterdam Gatwick Stansted Madrid Manchester Zurich Toronto Geneva Table 3: Summary of benchmarking by KPA (weighted only) KPA1 Operating restrictions This KPA is divided into a number of areas: Night time restrictions: Similar to Heathrow, most airports benchmarked have an eight hour night-time period. Also similar to Heathrow, most airports have tight restrictions during the night-time period rather than an absolute ban on movements - amongst the hub airports the exceptions are Zurich and Frankfurt, which are a result of legal restrictions. Within the top-10, all the UK airports operate quota systems similar to Heathrow, with Madrid and Brussels also operating quota systems similar to the UK model. Amsterdam has a nighttime noise quota at different points around the airport while Geneva has very tight restrictions on movements. Toronto s night-time quota system is based upon passenger growth in the previous year. Noise monitoring and aircraft noise levels: All airports in the top-10 operate a network of fixed noise monitors. Unlike Heathrow, several of the non-uk airports in the top 10 produce monthly reports from the noise monitors, or in P1744D001 HELIOS 17 of 97

19 the case of Brussels it is possible to extract data from the online noise monitoring system. Similar to Heathrow, many of the airports benchmarked have noise limits but they are set in a variety ways. Heathrow has noise limits for departures only which vary by time of day, others have limits for both arrivals and departures, night time limits only or different limits for different locations. Fines: Heathrow levies fines ( 500 to 1,000) for breaching the departure noise limits. Airports in the top-10 that did report breaches, tended to have a lower number than Heathrow. Similar to several other airports benchmarked, a number of the non-uk airports in the top-10 do not levy fines (or it was not possible to identify this from publically available information), instead relying on a combination of restrictions on aircraft types and landing/take-off charges. Some such as Zurich and Madrid apply sanctions for breaches of noise abatement procedures but the specifics of this are not published. For breaking the departure noise limits Washington National ($5,000) levies the highest noise related fines, although these are for night-time breaches only, and San Francisco has a tiered system to penalise frequent breaches. Other airports have maximum limits for either other specific events (the highest being up to $850,000 for breaking the night curfew at Sydney) or general breaches of noise abatement procedures (the highest being up to $25,000 at Toronto). Noise control schemes: Heathrow, Chicago O Hare, San Francisco and Stansted are the only airports identified as operating schemes which compare airlines across a number of noise metrics. Noise contours: Most airports benchmarked produce noise contours, similar to Heathrow, many do so annually. KPA2 Fleet monitoring This KPA covers both noise related landing charges and aircraft fleet: Noise related landing charges: Similar to Heathrow, all but two airports in the top-10 have noise related landing charges based upon an aircraft noise categorisation and whether the landing took place inside or outside of the night period. Notable in the top-10 is Geneva which has a tiered night-time departure charge. The charge increases half-hourly from 2200 to midnight as a way of discouraging late night take-offs by the noisiest aircraft types. Across all benchmarked airports, a number levied a noise charge for both landings and take-offs. Aircraft fleet: Similar to Heathrow, almost all airports in the top-10 publish some form of fleet breakdown (either ICAO Chapters or aircraft types) and make comparisons with previous years. Amsterdam Schiphol scores highly for this KPA as it uses fleet data to predict noise in the following year in relation to noise sharing/runway. Outside of night-time restrictions and/or landing charges, only a few airports either have actions to reduce marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft. Exceptions are Barcelona which has year on year reduction targets and Amsterdam which operates an incentive scheme for cargo operators. Frankfurt applies very tight restrictions for marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft with take-offs and landings not being allowed at weekends or from 1900 on weekdays. Heathrow has no/very little marginally compliant Chapter 3 traffic and is working to secure a voluntary agreement not to schedule this type of aircraft. P1744D001 HELIOS 18 of 97

20 KPA3 Arrivals All but two of the airports in the top-10 have continuous descent approach (CDA) procedures. However, unlike Heathrow most only operate them during off-peak periods or during the night. This said a number of the top-10 airports cite an intention to operate CDAs throughout the day in the future, with many being part of SESAR (Single European ATM Research) Programme trials. Heathrow also operates and reports upon a Joining Point procedure, which stipulates heights aircraft must stay above before intercepting the ILS glideslope (there is also a distance requirement). Many of the airports include some form of minimum height information in noise abatement sections of their AIPs (e.g. minimum heights for aircraft to join the glideslope, not descending below the glideslope or points at which aircraft had to be above a certain height during the approach). All the top-10 airports state that they monitor deviations from arrival noise abatement procedures, although evidence of public reporting was not always found. KPA4 Runway Heathrow operates a runway alternation programme on westerly operations. The same does not occur on easterly operations due to the legacy of the Cranford Agreement which did not allow for departures from Runway 09L, except in limited circumstances. Many of the multiple airport runways benchmarked operate runway alternation at night only to reduce the noise impact on local populations. Airports such as Brussels and Zurich operate strict runway alternation plans/priorities for certain times of the day. Airports such as Amsterdam Schiphol, Sydney and Los Angeles International have runway alternation plans based upon avoiding built-up areas and sharing noise, the latter two doing so by taking advantage of their coastal locations. It is noted that this benchmark does have its limitations by favouring multiple airport runways. KPA5 Ground movements This KPA covers two areas, engine testing/run-ups and ground movements. Engine testing/run-ups: The majority of airports benchmarked have restrictions on the locations of engine tests and/or night time restrictions (either prohibited or requiring prior permission from the airport). However, Heathrow is one of the few airports that both log and have targets for engine tests (it is possible that others do so but do not report this publically). One airport of note is San Francisco which operates an automated engine testing monitoring system. Ground movements: Heathrow, along with other UK airports, is part of a voluntary departure code of practice. This includes a voluntary procedure to allow aircraft to taxi on reduced engines. While few other airports benchmarked specifically promote the use of reduced engine taxi, a number operate Collaborative Decision Making which is intended to reduce the amount of time aircraft spend taxiing and holding on the ground. Other practices include, ground noise studies/contours (Brussels) and restrictions on taxiing at night (Brussels and Madrid). P1744D001 HELIOS 19 of 97

21 KPA6 Gate operations This KPA relates to the use of auxiliary power units (APUs). All airports in the top- 10 have a hierarchy of ground power sources (i.e. less noisy ground power sources such as fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) are to be used in preference to APUs when available). Along with the majority of airports benchmarked, all airports in the top-10 also have time restrictions for shutting down/starting up APUs after arriving at/prior to leaving the gate (with some of those in the top-10 having much shorter time windows than Heathrow). Many of the airports in the top-10, including Heathrow, also perform some form of compliance monitoring, although Heathrow is one of the few to publically report on the level of compliance. KPA7 Departures All of the airports in the top-10 monitor adherence to the published routes for departing aircraft and identify non-compliances. Unlike Heathrow, a number also publically identify aircraft that do not comply with the routes and some also have penalties for persistent offenders. However, it is noted that Heathrow s departure routes were designed for aircraft of a different generation, and unlike a number of airports in the top-10 does report compliance by individual departure route. Many of the UK airports benchmarked, including Heathrow, operate a 1,000 foot rule (the minimum height aircraft should have reached 6.5km from the take-off roll). Heathrow publically reports on overall compliance with this rule and identifies infringing airlines. Also, via the voluntary UK Departure Code of Practice continuous climb operations also take place. These are currently monitored internally by Heathrow. Many airports include information such as climb rates/speeds/power settings to certain heights and heights up to which aircraft must stay within noise preferential routes in their AIPs. Again a number state that they monitor compliance with these procedures. 3.4 Notable practices at other airports While the above scoring and text highlights that Heathrow has a relatively mature set of noise abatement procedures, it is also possible to identify examples of other airports applying more stringent procedures in a particular area or measures not used at Heathrow. These are listed below and elaborated upon in section 4. Operating restrictions No take-offs or landings by Quota Count 4 (equivalent) aircraft between (Madrid). Night-time movement bans (Frankfurt and Zurich). Use of noise monitor data to further understand the operation and positioning of monitors close to built up areas (several airports). $5,000 fines for breaking the night-time noise limit (Washington Reagan). Increases in fines for operators who infringe the limits more than once in a 12 month period (San Francisco). Publically identifying aircraft that break the departure noise limits (Manchester) and flights receiving the most complaints (Amsterdam). P1744D001 HELIOS 20 of 97

22 Fleet monitoring Night-time departure charges from 2200 that increase every 30 minutes up to midnight (Geneva). Incentives for cargo operators not to operate marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft (Amsterdam). Arrivals Night-time arrival/departure routes that overfly less densely populated areas (U.S airports). Trial of steep approaches (Frankfurt). Runways Runway alternation with some form of noise sharing (Amsterdam and Sydney). Innovative night-time runway alternation (e.g. Los Angeles International voluntary night-time easterly arrivals and westerly departures). Ground noise Automated ground engine run-up detection system (San Francisco). Night-time engine runs only permitted for aircraft departing the next morning (Toronto). Monitoring aircraft noise on the ground/ground noise studies (Brussels/London City). Gate operations Tighter APU start and shut-down restrictions (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Brussels, Copenhagen and Madrid). Departures Fines for non-adherence to track keeping (Manchester/Stansted). Reporting of flights that do not adhere to NPRs (Manchester) Findings The high-level conclusion of the previous study remains valid. Heathrow is a relatively mature airport in the procedures it uses to manage noise at an operational level. The majority of the processes identified at other airports are currently in operation at Heathrow. There are a number of local procedures/trials at other airports which Heathrow should investigate to determine their applicability to its own operation (see the following sections for more details). P1744D001 HELIOS 21 of 97

23 4 Noise abatement procedures at Heathrow & example practices at other airports 4.1 Introduction This section summarises Heathrow s scores for individual benchmarks, Heathrow s noise abatement procedures and provides examples of procedures at other airports. More detail on these examples is given in Annex B. Commentary of the changes in any benchmarks for Heathrow is given in section 3.2. This section provides a number of recommendations, however these are drawn purely from a noise perspective. They do not consider the potential impact their implementation could have on capacity, safety, connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented/investigated further. 4.2 Operating restrictions Figure 4: Summary of Heathrow scoring operating restrictions Explanations for the score changes in the above figure are given in section 3.2. P1744D001 HELIOS 22 of 97

