GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study

Transcription

1 Management and technology consultants GTAA Noise Management Benchmarking Study Final report Annex C - Detailed summary of research Version 1.5 (FINAL), 24 th September 2017

2 Contents Quieter fleet initiatives 2 Runway schemes 10 Night flight restrictions 22 Noise abatement procedures 33 Ground and gate operations 46 Land use planning 53 Noise complaints 65 Community outreach 82 Noise ombudsman 91 Fly Quiet programmes 96 Reporting of noise monitor data 106 1

3 Quieter fleet initiatives Research summary

4 Quieter fleet initiatives - Overview Introduction Most airports have some form of measures to either limit the use of the noisiest aircraft types or encourage the use of quieter fleets. These measures can be in the form of restrictions on certain types of aircraft (typically at night), incentive schemes, voluntary arrangements and comparing fleet mix between airlines. Typical practices Operating restrictions: These involve restricting the operation of certain (older/noisier) aircraft types, typically at night. These are usually based on the noise certification/chapter number of aircraft types according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Noise based charging schemes: It is common in Europe for airports to assign a noise element to the landing and/or take-off charge. Lower noise charges are levied on quieter aircraft to incentivise their use. Again, these charges are usually related to the certified noise level of an individual aircraft or its ICAO Chapter. A320 modification programmes: A relatively new initiative is addressing the whine generated Airbus A320 family of aircraft on approach. The aircraft have small vents on each wing designed to help equalise the fuel pressure in the intra wing tanks. When air rushes past the vents it creates a high pitched whine which can cause up to 6dB extra noise. There is a simple modification (vortex generator) which can resolve the issue and some airports have undertaken voluntary and financially incentivised initiatives to encourage airlines to modify the aircraft. Special and unique practices Incentives to replace older aircraft: Zurich and Amsterdam Schiphol were found to have offered financial incentives to airlines to replace older noisier aircraft. Fly Quiet programmes: A small number of airports have Fly Quiet programmes which publicly compare airlines across a variety of noise metrics. Two of these airports (Heathrow and San Francisco) have fleet metrics as a means to encourage airlines to operate the quietest fleet possible for a given type of operation. Regional trends Operating restrictions are the only initiative commonly applied by airports across the world. Financial mechanisms, such as noise based charging and incentives are primarily applied in Europe

5 Quieter fleet initiatives - Best practice from around the world Charging is largely based on MTOW or PAX. Chapter 2 aircraft are largely banned. At Montreal, Chapter 3 and 4 aircraft are restricted during the night. Only Chapter 3 or better aircraft are permitted to operate from Dubai. Forums at Chicago O Hare, LAX and San Francisco jointly engaged with United Airlines on the whine generated by A320 aircraft. Softer schemes in operation, such as the MD- 80 phase out at O Hare. Noise is not part of the charging scheme. Chapter 2 aircraft are banned at US airports. John-Wayne has restrictions based on the actual noise output of aircraft on arrival and departure. Gatwick, Heathrow and Frankfurt incentivise A320 retrofit through either voluntary schemes or through additional charging. Noise based charging (or a noise factor in the charge) is the norm for European airports it is either based on certified or measured noise. There is a 10X difference at Heathrow between loudest and quietest aircraft. Chapter 2 aircraft are banned at European airports. Airports such as Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt limits the operation of marginally compliant chapter 3 and Chapter 3 aircraft in the overnight period. Heathrow has included aircraft chapter within the Fly Quiet program. Incentive schemes for quieter aircraft have been used at Zurich and Schiphol, rewards are applied per arrival or departure if marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft are replaced. Charges are based on aircraft weight Sydney used to operate a night noise levy but this has now ceased. Only Chapter 3 aircraft or better are allowed. Charges are mainly based on weight. 40% discount is applied at Changi to incentivise night flights. Only Chapter 3 or better aircraft are permitted. 4