24 Night period (number o f hours) COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Night-time restrictions Heathrow Heathrow operates an eight-hour night-time period between (local), within which there is a night quota period between 2330 and 0600 (local). The latter period has a limit on the number of night movements and an overall noise quota. These restrictions, set by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) and monitored by the airport, are summarised in the figure below. Figure 5: Night-time restrictions at Heathrow 7 Other benchmarked airports The graph below shows that the majority of other airports benchmarked also have an eight-hour night-period. Those with longer night-periods tend to be smaller European airports (e.g. Farnborough, London City and Salzburg and a subset of American airports). Similar to Heathrow, several of these airports have a night period which contains shoulder hours with one set of restrictions and more stringent restrictions during the core night period /not defined Number of airports Figure 6: Summary of the duration of the night-time period for benchmarked airports Within the night-period a mixture of approaches are used (night-time bans, quotas, restrictions on noisier aircraft and movement limits): A small number of airports have a night-time ban on movements. Of these the only hub airports are Frankfurt, whose ban was a result of a court ruling in 7 Heathrow night flights factsheet. P1744D001 HELIOS 23 of 97

25 relation to the inauguration of the new runway, and Zurich where there is an absolute ban on flights between 2330 and Many airports place night-time restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types (i.e. marginally Chapter 3 compliant or higher) and/or have a noise quota system. A number of airports have a night-quota system similar to Heathrow (e.g. Brussels, Gatwick, Madrid, Manchester, Munich, Stansted). A comparison between the systems for Brussels, Heathrow and Madrid is given in the figure below. Brussels 23:00 06:00 07:00 No take-off/landing >QC8 No take-off/landing >QC12 Madrid 23:00 23:30 06:30 07:00 No take-off/landing >=QC4 Figure 7: Comparison of QC systems at Brussels, Heathrow and Madrid 8 For the majority of airports, it is not possible to find public reporting on compliance with night-time restrictions. Noise monitoring and aircraft noise levels Heathrow Heathrow measures noise for departing aircraft only. The airport has twelve permanent noise monitors located near the ends of those runways used for departing aircraft. Noise limits vary by time of day and are summarised in the table below. The number of noise infringements is reported in the Flight Performance Team reports. In 2012 there were a total of 73 departure noise infringements. During the same period Gatwick had no departure noise infringements and Manchester had nine. 8 At Madrid, noise quota group CR-4 has a certified noise level of EPNdB. This is equivalent to the certified noise level for Heathrow s noise quota group QC4. At Madrid, CR-4 operations can take place 30 minutes after/before the start/end of the night period due to delays. P1744D001 HELIOS 24 of 97

26 Period Time Noise limit Day dBA (LMax) Shoulder & dBA (LMax) Night dBA (LMax) Table 4: Noise limits for departing aircraft at Heathrow (excluding adjustments for individual monitors) 9 Other benchmarked airports Almost all of the airports benchmarked used fixed noise monitors to differing degrees. A number produce detailed monthly/quarterly reports from their noise monitors (see section 4.9). Similar to Heathrow, a number of the airports benchmarked set noise limits on individual aircraft but in a variety of different ways (this study did not compare the associated noise limits), these are shown in the table overleaf. Additionally, some airports apply average annual noise limits rather than having limits related to individual aircraft. Airport Gatwick and Stansted Brussels San Francisco JFK and LaGuardia Copenhagen and Washington National Noise limits Similar to Heathrow, departure noise limits for day, night and shoulder periods. Separate noise limits for day/night and location. Single maximum noise levels at individual monitors. Single noise limit for departures only. Night-time noise limits for both arrivals and departures Table 5: Examples of practices for individual aircraft noise limits Fines Heathrow Heathrow fines aircraft for breaching the departure noise limits only. The fines are 500 for a 0.1 to 3.0 dba excess over the limits and 1,000 for more than a 3.0 dba excess. It is understood that these fines are being reviewed. Other benchmarked airports Over half of the airports benchmarked did not apply fines (or it was not possible to find any published information). Those that did, levied fines for a variety of reasons, with many being related to a maximum discretionary value as opposed to an automatic fixed charge. Examples of fines are given in the table below. 9 Heathrow Flight Performance, Noise Report 2012 P1744D001 HELIOS 25 of 97

27 Airport Gatwick, Manchester and Stansted Toronto San Francisco Paris Charles De Gaulle Washington National Sydney Madrid and Barcelona Fines Fines for aircraft that exceed the departure noise limits. For example, Manchester has fines of 750 plus an extra 150 for each full PNdB over the departure noise limit. Manchester and Stansted can also levy fines for poor departure track keeping, although unlike noise fines these are discretionary rather than automatic (see section 4.8). Fine (via Transport Canada) of up to $25,000 for breaching noise abatement rules. Tiered fining system for breaching noise abatement rules (although this does not include breaching noise limits). The first violation in a 12 month period receives a letter from the Airport Director, a second involves a $1,000 fine, the third a $2,000 fine and a $3,000 fine for each subsequent violation. Fine of up to 20,000 for breaching night-time noise restrictions. Fine of up to $5,000 for breaching night noise limits. Fine of up to $850,000 for breaking the night curfew. Both apply sanctions for breaching noise abatement procedures, but the form this takes was not identified. Table 6: Examples of fines Noise control schemes comparing airlines Heathrow Heathrow launched its Fly Quiet Programme in The programme compares each of the top 50 airlines across six different noise metrics. As part of the programme, Heathrow works with airlines that receive low rankings for individual metrics Other benchmarked airports Chicago, San Francisco and Stansted are the other airports who operate such a scheme. The metrics measured for each programme are summarised below. Airport Heathrow Stansted San Francisco Chicago O Hare Scheme Fly Quiet Programme Airline performance against AIP Noise Abatement Criteria Fly Quiet Programme Fly Quiet Programme Measures QC/seat Chapter number CDA violations Track keeping violations Pre-0430 Pre ft infringements Departure Noise Limits Departure Track Keeping Continuous Descent Arrivals Fleet Noise Quality Noise Exceedance Night-time Preferential Runway Use Shoreline Departure Quality Gap Departure Quality Foster City arrival quality Night-time runway use Flight operations Flight tracks Noise complaints 24-hour tracking of ground run-ups Table 7: Summary of noise control schemes Chicago, Heathrow, San Francisco and Stansted P1744D001 HELIOS 26 of 97

28 Noise contours Heathrow Heathrow has noise contours produced annually by the UK CAA Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD). Other benchmarked airports All but a few of the airports benchmarked published noise contours, many on an annual basis. Recommendations The previous study made several recommendations regarding operating restrictions. These are summarised in Annex A and not repeated in this study. It is recommended that Heathrow compares its departure noise limits with those of other airports (noting that (i) Heathrow s noise limits are set by the Department for Transport, (ii) the noise limits at other airports will be influenced by factors such as the location of the monitor). Consider the use of noise monitor data to further understand the operation (for example, similar to Dusseldorf, to better understand the distribution of individual aircraft noise levels). Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 27 of 97

29 4.3 Fleet monitoring Figure 8: Summary of Heathrow scoring fleet monitoring Differential noise charges Heathrow Heathrow s landing charge includes a noise charge based upon the ICAO Chapter of the aircraft. The charge also varies according to whether the landing took place inside or outside of the night period. Heathrow does not levy a take-off charge. Chapter 2 Chapter 3 High Chapter 3 Base Chapter 4 High Chapter 4 Base Chapter 4 Minus Outside the night period 7, , , , , Night period 19, , , , , , Table 8: Noise element of Heathrow s landing charges (Fixed wing aircraft exceeding 16 metric tonnes) 10 Other benchmarked airports Just over half of the airports benchmarked include a noise element in their landing charges (a noticeable group that do not are American airports). Similar to Heathrow, these airports base their charges upon some form of noise categorisation and whether the landing took place inside or outside of the night period. Unlike Heathrow, many of these airports also have a take-off charge which also includes a noise element. Examples of different noise charges are as follows: Amsterdam Schiphol has a percentage increase on the landing and take-off charge, plus an additional increase for night-time movements. 10 Heathrow Airport Limited, Conditions of Use including Airport Charges from 1 April 2013 P1744D001 HELIOS 28 of 97

30 Noise category Increase in landing / take-off charge Additional nigh-time charge ( local) Landing Take-off MCC3 60% 50% 50% A 40% 27% 50% B - 27% 50% C -20% 27% 50% Table 9: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Amsterdam Schiphol 11 Frankfurt has a noise charge for arrivals and departures based upon 16 aircraft categories. An additional night-surplus charge is also made. Noise category 24hr noise charge ( ) per landing or take-off Additional night surplus charge ( ) ( & local) Example a/c type (landing) Example a/c type (take-off) BAe146 CRJ E170 BAe MD87 A B738 E A318 A A320 B B77W A A388 B77L B744 B77W B743 A AN12 B B A , IL96 B74S 14 1, DC10 B ,100 1,050 None B ,800 8,400 B707 B707 Table 10: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Frankfurt 12 Geneva has a noise related landing charge, plus night-time take-off charges from 2200 which increase every half an hour up to midnight. Noise charge for landing aircraft Noise class Example ac types Noise charge ( ) Additional noise charge for take-off at night ( ) (times are local) I B74S ,020 2,040 4,080 6,120 II B ,020 2,040 4,080 III A ,020 2,040 IV B ,020 V A Table 11: Noise related landing and take-off charges at Geneva Schiphol Airport Charges and Conditions, 1 April Airport Charges, Frankfurt Airport valid as of January 1, Converted at a rate of 0.84 per 1. P1744D001 HELIOS 29 of 97

31 Aircraft fleet Heathrow Over 97 percent of the current movements at Heathrow are made by ICAO Chapter 4 aircraft 14. Use of Chapter 4 aircraft is also one of the metrics in the Fly Quiet Programme. During the third quarter of 2013 no marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft operated from Heathrow, and the airport is working to secure a voluntary agreement not to schedule this type of aircraft. In addition ERCD has undertaken a noise study on the impact of the A380 and a similar study is planned for the B787 once there is sufficient data. Other benchmarked airports Around half of the airports benchmarked publish detailed information on the aircraft fleet operating at the airport (e.g. by aircraft type or Chapter), with approximately one third making comparisons over time. With regard to noisier aircraft types, most airports make reference to proportions of these aircraft reducing over time, with one-third making more detailed comparisons (e.g. historical comparisons of either noise contours over time/the population within them or future predictions). Excluding night-time restrictions or landing/take-off charges, a few airports publish targets or actions aimed at reducing noisier aircraft types (predominantly aimed at marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft). Examples of these practices are given in the table below. Airport Barcelona Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt Practice Barcelona has a target to remove marginally compliant Chapter 3 operations by September To do so operators are expected to reduce the number of marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft by at least 20 percent per year. Amsterdam has a Cargo Sustainability Incentive Program. Scheduled cargo operators are incentivised to substitute marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft with quieter aircraft. For the first year of operation of the quieter aircraft there is a reward of 400 per departure. Frankfurt has strong restrictions on the operation of marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft: Monday to Friday: No take-offs/landings between 1900 and No take-offs landings from Friday 1900 to Monday Table 12: Examples of practices for reducing marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft Recommendations Similar to Geneva, consider the usefulness of applying night-time departure charges from 2200 to encourage the use of the quietest aircraft possible. Similar to Amsterdam Schiphol, consider the value of a cargo incentive programme to further reduce the limited number of movements by cargo aircraft classified as QC8 on departure. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective 13 Geneva Airport charges and services, August 28th 2013, Converted at a rate of 0.84 per Heathrow Fly Quiet Programme, Q P1744D001 HELIOS 30 of 97

32 4.4 Arrivals Figure 9: Summary of Heathrow scoring arrivals Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) Heathrow Heathrow is part of a voluntary arrivals code of practice in the UK which encourages air traffic controllers and pilots to seek to facilitate continuous descent approaches (CDAs) in the descent from 6,000 ft. CDAs are operated through-out the day at Heathrow, typically by over 80% of aircraft (compliance levels are also included in the NATS service contract). Levels of compliance are reported to groups such as the Noise and Track Keeping Working Group, Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee and Flight Operations Performance Committee. They are also published in the Flight Performance Team reports. The airport also works with airlines to improve their CDA performance. Other benchmarked airports Just over half of the airports benchmarked publically stated that they operated CDA procedures. However, beyond a general explanation (e.g. continuous descent on approach) few specific details were found. However, Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles De Gaulle, Paris Orly and Heathrow have similar definitions of a CDA (see table below). Airport Amsterdam Schiphol Paris Charles De Gaulle and Paris Orly Heathrow Definition 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. In a continuous descent approach, the aircraft does not remain in level flight for more than 4.5 km (~2.4 nautical miles) below an altitude of 2,000 metres (~6,500 feet)....a descent will be deemed to have been continuous provided that no segment of level flight longer than 2.5 nautical miles occurs below 6000ft above mean sea level and level flight is interpreted as any segment of flight having a height change of not more than 50ft over a track distance of 2 nautical miles or more as recorded in the airport Noise and Track keeping system. Table 13: Examples of definitions for continuous descent/level flight during a CDA Additionally, at Frankfurt it is indicated that CDAs typically start from around 7,000 feet. In the UK arrivals code of practice, this figure is 6,000 feet. P1744D001 HELIOS 31 of 97

33 Unlike Heathrow, most airports only operate CDAs during the night or off-peak periods, or sometimes to a specific runway. However several either state an intention to operate throughout the day in the future or cite involvement in trials as part of the SESAR programme (Brussels, Paris Charles De Gaulle, Madrid and Stockholm). Other arrival noise abatement procedures Heathrow Another arrival noise abatement procedure operated at Heathrow is the Joining Point. This specifies the heights aircraft should not descend below before intercepting the ILS glideslope by runway direction and time of day (rules also apply for non-ils approaches). At night, aircraft are also required to stay above certain heights until they are 10NM from touchdown. Joining Point is operated throughout the day with compliance being above 95%. Similar to CDAs, levels of compliance are reported in the Flight Performance Team reports and reviewed/followed up by various groups. Other benchmarked airports Many of the airports include some form of minimum height information in noise abatement sections of their AIPs (e.g. minimum heights for aircraft to join the glideslope, not descending below the glideslope or points at which aircraft had to be above a certain height during the approach). A number of airports stated that they monitored compliance with arrivals procedures and investigated noncompliance, although (excluding UK airports) in many cases this information was not publically identified (examples found in public material tended to be images of flight tracks over a given period). A number of U.S. airports use natural features such as the coastline or rivers for arrival and departure routes. As part of its Fly Quiet Programme, San Francisco rates airlines approaches to Runway 28 between 2300 and 0600, with those making over the bay approaches receiving higher ratings. Aircraft overflying certain built-up areas are also identified and published. Frankfurt is operating a 3.2. degree glideslope on its north-west runway. In October 2013 the airport undertook trial approaches using an approach angle of 4.49 degrees from heights of about 8,000 feet (lower angles were used for the final stages of approach). This is part of 19 noise measures in the Alliance for noise 2012 project which includes amongst others, the airport, Lufthansa, DFS and the State government. Recommendations The implementation of more advanced continuous descent approaches (CDAs) was recommended in the previous study and is not repeated by this study. However, with several airports intending to implement CDAs throughout the day, and SESAR conducting advanced CDA trials, it is recommended that Heathrow monitor developments at other major European airports (Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels, Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris Charles De Gaulle). Similar to Frankfurt, investigate the noise benefits of implementing steeper approaches at Heathrow (trialling steeper approaches is proposed for development/testing in the A quieter Heathrow document). A number of U.S. airports use natural features such as the coastline or rivers for arrival and departure routes. While the local geography is different around Heathrow, the airport could consider the use of night-time P-RNAV arrival and departure routes to overfly less densely populated areas. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 32 of 97

34 4.5 Runway Figure 10: Summary of Heathrow scoring runway An explanation for the score change in the above figure is given in section 3.2. Heathrow During westerly operations runway alternation is applied to provide predictable periods of relief for communities under the final approach tracks to the east of the airport. This provides for one runway to be used for arrivals from 0600 until 1500 and the other runway to be used for arrivals from 1500 until after the last departure of the day. The runway used for arrivals between 0600 and 1500 alternates each week. After the last departure of the day a 4 week night-time alternation pattern will be utilised and this includes easterly operations should the weather conditions allow. There is no runway alternation during the day on easterly operations due to the legacy of the Cranford Agreement, which prohibited departures from 09L, other than in limited circumstances. During easterly operations, therefore, the majority of departures use the southern runway, 09R, and the majority of arrivals tend to use the northern runway, 09L. Other benchmarked airports Many of the multiple runway airports benchmarked operate runway alternation/preferred runways at night only to reduce the noise impact on local populations (e.g. Copenhagen and Stockholm Arlanda). Brussels and Zurich both operate fixed or prioritised runway alternation plans similar to Heathrow. In the case of Zurich the alternation plan is influenced by an agreement with neighbouring Germany. Airports such as Amsterdam Schiphol, Sydney and Los Angeles International have runway alternation plans based upon avoiding built-up areas and sharing noise (see table below). P1744D001 HELIOS 33 of 97

35 Airport Amsterdam Schiphol Sydney Los Angeles International Runway alternation plan The airport has pre-defined monitoring points around the airport for which a maximum annual noise quota is defined. The location and quotas of these points have been defined in such a way that more noise can be allowed in areas with low population densities and less noise allowed in densely populated areas. There are quotas for operations during the whole, 24-hour day, and one for night hours only ( local time). Runway use is based upon staying within these quotas. It is noted that the airport trialled a new runway use system between November 2010 and October Sydney has a runway use system called the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP). LTOP has 10 different ways of using Sydney s three runways and associated flight paths. LTOP is designed to place as many flights as possible over water (55 per cent to the south) and for the remaining flights to be shared as operationally feasible. Efforts are made for runway modes change throughout the day so individual areas have some break from aircraft noise on most days. The airport operates a voluntary night-time runway alternation system to discourage air carriers from departing over built up areas. As the airport is on the coast, between the hours of 0000 and 0630, aircraft operate in accordance with the over-ocean preferential runway use procedure, approaching over the ocean toward the east and departing over the ocean towards the west. Although voluntary, the airport has contacted airlines to understand the reasons for any easterly departures. Table 14: Examples of runway alternation plans used to avoid built-up areas and sharing noise It is noted that some airports in the study have single runways (e.g. Gatwick and Stansted) and are therefore unable to operate a runway alternation system. Recommendations Note based on noise only, recommendations only made if not included in previous study. Review the over the ocean night-time runway procedure used at Los Angeles International to determine the merits of studying a novel night-time runway alternation system for Heathrow (e.g. easterly arrivals and westerly departures at certain times of the night). If easterly alternation is implemented at Heathrow, consider (i) measuring how aircraft noise is distributed across the different combinations of runway operation (i.e. 09R departures/09l arrivals, 09L departures/09r arrivals etc) and (ii) measures to address any imbalances (if they are found to exist) for a certain direction of operation (i.e. it would not be possible to address imbalances between easterly and westerly operations as these result from prevailing wind conditions. However, if they are found to exist, it may be possible to address imbalances between, for example, runways 09L and 09R). Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 34 of 97

36 4.6 Ground movements Figure 11: Summary of Heathrow scoring ground movements Engine testing/run-ups Heathrow Restrictions apply to engine ground running by location time, aircraft type and type of run. All engine runs in the night period require permission, with all high power night time runs having to take place in a ground run pen. Airlines must maintain local records of all engine runs for the night period, and all high power runs during the day, for audit by Heathrow. Where engine ground runs are carried out in the night period additional details should be kept indicating when the aircraft was required for operations 15. Heathrow has targets for night-time engine testing. The maximum total ground running exposure time over the night period from 2300 to 0700 hours must not exceed 150 minutes. Within the total 150 minutes, the maximum amount of ground running at high power must not exceed 60 minutes in any one night or exceed a rolling 30 day average of 20 minutes 16. The amount of run-up time is reported in the Flight Performance Team reports, but whether the targets were not met on any night/period is not identified. Other benchmarked airports The majority of airports benchmarked either have one or both of the following: Required locations for engine testing (e.g. Brussels where engine tests can only take place in the centre of the airfield, furthest from residential areas). Engine run-ups in the night-time are either not prohibited or only allowed with prior permission from the airport. Not many airports publish information on whether ground-runs are logged or if targets exist. However, it is possible that this may reflect this information being (i) contained in local procedures (similar to Heathrow s Operational Safety Instructions) which are not always publically available or (ii) not published (for 15 Heathrow Operational Safety Instruction, control of ground noise and emissions at Heathrow, 12 th January 2011, OSI/03/ Heathrow Flight Performance Q3 Report 2013 P1744D001 HELIOS 35 of 97

37 some airports information on engine testing restrictions was only identified by reviewing the minutes of local consultative committee meetings). Some of the airports that do undertake reporting, along with other identified practices are summarised in the table below. Airport Stockholm Arlanda Manchester Gatwick Geneva/London City San Francisco Chicago O Hare Toronto Practice No more than 10 night-time engine tests per year. No engine tests are permitted outside the engine test bay between 2200 and 0600 (or between 0600 and 0730 on a Saturday and Sunday). No more than 20 such tests are permitted per year. There are limits on the number of ground run engine tests as part of the airport s legal agreement. Ground runs are not permitted at night. The airport operates an automated ground run-up detection system to (i) log and verify ground run activities and (ii) identify any run-ups that occur in unauthorised areas. Nighttime power runs are reported in the monthly Directors Report (see figure below). The number of ground-runs up by airline is reported in the Fly Quiet Programme. This includes information on the percentage of runs airlines conducted in ground run pens. Night-time engine runs are only permitted for aircraft departing the next morning. Table 15: Examples of engine testing practices Figure 12: San Francisco monthly reporting of night-time power run-ups Ground operations Heathrow Heathrow has signed up to a voluntary UK industry code of practice to reduce the environmental impacts of ground operations and departing aircraft (departures code of practice). One of the techniques in the code of practice is taxiing with less than all engines operating (reduced engine taxi). Reduced engine taxi can be undertaken on the majority of the airport surface 17 and is used by some airlines/fleets at the discretion of the crew. Heathrow also has restrictions for taxiing aircraft in the vicinity of terminals 4 and 5 at night. 17 Reference to the Heathrow AIP shows that some restrictions do apply, for example around Terminal 4, runway crossings and in certain locations for specific aircraft types. P1744D001 HELIOS 36 of 97

38 Other benchmarked airports Very few of the airports benchmarked specifically promote the use of reduced engine taxi. Similar to Heathrow, those that do also have a voluntary procedure (see table below) Airport Amsterdam Schiphol Copenhagen Procedure Arriving aircraft with three or four engines should taxi with one engine but pilots are able to deviate from the procedure if the operation of the aircraft were to be hindered. Whenever operationally feasible, aircraft should shut down as many engines as possible for taxiing and holding on the ground. Table 16: Examples of voluntary reduced engine taxi procedures A number of airports have night time practices for taxiing aircraft, some of which are summarised in the table below. Airport Brussels Copenhagen Madrid Practice Between 2200 and 0459 a maximum of four aircraft may taxi simultaneously to the runway holding position. Only three aircraft are allowed to wait in the runway holding position simultaneously. There are night-time noise limits for taxiing aircraft based on individual limits for noise monitors located around the airport. There are restrictions on the use of certain ramps between 2300 and These restrictions are monitored for compliance. Table 17: Examples of ground noise practices during the night In addition a number of European airports have implemented Collaborative Decision Making (CDM). Although not specifically developed as a noise abatement technique CDM does aim to reduce the amount of time aircraft spend taxiing. Other airports have undertaken ground noise studies, examples include Brussels and London City. Brussels has developed ground noise contours which take into account aircraft taxiing/holding and ground runs. Recommendations Investigate the automated ground run-up detection system operated at San Francisco and determine its applicability to Heathrow. Consider the applicability to Heathrow of only permitting night-time engine runs for aircraft departing the next morning. Report on compliance with night-time targets for engine run-ups in the appropriate airside reports. Consider the benefit of monitoring aircraft noise on the ground, for example at night, and/or conducting ground noise studies. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 37 of 97

39 4.7 Gate operations Figure 13: Summary of Heathrow scoring gate operations An explanation for the score change in the above figure is given in section 3.2. Use of auxiliary power units (APUs) Heathrow Heathrow has the following hierarchy of ground power sources: Fixed electrical ground power (FEGP), to be used whenever supplied and serviceable (nearly all stands have FEGP, and 21% have pre-conditioned air). Ground power unit (GPU), only to be used when FEGP is not supplied or the unit is unserviceable. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), only to be used when neither FEGP nor GPU is supplied or both units are unserviceable. When other power sources are available, there are also restrictions on the duration the APU can be used after an aircraft has arrived on stand and prior to its scheduled time of departure. Before Scheduled Time of Departure - start Arrival terminating operation shut down Narrow Body Aircraft No more than 15 minutes 10 minutes after arrival on stand Wide Body Aircraft No more than 50 minutes minutes after arrival on stand A380 No more than 90 minutes 15 minutes after arrival on stand Table 18: Heathrow APU restrictions for start and shut-down when other ground power sources are available 19, 20 Manual audits of compliance are undertaken weekly, with any non-compliances followed up directly with the airline. The level of compliance identified by the audits is published in the Flight Performance Team reports. It is understood that there is an internal target for levels of compliance, but this is not publically reported. In 2012 Heathrow commissioned a review of the audit process. 18 Or not more than 90 minutes prior to departure when the FEGP has not been upgraded to provide enough power to support the FMS 19 Various exceptions apply, for example above and below certain temperatures. 20 Heathrow AIP P1744D001 HELIOS 38 of 97

40 Other benchmarked airports Almost two-thirds of airports benchmarked had restrictions on the use of APUs, most of these airports also published a hierarchy for ground power sources. Although not benchmarked, the table below shows examples of APU restrictions for start and shut down at other airports (excluding exceptions for cold weather etc) when other ground power sources are available. These restrictions tend to be tighter than Heathrow s. Departure (min) Arrival (min) Copenhagen 5 5 Barcelona/Madrid 5-10 (narrow body), 50 (wide body) 2-10 (narrow body), 15 (wide body) Amsterdam Schiphol 10 5 Brussels 15 5 Table 19: Example APU restrictions for start and shut-down at other airports when alternative power sources are available Information on whether airports monitor APU usage was found for only a few airports. This could mean (i) no audits take place at most airports (which is possible given that any monitoring needs to be undertaken manually) or (ii) the auditing is outlined in local operating procedures which are not always publically available. Recommendations Review APU start and shut-down restrictions at other airports and determine if tighter restrictions are applicable to Heathrow. Produce public targets for compliance with APU restrictions and report against them in the appropriate airside reports. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 39 of 97

41 4.8 Departures Figure 14: Summary of Heathrow scoring departures An explanation for the score change in the above figure is given in section 3.2. Departure track keeping Heathrow Aircraft departing Heathrow follow pre-defined Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routes, usually based upon the destination of the aircraft. There is also a corridor 1.5 kilometres either side of the route centreline known as a noise preferential route (NPR). Aircraft should stay within this corridor up to 4,000 feet. Aircraft that deviate outside of these corridors below 4,000 feet are investigated to determine if they were vectored by ATC for safety or weather related reasons. Details of deviations are supplied to Heathrow s Flight Operations Performance Committee (FLOPC). Heathrow also reports on track keeping compliance in its Flight Performance Team reports and summarises track keeping performance by airline in its Fly Quiet Programme. No fines are levied for non-adherence to tack keeping due to (i) the number of factors that can influence compliance with the NPRs and (ii) some SIDs having been designed many decades ago for a different generation of aircraft. Other benchmarked airports Almost all airports benchmarked appear to have departure tracks as part of their noise abatement procedures, and an ability to monitor adherence to them through a noise and track keeping system. However, very few provide details on the level of adherence. Examples of airports that do report of track keeping adherence include Chicago, Gatwick, Manchester and Stansted, many of which publish track keeping performance by individual airline. Several airports also indicate that they investigate deviations (or aircraft for which complaints are received), with serious examples being passed onto the regulator. A number of airports have the ability to impose sanctions, but they tend to relate to the ability to apply sanctions for any breach of noise abatement procedures rather than just track keeping. The notable exceptions are: Stansted: Departing aircraft that flagrantly or persistently fail to operate in accordance with NPR s may be subject to supplements. Manchester: The airport can place a surcharge on operators who persistently fail to comply with NPRs (equivalent to 5% or more departures in any month). P1744D001 HELIOS 40 of 97

42 The airport will first consult with the operator, but if the 5% threshold continues to be exceeded fines of 500 and 750 per infringement are levied for the day ( ) and night ( ) respectively. Non-track keeping noise abatement procedures Heathrow Heathrow has two other departure related noise abatement procedures: 1,000 foot rule: After take-off the aircraft are expected to reach a height of not less than 1,000 feet at 6.5km from the start of the take-off roll. Non-compliance is reported in the Flight Performance Team reports and the associated airlines identified. Continuous climb operations (CCO): Continuous climb operations are part of the UK departures code of practice and operated by Heathrow. CCO operations are currently being monitored internally by Heathrow. Other benchmarked airports Many airports include information such as climb rates/speeds/power settings to certain heights and heights up to which aircraft must stay within noise preferential routes in their AIPs. Again a number state that they monitor compliance with these procedures. Similar to Heathrow, a number of UK airports have a 1,000 foot rule and are part of the UK departures code of practice A few non-uk airports either state the use of CCO (e.g. Copenhagen) or plans to implement (e.g. Frankfurt). As part of its Fly Quiet Programme, San Francisco ranks airlines that departure over a group of built-up areas. The Gap Departure Quality Rating scores aircraft for the heights they pass through gates separated by approximately one mile. Recommendations Fines for non-adherence to track keeping and reporting the details of flights that do not adhere to track keeping, were recommended in the previous study and are not repeated in this study No new recommendations are made for departure noise abatement procedures. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 41 of 97

43 4.9 Examples of charts and reports produced by other airports Although this study did not assess communications, a number of public reports have invariably been reviewed as part of this study. Some examples are summarised below. Departure (min) Monthly noise monitor reports: Fleet footprint charts Noise respite maps Aircraft receiving high numbers of complaints Interactive noise reports A number of airports produce quarterly or monthly reports from their noise monitors. Dusseldorf produces a monthly noise report, which includes frequency graphs of day and night time noise from individual aircraft at different noise monitors. Madrid produce monthly reports which shows day, evening and night noise levels at each monitor. Chicago presents fleet mix and associated landing/take-off noise footprints for each aircraft. As part of its Long-Term Operating Plan, Sydney produces maps showing the percentage of noise respite under the main arrival and departure routes. The annual residents report for Amsterdam Schiphol reports on flights that received the highest numbers of complaints. Minneapolis Saint Pauls and Chicago O Hare both have interactive create your own noise report functionality on their websites. Table 20: Examples of charts and reports produced by other airports Recommendations Review the reports produced by a number of the airports benchmarked and determine if similar analyses would be of benefit (i) to provide more insight into the Heathrow operation and support future improvements and (ii) to aid communication to both others involved in the operation (airlines and ATC) and the general public. Note, as per section 4.1, these recommendations are drawn purely from a noise perspective P1744D001 HELIOS 42 of 97

44 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5.1 High-level conclusions The high-level conclusion of the previous study remains valid. Heathrow is a mature airport in the procedures it uses to manage noise at an operational level. The majority of the processes identified at other airports are currently in operation at Heathrow. There are a number of specific procedures/trials at other airports which Heathrow should investigate to determine their applicability to its own operation. 5.2 Recommendations With reference to the second conclusion above, the following recommendations are made. It is noted however, that these are drawn purely from a noise perspective. They do not consider the potential impact their implementation could have on capacity, safety, connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented/investigated further. These recommendations broadly cover: Reviewing comparable procedures at other airports to determine if they have the potential to enhance the Heathrow operation. Review practices at other airports which are not currently used at Heathrow to determine if they, or variations of them, are applicable to Heathrow. Activities that will (i) provide more insight into the Heathrow operation and support future improvements, and (ii) aid communication to both others involved in the operation (airlines and ATC) and the general public. The previous study made several recommendations. These are not repeated by this study, but are summarised in Annex A. Operating restrictions It is recommended that Heathrow compares its departure noise limits with those of other airports (noting that (i) Heathrow s noise limits are set by the Department for Transport, (ii) the noise limits at other airports will be influenced by factors such as the location of the monitor). Consider the use of noise monitor data to further understand the Heathrow operation. Fleet monitoring Similar to Geneva, consider the usefulness of applying night-time departure charges from 2200 to encourage the use of the quietest aircraft possible. Similar to Amsterdam Schiphol, consider the value of a cargo incentive programme to further reduce the limited number of movements by cargo aircraft classified as QC8 on departure. Arrivals The implementation of more advanced continuous descent approaches (CDAs) was recommended in the previous study and is not repeated in this study. P1744D001 HELIOS 43 of 97

45 With several airports intending to implement CDAs throughout the day, and SESAR conducting advanced CDA trials, it is recommended that Heathrow monitor developments at other major European airports (Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels, Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris Charles De Gaulle). Similar to Frankfurt, investigate the noise benefits of implementing steeper approaches at Heathrow (trialling steeper approaches is proposed for development/testing in the A quieter Heathrow document). A number of U.S. airports use natural features such as the coastline or rivers for arrival and departure routes. While the local geography is different around Heathrow, the airport could consider the use of night-time P-RNAV arrival and departure routes to overfly less densely populated areas. Runways Review the over the ocean night-time runway procedure used at Los Angeles International to determine the merits of studying a novel night-time runway alternation system for Heathrow (e.g. easterly arrivals and westerly departures at certain times of the night). If easterly alternation is implemented at Heathrow, consider (i) measuring how aircraft noise is distributed across the different combinations of runway operation (i.e. 09R departures/09l arrivals, 09L departures/09r arrivals etc) and (ii) measures to address any imbalances (if they are found to exist) for a certain direction of operation (i.e. it would not be possible to address imbalances between easterly and westerly operations as these result from prevailing wind conditions. However, if they are found to exist, it may be possible to address imbalances between, for example, runways 09L and 09R). Ground noise Investigate the automated ground run-up detection system operated at San Francisco and determine its applicability to Heathrow. Similar to Toronto, consider the applicability to Heathrow of only permitting night-time engine runs for aircraft departing the next morning. Report on compliance with night-time targets for engine run-ups in the appropriate airside reports. Consider the benefit of monitoring aircraft noise on the ground, for example at night, and/or conducting ground noise studies. Gate operations Review APU start and shut-down restrictions at other airports and determine if tighter restrictions are applicable to Heathrow. Produce public targets for compliance with APU restrictions and report against them in the appropriate airside reports. Departures Fines for non-adherence to track keeping and reporting the details of flights that do not adhere to track keeping, were recommended in the previous study and are not repeated in this study. No new recommendations are made for departure noise abatement procedures. P1744D001 HELIOS 44 of 97

46 Charts and reports Although this study did not assess communications, a number of public reports have invariably been reviewed as part of this study. Review the reports produced by a number of the airports benchmarked and determine if similar analyses would be of benefit (i) to provide more insight into the Heathrow operation and support future improvements, and (ii) to aid communication to both others involved in the operation (airlines and ATC) and the general public. Future benchmarking Additionally, Heathrow should consider whether a third iteration of this study in two years time using the same methodology (i.e. publically available material) will provide further insight into the operational noise abatement procedures at other airports, or if a new approach would be more suitable. For example, Heathrow could consider benchmarking both noise abatement procedures and performance against them, for a subset of the airports in this study. This could take the form of: Face-to-face interviews with noise managers at a small number of airports based upon the existing benchmarking framework (i.e. the Heathrow NAP), or Heathrow forming a small group of airports, possibly in collaboration with ACI (Airports Council International) Europe, which agree on a number of noise related benchmarks to compare one another against. P1744D001 HELIOS 45 of 97

47 A Recommendations from the previous benchmarking study Recommendations from the previous study, including comments from Heathrow, are summarised below. Those that will be reported upon in the next update of this study are highlighted. A number of the recommendations that will not be reported upon in the next update (e.g. Fly Quiet Programme) will continue to be worked/reported upon as part of Heathrow s Noise Action Plan. Explore the potential to attach fines to non-compliance by airlines with the arrivals code of practice (which is currently voluntary) by examining how similar schemes are administered by other airports and how compatible introducing such a performance scheme would be with the local legislative framework (in particular the CAA act of 2006 (Recommendation 1)); Update from Heathrow: The Heathrow Arrivals Code of Practice (ACOP) is a voluntary scheme, the success of which depends on Heathrow, NATS and the airlines working together. Therefore fines for non-compliance are not considered appropriate or beneficial. Additionally, in some situations fines for non-compliance would not be applicable for operational of safety reasons. Airline signatories to the code continue to be higher than signatories to similar schemes at other airports. The main element of the ACOP is continuous descent approaches (CDAs). The Heathrow Fly Quiet Programme publically reports on levels of CDA violations by airline and works with airlines that achieve low levels of compliance. This approach has already proved successful through our work with Delta Airlines over the past 12 months. This has seen the airline s CDA performance rise from 70 to 97 per cent, currently making them one of the top performing airlines. The feasibility of fining for non-compliance with arrival noise abatement procedures is being discussed by the Aircraft Noise Management Advisory Committee (ANMAC) Technical Working Group which advises the Government on policy relating to aircraft noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. However, as per above, Heathrow does not support such fines. Publish a clearer breakdown of how the noise fines relate to the infringements incurred (Recommendation 2); Update from Heathrow: The number of fines levied for infringing the departure noise limits has reduced significantly over the last year (by almost 40%). Therefore this action has not been pursued. Implement a Fly Quiet programme (Recommendation 3); Update from Heathrow: The Fly Quiet Programme was launched in November P1744D001 HELIOS 46 of 97

48 Revise noise infringement charges by examining penalty levels and fining methodologies in use around the world (Recommendation 4); Update from Heathrow: Fining levels for noise infringements have been reviewed and amended (completed November 2013). A significant increase in fines has been agreed from winter 2014 and this will be communicated to the airlines in the next few weeks. In addition, as per the Quieter Heathrow document, we are taking steps to reduce the number of laterunning departures after 11pm and are collecting data to better understand the reasons for this. Investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to administer airspace changes around the world (particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports (Recommendation 5) 21 ; Update from Heathrow: No action. To be reported upon in the next update of this study In addition to the Fly Quiet scheme, construct a framework set of league tables to benchmark airline performance against the noise abatement procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP) (Recommendation 6); Update from Heathrow: This will be considered in the next Phase of the Fly Quiet Programme. Additionally, Heathrow is developing an updated version of its Noise Action Plan (NAP) for consultation. This will propose establishing minimum performance standards for all noise abatement procedures in the AIP that Heathrow is able to actively monitor and measure. It will also propose establishing a process for monitoring performance against these standards and engaging with airlines in the event of non-compliance. To be reported upon in the next update of this study Reassess the optimal climb out procedure (continuous climb departures (CCD) or cutback) for Heathrow, moving to implement definitive guidance in the AIP and benchmark airline performance against an appropriate metric. This work will need to take due consideration the ICAO standard Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2 and the various limitations surrounding the use of these procedures (Recommendation 7); Update from Heathrow: The optimal climb out procedure will be assessed as part of the London Airspace Management Programme. Additionally, the ANMAC Technical Working Group, of which Heathrow is an active participant, is reviewing aircraft noise abatement techniques and procedures in line with ICAO s balanced approach and national sustainability objectives. In particular, this involves reviewing the relative benefits/disbenefits of the standard ICAO Noise Abatement Departure Procedures. To be reported upon in the next update of this study 21 Note that other countries may have less formal procedures to administer airspace changes depending on the traffic density and complexity in a given volume airspace. P1744D001 HELIOS 47 of 97

49 Implement fines for non-adherence to noise abatement departure routes (Recommendation 8); Update from Heathrow: Heathrow s Conditions of Use state that airlines can be fined for flagrantly or persistently failing to operate in accordance with Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs). However, adherence to the NPRs remains high so such measures have not been required to date. Additionally, Heathrow is currently running a lengthy programme of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) trials (see recommendation 9.4/9.5). Assess the stringency of flight movement controls in place during the nighttime period relative to other major airports (Recommendation 9.1 and 9.2); Update from Heathrow: The Department for Transport is responsible for setting the night-time regime at Heathrow. The regime up to 2017 is currently under review. The new regime will be announced in the coming months; no change in the permitted number of night-time flights is expected. As per above, Heathrow has committed to reducing the number of late running departures after 11pm. We are also working to improve the resilience of the airport so it can recover from disruption more quickly and have incentivised the use of quieter aircraft. To be reported upon in the next update of this study It was noted in the course of the benchmarking study that Heathrow experiences more noise infringements than other airports of a comparable size. It is therefore recommended that, in addition to work already being done and by building on existing initiatives (such as the development of departures best practice guidelines), HAL continue to explore various means of reducing noise infringements. It is noted that the departure noise limits themselves are set by the Department for Transport(Recommendation 9.3); and; Update from Heathrow: Heathrow has operates three sets of departure noise limits (day ( ), night ( ) and should periods ( and ), with lower limits applied during the night and shoulder periods. In addition, Heathrow operates at capacity and therefore does not easily recover from disruption. When disruption is experienced towards the end of the day, many of the delayed aircraft create noise infringements. Therefore night-time infringements tend to be created as a result of the reduced noise threshold rather than not following departure noise abatement procedures. Heathrow is already committed in its NAP to try and reduce the number of noise infringements with progress already being made. Day-time departure noise infringements reduced from 15 to 8 for the periods January to September 2012 and January to September 2013 respectively. For the same periods night-time noise infringements were 34 and 27 respectively. Additionally, as per recommendation 4, Heathrow has reviewed its noise fines and will increase them from winter To be reported upon in the next update of this study Implementing more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) from top of descent, and without an extended period of level flight, supported by innovative technologies and procedures such as precision area navigation (P- RNAV), required navigation performance navigation area navigation (RNP- RNAV), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) segmented approaches, point-merge and arrivals management/metering systems. It is recognised that this should be a long-term aim and that implementation should proceed in P1744D001 HELIOS 48 of 97

50 stages, not initially including the removal of the stacks (Recommendation 9.4 and 9.5). Update from Heathrow: Heathrow is currently running a lengthy programme of trials to identify what benefits PBN can bring to the operation and to discover the impact on the local population. Within this programme changes to approach and departure gradients are being considered together with the use of GBAS. To be reported upon in the next update of this study From a compilation of a selection of supportive case studies it is possible to draw a recommendation (Recommendation 10), which HAL may wish to consider: - Investigating in greater detail various quota count (QC) systems used around the world to limit the noise impact by amount of traffic and aircraft type paying particular attention to the means of determining QC value noting that the DfT is responsible for defining the QC limits and values in use at UK airports. - Investigating further how compliance with specific noise abatement restrictions on the airport surface may be improved (such as the use of reverse thrust, reduced use of auxiliary power unit (APU) and stand equipage with fixed electrical ground power (FEGP)). - Reviewing the course of action followed by various airports against aircraft operators for persistent breaches of noise preferential routes and poor track keeping including any fines levied, as appropriate. - How novel procedures such as continuous climb departures, steeper approaches (particularly for turboprops), early cutback procedures, collaborative decision making (CDM) and local specific noise limits by aircraft type might reduce noise. The feasibility and potential benefits specific to Heathrow of implementing such operational changes will also require investigation. Update from Heathrow: We are exploring many of the issues described in this recommendation (for example we commissioned a study to review the APU audit process). In addition, as mentioned above, we participate in the ANMAC Technical Working Group and work with the UK CAA (for example, we have reviewed a paper the airport noise envelope concept (imposing a limit or restriction on the overall noise impact of an airport)). To be reported upon in the next update of this study Research into this comparator set has also provided a list of notable best practices that, although not directly related to the points of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (and so not actively benchmarked against), remain highly relevant. This includes the implementation of more noise stringent controls, closer monitoring of aircraft performance and more effective communication with the general public (Recommendation 11). P1744D001 HELIOS 49 of 97

51 Update from Heathrow: We acknowledge the need for a balance of measures to address airport noise; in particular we are keen to pursue a more collaborative approach to noise management. In 2012/13 we conducted a five month Early Morning Noise Respite Trial which for the first time involved the community group HACAN (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise). We will continue to engage with local community representatives to understand their concerns about noise and provide them with an opportunity to influence more directly decisions we make on noise management and explore potential solutions to the noise issue. We will do this by setting up a Heathrow Noise Forum to be a focal point for stakeholder involvement in the management of aircraft noise. We are also particularly interested in improving communication and this has been the subject of a separate benchmarking exercise. To be reported upon in the next update of this study P1744D001 HELIOS 50 of 97

52 B Examples of operational noise abatement procedures at other benchmarked airports B.1 Introduction This annex provides more information on the example practices in section 4. The intention is to highlight different practices, with not all necessarily being applicable to Heathrow. It is noted that some of the text has been taken directly from various publications. B.2 Operating restrictions B.2.1 Night time restrictions Geneva night-time restrictions In order to conform to the Swiss federal operating concession the airport must always remain open. However, traffic is strictly limited between 10pm and 6am. Non-commercial flights are banned between 10pm and 6am. Permitted between 10pm and midnight are take-offs of non-stop commercial flights of 5,000 km or more using aircraft that are quieter than noise index 98; take-offs of commercial flights using aircraft quieter than noise index 96; landings by commercial aircraft. Although no flights are scheduled between midnight and 6am, approved operations include search and rescue, ambulance, police, aid, military and state flights authorised by the Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA). Night-time flights (10pm to 6am) represent only 4% of total aircraft movements. Landings account for 80% of the movements between 10pm and midnight. In addition to the above restrictions, there are also night-time charges for departures (see B.3 below) Frankfurt night-flight ban and shoulder hour restrictions On October , the Hessian Administration Court ruled that night flights between 11pm and 5am (the so-called Mediationsnacht) are no longer allowed at Frankfurt following the inauguration of the new runway. This overrode the 2007 approval from the Hessian government which permitted 17 scheduled flights per night. On April , the German Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Hessian Administration Court, banning night flights between 11pm and 5am. Current restrictions at Frankfurt impose a night flight ban with no scheduled takeoffs or landings permitted between 23:00 and 5:00. During the shoulder period, 22:00-23:00 and 05:00-06:00, an average of 133 scheduled aircraft movements per night are permitted at Frankfurt. This average, based on the calendar year, may not be exceeded. Dusseldorf night-time ban and shoulder hour restrictions Dusseldorf Airport has restrictions in place, such as fixed hours benchmarks, that specify exactly how many aircraft movements may be planned in an hour, with a distinction between day and night movements. During 22:00-23:00 only 33 landings may be coordinated per day throughout the year. During the period 23:00-06:00 there is a ban on night movements of scheduled or charted flights. P1744D001 HELIOS 51 of 97

53 However, propeller aircraft with a noise certification and MTOW below 9 timmes may take-off and land around the clock. Manchester night movements as a percentage of total movements At Manchester Airport regulation states that the night-time movement limit may not exceed 7% of the Airport s total movements. In addition QC points that are unused at the end of the summer or winter period cannot be carried over into the next period. Toronto annual night-time movement quota The night flight budget, controlling flights between 00:30 and 06:30, has been amended to permit flexibility to address the demand of the community and region to travel to destinations around the globe, while still retaining a cap on the total number of flights permitted at night. The budget will continue to increase annually based on total passenger traffic growth; for example, if passenger traffic increases 3 per cent, the nighttime budget increases 3 per cent. In addition to the annual increase based on total passenger growth, in a year when the number of night flights reaches more than 95 per cent of the budget, the amended formula also allows the next year s budget to be increased by an additional 10 per cent. There is approval for 3 increases of 10 per cent, when demand warrants. Sydney curfew and shoulder hour restrictions The curfew operates from 11pm until 6am. To mitigate noise impacts during this period, take-offs and landings at the airport are restricted to specific types of aircraft and operations. The principal categories of permitted operations are as follows: 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 approved by the minister) are allowed to operate without a quota on the number of their movements. Australian Air Express, National Jet Systems and Toll Transport have specific approval to operate a limited number of freight movements per week in medium size freight aircraft. The Curfew Act and Regulations provide for international passenger aircraft movements between 11pm and midnight and between 5am and 6am (known as the curfew shoulder periods) subject to jet aircraft meeting the strictest ICAO noise standards (Chapter 3): No more than 24 movements per week (and no more than 5 on any one day) between 5am and 6am, which may only be landings. Zero movements between 11pm and midnight. During the curfew, aircraft must operate over Botany Bay, that is take-offs to the south and landings to the north: On Saturdays and Sundays aircraft must also operate over Botany Bay in the hour before and after the curfew, provided the weather and traffic conditions allow this to take place safely. Aircraft are not permitted to take off over the suburbs after 10.45pm. P1744D001 HELIOS 52 of 97

54 Madrid Barajas night time noise limits Departure and arrival operations classified as CR-4 (LHR QC4) or above are forbidden from 23:00-07:00. A noise quota (CR) is defined for each aircraft, distinguishing between departure and arrival operations, in accordance with the EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise measured in decibels) certificate related to the below table: EPNdB NOISE QUOTA (CR) >101.9 CR CR CR CR CR-1 <90 CR-0.5 EPNdB Quota Count >101.9 QC/ QC/ QC/ QC/ QC/ QC/ QC/0.25 Those propeller aircraft certified with regard to the chapters 6 and 10 of ICAO Annex 16, and propeller or jet aircraft certified according to the chapters 3 and 5 with a noise level less than 87 EPNdB, will be considered as noise quota zero (CR-0). B.2.2 Aircraft noise levels San Francisco Fly Quiet noise exceedance rating To combat high-level noise events San Francisco Airport has established single event maximum noise level limits at each noise-monitoring site. Whenever an aircraft overflight produces a noise level higher than the maximum decibel value established for a particular monitoring site, the noise threshold is surpassed and a noise exceedance occurs. Noise exceedances are logged by the exact operation along with the aircraft type and airline name. Each airline is then ranked for noise exceedance rating in the quarterly Fly Quiet reports. Here total noise exceedances and total quarterly operations are used to calculate exceedances per 1000 operations and thus a score and noise exceedance quality rating is given. B.2.3 Fines Manchester fines for departing aircraft breaking noise limits The penalty for going over the daytime maximum noise level of 90dB(A) is currently 750 plus an extra 150 for each decibel above that level. The noise level at which a surcharge is applied is lowered at night to 83dB(A). San Francisco tiered fining system Although SFO does not include a noise related fine, it does have a tiered fining system for breaches of any of the airports rules and regulations, which include noise abatement procedures. Violations of any provision of regulation is punished as follows: (1) 1 st violation in 12months (3) 3 rd violation in 12months (2) 2 nd violation in 12months P1744D001 HELIOS 53 of 97

55 (4) Additional violations in 12months Letter of admonishment from the Airport Director A fine in the amount of $1,000 A fine in the amount of $2,000 A fine in the amount of $3,000 The elements covered in the noise abatement regulation are as followed: Nighttime departure runway Nightttime departure routes Nighttime arrival routes Engine run-up restrictions APU restrictions Stage 3 aircraft requirement A similar fining scheme exists at Santa Ana John Wayne for out of hours operations Sydney fines for breaking the airport curfew At Sydney airport the Airports Act permits fines up to $550,000 for a body corporate whose aircraft breaches the curfew. There is a maximum penalty for breaking the curfew at Sydney Airport of $850,000. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport monitors curfew compliance. Toronto maximum fines The GTAA investigates potential violations of noise abatement procedures, restricted hours operations and maintenance engine run-ups. For any violation, Transport Canada may assess a maximum fine of $25,000 against a company and $5,000 against a pilot. In addition, in support of the CENAC, Transport Canada publishes the names of corporations in violation of the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations, including noise violations. Stansted - Airline performance against AIP Noise Abatement Criteria Stansted Airport produces an annual Noise Abatement Summary that compares Airline Performance against the AIP Noise Abatement Criteria. The noise abatement procedures that are monitored are: 1000ft infringements Departure Noise Limits Departure Track Keeping Continuous Descent Arrivals San Francisco Fly Quiet programme The aim of San Francisco s Fly Quiet programme is to encourage individual airlines to operate as quietly as possible by grading an airlines performance in complying to noise abatement procedures and making the scores available to the public. Currently airlines are rated on six elements: Fleet Noise Quality P1744D001 HELIOS 54 of 97

56 Noise Exceedance Nighttime Preferential Runway Use Shoreline Departure Quality Gap Departure Quality Foster City arrival quality Scores are calculated for each element and airlines ranked accordingly. Chicago O Hare Fly Quiet programme Chicago s Fly Quiet program is a voluntary program that encourages pilots and air traffic controllers to use designated nighttime preferential runways and flight tracks developed by the Chicago Department of Aviation in cooperation with the O Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, the airlines, and the air traffic controllers. These preferred routes direct aircraft over less populated areas, such as forest preserves, highways, and commercial and industrial areas. The Chicago Department of Aviation prepares a Quarterly Fly Quiet Report that details: Night-time runway use Flight operations Flight tracks Noise complaints 24-hour tracking of ground run-ups Performance for each airline is then publically reported. P1464D002 HELIOS 55 of 97

57 B.3 Fleet monitoring B.3.1 Differential Noise charges London City early arrivals charge Should an aircraft touch-down between 0-15 minutes ahead of its scheduled arrival time ( the Allowable Early Arrival Period ) no early arrival charge will be applied. However, should an aircraft touch-down more than 15 minutes ahead of its scheduled arrival times, a charge for each 15 minute period will apply. In premium times this charge is as much as per 15 minutes to for offpeak times. Noted this is not necessarily a noise related charge but is interesting. Geneva night-time take-off charges In addition to the night-time restrictions, mentioned above, there are also night time departure charges at Geneva Airport. For take-off between 22:00 (LT) and 06:00 (LT) an additional noise charge is applied for the jets, as well as for the propeller-driven aircraft with a maximum take-off mass (MTOM) higher than kg. The additional noise charge is modulated according to Noise Class and takeoff time. P1464D002 HELIOS 56 of 97

58 Example aircrafts for the above classes are: Class I: B74S Class II: B744 Class III: A340 Class IV: B777 Class V: A320 Frankfurt noise charges for arriving and departing aircraft Noise charges are computed per landing and take-off and charged with fixed amounts per noise category. First of all the allocation of aircraft types is made according to their ICAO classification. Turbo jet aircraft comply with the conditions of ICAO Annex 16, Chapter 2, 3 or 4 respectively, if it is proved individually by data of the manufacturer or comparable documents of a certifying authority that the noise values permissible according to Chapter 2, 3 or 4 respectively are not exceeded. The allocation to the noise categories is determined by the actual presentation of appropriate proof by the aircraft operator prior to take-off. Flights with aircraft not certified according to ICAO Annex 16, Chapter 3 or 4 as well as military flights are permitted to operate only with special authorization. The allocation of aircraft to noise categories is based on the average take-off and landing noise levels according to DIN for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 of single aircraft types or aircraft groups. Aircraft types not listed in the provided charts are allocated to the discretion of the airport operator until satisfactory measurements are available at Frankfurt Main Airport. Charges are according to category and vary by take-off and landing. Amsterdam Schiphol - noise charges for arriving and departing aircraft Over and above the basic compensation, there are surcharges or discounts, which apply according to noise and point in time. These are outlined as follows: Charges according to noise: noise category MCC3 (Marginally Compliant Chapter 3): basic compensation increased by 60% for each landing or take-off P1464D002 HELIOS 57 of 97

59 noise category A: basic compensation increased by 40% for each landing or take-off noise category B: basic compensation applies for each landing or take-off noise category C: basic compensation reduced by 20% for each landing or take-off Charges according to point in time: For take-offs between 11:00pm and 6:00am local time all charges as mentioned above will be increased by 50%. For landings between 11:00pm and 6:00am local time all charges as mentioned above will be increased by 27%. For landings and take-offs between 11:00pm and 6:00am local time with aircraft in category MCC3, all charges as mentioned above (in section 2, I and II) will be increased by an extra 50%. Brussels additional charges for noisier departures in the shoulder hours At Brussels there are additional charges for noisier departures in the shoulder hours of 06:00-07:59 and 21:00-22:59. See below. See page 4/5 of chargesapril2013.pdf P1464D002 HELIOS 58 of 97

60 B.3.2 Aircraft fleet Barcelona - targets for reducing marginally compliant aircraft Barcelona have adopted the following operating restrictions to forbid the operations of the marginal compliant aeroplanes: No addition: Since January 1st 2012, not any air company will be able to increase the number of flights made at an airport by marginal compliant aeroplanes for each one of the IATA air traffic seasons or a part of it, regarding the number of flights operated by those aeroplanes along the corresponding IATA air traffic seasons or a part of it in the year Reduction of operations and fleet withdrawal: Since September 1 st 2012, airlines must reduce the number of marginal compliant aeroplanes operations exploited at an airport with a ratio not higher than 20 per cent in a year but, in any case, it must have reached 100 per cent of the operations made by those aircraft on September 1st For this purpose, to the annual measurement computation of operations, the minimum reduction percentage will not be lower than 10% regarding the corresponding IATA air traffic season of the immediate previous year. Amsterdam Schipol restrictions on marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft Amsterdam Schipol has a covenant on disturbance reduction and development of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the medium term. With regard to disturbance reduction, Schiphol Group specifically undertakes, on its own or in collaboration with others, measures discouraging operations with bottom Chapter 3 aircraft (marginally conforming aircraft). The following restrictions apply to Chapter 2 and marginal Chapter 3 aircraft: Take-off and landing is not allowed for aircraft which are certified in accordance with the noise standards of ICAO Annex 16 Chapter 2. For aircraft certified in accordance with the noise standards of ICAO Annex 16 Chapter 3, for which the margin of the sum of the three certification noise levels, relative to the sum of the three applicable ICAO Annex 16 Chapter 3 certification noise limits, is not more than 5 EPNdB, the following applies: 1. New operations are not allowed. P1464D002 HELIOS 59 of 97

61 B.4 Arrivals 2. For aircraft equipped with engines with bypass ratio <= 3, take-off and landing is not allowed between ( ). 3. For aircraft equipped with engines with bypass ratio > 3, it is not allowed to plan take-off between ( )." Amsterdam Schiphol - Cargo Sustainability Incentive Program The Dutch government and Amsterdam Airport Schipol have committed to implement an active policy to stimulate the use of more silent aircraft as well as a preference for day time operations (06:00-23:00). The Cargo Sustainability Incentive Programme has been introduced to financially reward airlines where MCC3 aircraft are substituted by more modern, quieter aircraft. Every airline substituting its scheduled full freighter flights with Marginally Compliant Chapter 3 aircraft by flights with category B or C wide body full freighter aircraft will be eligible for a reward of 400 per departure for the replaced flights. This reward will be given for the first year of operation with the new aircraft. B.4.1 CDA Frankfurt - Continuous Descent Operations Continous Descent Operations allows aircraft to descend almost without horizontal flight segments, thus ensuring quieter descents from higher altitudes. Testing at FRA has been going on since May 2012 and now that it has been successfully concluded, went live in October It is also planned to introduce the Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) procedure, which is based on a similar principle, this year. P1464D002 HELIOS 60 of 97

62 B.4.2 Other arrival NAPs Frankfurt trial of steeper approaches Frankfurt has trialled steeper approach procedures as part of 19 noise measures in the second package of measures in the "Alliance for Noise 2012" project From about 8,000 feet the approach is initiated at an angle of 4.49 degrees. From a height of about 2,000 feet the approach angle is 3 or 3.2 degrees B.5 Runway B.5.1 Alternation Amsterdam Schiphol runway use Schiphol airport is operating within strict noise regulations. These regulations have been defined through the use of so-called handhavingspunten - points around the airport for which a maximum annual noise quota is defined. The location and quotas of these points have been defined in such a way that more noise can be allowed in areas with low density of population and less noise allowed in densely populated areas. Two sets of points exist: one for operations during the whole, 24- hour day, and one for night hours only (23:00-06:00 local time). Note (i) this is the official method, (ii) airport trialled strict preferential runway use based on runways causing least disturbance between November 2010 and October Sydney Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) Sydney Airport supports noise sharing, which Airservices Australia achieves by implementing the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (the LTOP). This PDMP has been developed on the basis that the LTOP will remain in force during the planning period. To facilitate noise sharing, Sydney Airport will continue to provide and maintain the necessary on-airport infrastructure during the planning period. The LTOP has been implemented by Airservices Australia since 1998 and was developed following extensive consultation. It describes ten ways in which Sydney Airport s runways are used, each of which results in a different combination of flight paths affecting different parts of Sydney. These runway modes of operation (or modes) are shown in Figure The LTOP takes advantage of Sydney P1464D002 HELIOS 61 of 97

63 Airport s coastal location and is implemented in a way that maximises the number of flights that occur over water. In 2009, Sydney Airport demonstrated its support for the LTOP by investing close to $100 million to enlarge runway end safety areas on the east-west runway. With this investment, all requirements set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority were fulfilled. When deciding which mode to use and when, Airservices Australia must ensure that, subject to safety and weather conditions: As many flights as practical come and go using flight paths over water (i.e. Botany Bay) or non-residential areas The rest of the air traffic is shared over surrounding communities as fairly as possible Runway noise sharing modes change throughout the day so individual areas have some respite from aircraft on most days. The LTOP is designed to achieve the following runway end movement targets: 55% of flights to the south of the airport (overwater) 17% of flights to the north of the airport 15% of flights to the west of the airport 13% of flights to the east of the airport. Airservices Australia compares the actual outcomes against these targets and publishes on its website the results in monthly Sydney Airport Operational Statistics. When these targets were originally set, the Australian Government indicated they were necessarily based on computer modelling of runway capacities and an analysis of historical meteorological information. The capacities of the new [LTOP] arrangements have yet to be proven in practice. Subsequent experience has proved that, while the targets are generally met in areas to the east and south of the airport, they are not in areas to the north or west of the airport. Table 14.3 shows the extent to which targets have been achieved historically and predictions for the future. P1464D002 HELIOS 62 of 97

64 Note that a similar system is operated at Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP Runway Use System (RUS)). Los Angeles International night-time runway use (over-ocean operations) Between the hours of 0000 and 0630, aircraft operate in accordance with the overocean preferential runway use procedures, approaching over the ocean toward the east and departing over the ocean toward the west (over-ocean operations). In September 2011, LAWA started sending notification letters to air carriers who depart east during Westerly or Over-Ocean Ops to request them to fill out a form. The form requests specific information about each operation including the reason for the east departure, wind speed and direction, weight of the aircraft, and other relevant information. The intent of this voluntary measure is to discourage air carriers from departing east when possible. The airport has four parallel runways for which there is preferential use of the two inner runways at night. B.6 Ground movements B.6.1 Engine test/run-up Manchester night-time engine testing restrictions P1464D002 HELIOS 63 of 97

65 In order to limit the impact on local residents a specially designed engine test bay has been constructed. Engine testing on the airfield only takes place as an exception, when prevailing wind direction prevents the use of engine test bay. No such tests are allowed at night and only 20 night tests a year are allowed within the test bay. This is a legal commitment contained within the agreement with Cheshire East Council. Note, a similar restriction is in place at Stockholm Arlanda with engine run-ups limited to ten times per year between 22:00 and 07:00. London City ground running limit The ground running of engines is required for testing and maintenance purposes. The airport is required to ensure that the noise level arising from aircraft ground running does not exceed the Ground Running Noise Limit of 60dbB L(Aeq 12h). Under the 2009 planning permission, ground running is permitted only between the hours of 06:30 and 22:00 hours Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 06:30 and 12:30 on Saturdays, 12:30 and 22:00 hours on Sundays and between 09:00 hours and 22:00 hours on Bank Holidays and Public Holidays (excepting Christmas Day) in locations and orientations agreed with the local planning authority, and employing such noise protection measures as may be agreed with the local planning authority. San-Francisco ground run-up monitoring system As part of the aircraft operations and noise monitoring system upgrade, a ground run up monitoring system was installed at SFO. This system gives the Airport the tools to remotely monitor aircraft run up activity via motion detection cameras and noise monitoring stations 24 hours a day. This allows SFO to detect when ground run up activity occurs at unauthorized airfield areas and provides a means for Operations staff to log and verify ground run up activities. Currently when aircraft conduct run up activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. aircraft use a number of locations on the airfield. The selection of the location depends primarily on weather conditions and space availability. Night-time ground run-ups are reported in the monthly Directors report (see below). P1464D002 HELIOS 64 of 97

66 Toronto rules for night-time engine run ups At all times, run-ups must be pre-approved by the GTAA in advance and conducted at designated times and locations, that have been determined to minimize their impact on the surrounding communities. Between midnight and 7:00, engine run-ups are approved only for aircraft scheduled that morning and at locations furthest from residential areas. Engine run-ups are prohibited for all noisier Chapter 2 aircraft between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. B.6.2 Half-engine taxiing and tugging to/from runway Copenhagen reduced engine taxi Whenever operationally feasible, all multi-engine aircraft are requested to shut down as many engines as possible while taxiing and holding on the ground. This is in order to reduce the high emission of nanoparticles from jet engines caused by the combustion of fossil fuel. The active cooperation of the flight crews involved is appreciated. Amsterdam Schiphol reduced engine taxi AMS AIP - In order to reduce the environmental burden, arriving aircraft equipped with 3 or 4 engines should taxi from the landing runway to the gate with one engine switched off. However, pilots may deviate from this restriction if the procedure is considered an unsafe operation or would hinder the normal operation of the aircraft. London City ground noise studies In 2010 London City Airport completed a study of ground noise, which will be replaced at intervals of not less than three years. This will be submitted to LBN for approval and any recommendations implemented following their approval. Brussels ground noise contours In 2011 and 2012, Brussels Airport Company analysed ground noise in greater detail. In 2011, ground noise contours were established taking into account aircraft taxiing, holding (prior to take-off) and carrying out engine test runs. The impact of APU, GPU and reverse thrust were further analysed in Possible measures are now being evaluated. Brussels - taxi restrictions between 2200 and 0459 At Brussels a maximum of four aircraft are authorized to taxi simultaneously to the holding position(s) of the runway(s)-in-use. Additionally, only three aircraft are allowed to await take-off clearance at the holding position at the same time. Copenhagen night-time noise limits for taxiing aircraft As a consequence of an environmental approval given in April 1997 a noise quota is now in force. From and including the year 2005 the noise exposure from aircraft operations and taxi activities may not exceed the noise exposure predicted for the year This involves a reduction of the noise exposure of about 5 db from For aircraft taxi activities, the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level from taxiing in the positions shown below from must not exceed the following: P1464D002 HELIOS 65 of 97

67 Madrid Barajas night-time noise from taxiing aircraft Information provided by SIRMA is used to ensure that aircraft comply with the established routes and procedures, measuring the noise level at microphones distributed around the airport. In the event of non-compliance, an inquiry is carried out and a complaint is filed with the Spanish Airspace Security Agency in case any disciplinary action is required. The acoustic control is not only limited to aircraft in flight, and noise control is also carried out on the aircraft on the ground, especially during the night, in aircraft apron areas, close to the populations bordering on the airport, such as the case of Aprons: R5 - R6, and South Dock. The system controls aircraft movement in the aforementioned area, both visually and acoustically. The measurement terminals devoted to this operation are equipped with video cameras that enable recording of any possible non-compliance, both in real-time and logged. From 23:00 to 07:00 movements on Ramp 5 and 6 are forbidden. Only the use of equipment necessary for aircraft maintenance is permitted. Should the aircraft need to be moved beyond the restricted area, an electric tractor must be used. B.7 Gate operations B.7.1 Use of fixed electrical ground power and pre-conditioned air Madrid Barajas APU restrictions Madrid Barajas details the specific restrictions on their various stands in their AIP. However, certain aircraft have night restrictions on their use of APU. P1464D002 HELIOS 66 of 97