6 Quieter fleet initiatives Operating restrictions Overview of research Operating restrictions limit the use of certain (older/noisier) aircraft types, either throughout the day or at sensitive times of day such as the night. The key findings from the research were: Almost all airports researched specify that Chapter 2 aircraft (according to ICAO Annex 16) are banned from operating. At Amsterdam Schiphol aircraft that are marginally compliant with Chapter 3 standards by < 5 EPNdB are subject to restrictions at night: Aircraft with engine bypass ratio > 3 (typically commercial aircraft) are not allowed to operate between New York (JFK) and John Wayne airports are subject to movement limits. JFK is limited to 81 movements per hour between Brussels, Heathrow, Gatwick and Madrid apply nighttime quota schemes which restrict the operation and/or scheduling of aircraft in the noisiest aircraft categories at different times of the night (quota schemes are explained the night flight restrictions section) Aircraft with engine bypass ratio < 3 are not allowed to operate between Paris Charles de Gaulle restricts aircraft that are marginally compliant with Chapter 3 standards: Aircraft compliant by < 5 EPNdB are banned Aircraft compliant by < 10 EPNdB are not allowed to take off or land between Frankfurt does not allow the operation of marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft on weekdays and does not allow their operation at the weekend (between 1900 on Friday to 0700 on Mondays). Montreal does not allow Chapter 3 and 4 aircraft over 45 tonnes to land between or take off between ICAO Annex 16, Volume I, Aircraft Noise, front cover Source: tion.htm 5

7 Quieter fleet initiatives Financial mechanisms Overview of research Noise based charging schemes It is common in Europe for airports to assign a noise element to the landing and/or take-off charge. Lower noise charges are levied on quieter aircraft to incentivise their use. Again, these charges are usually related to the certified noise level of an individual aircraft/its ICAO Chapter. Charges are often also increased further at night as a further incentive for airlines to operate quieter aircraft. As summary of the findings in this areas are as follows: 8 of 26 airports in the study (all in Europe) employed some form of noise based charge in their charging schemes. Sydney airport did have a noise levy in place from 1996 but it was repealed in Hong Kong airport are investigating whether noise based charging is appropriate for them. New York (JFK) have increased charges between 3pm and 10pm for unscheduled/private aircraft. Although not an airport within the scope of the study, Tokyo Narita airport has recently introduced a noise based charge. Financial incentives Two examples were found of airports using financial incentives to encourages airlines to replace older aircraft: Zurich and Amsterdam Schiphol were found to have provided direct financial incentives to airlines (or in the case of Amsterdam cargo operators). Both schemes focussed on incentives to replace noisier aircraft with a quieter one. The Zurich scheme encouraged operators to put a quieter aircraft (a minimum 5 db reduction is required over the previous aircraft type) on one of its existing routes through reductions in landing charges for up to 3 years. Amsterdam Schiphol operates a Cargo Sustainability Incentive Programme to stimulate the use of quieter cargo aircraft. Airlines are incentivised to replace their Marginally Compliant Chapter 3 (MCC3) dedicated freighter flights with quieter wide body dedicated freighter aircraft. Qualifying airlines are eligible for a reward of 400 per departure during the first year of operation with the new aircraft. Case studies of noise-based charging schemes are given in the following pages. 6

8 Quieter fleet initiatives - Noise based charging schemes Case study Heathrow charging scheme Heathrow has a noise element in its landing charges. For aircraft over 16 metric tonnes there are 6 charging categories based upon ICAO Chapter numbers (see the top table to the right). In addition, charges differ depending on whether an aircraft lands during the day or at night. The top table to the right shows that charges increase by a factor of almost 12 from the quietest (Chapter 14 Low) aircraft, to the loudest (Chapter 3).Charges are further increased by a factor of 2.5 for each category between 0100 and The second table describes the qualification criteria for categorising aircraft. The criteria are based on the cumulative reduction in Effective Perceived Noise level (EPNdB*) compared to the ICAO Chapter 3 standard. This information must be provided to the airport in order to calculate the appropriate charge. 1 * The EPNdB metric represents the average sound level in decibels over a 10 second period. A 10dB reduction is equivalent to halving the sound level artnersandsuppliers/conditions-of-use_2017.pdf Heathrow conditions of use. Source: ditions-of-use_2017.pdf 7

9 Quieter fleet initiatives - Noise based charging schemes Case study Schiphol charging scheme Amsterdam Schiphol also used aircraft certified noise levels to categorise them into different charging bands (see top table to the right). A noise factor of between +60% and -20% is applied to the basic compensation/charge (a unit charge per 1,000kg see table below) depending on the aircrafts noise classification. An additional charge is also levied during the night period ( ). For the noisiest aircraft types (marginally compliant Chapter 3 (MCC3)), charges approximately double during the night. Schiphol airport also states that where aircraft do not provide evidence of their noise certification, they will be allocated into a category by the airport based on their type. This approach is termed the conservative classification of noise categories (see table) since the classification is based on the most unfavourable configuration of a given type. Noise category Schiphol Conservative classification of noise categories 01/04/2016 (for those aircraft which do not have noise certification available) Source: Cumulative reduction in EPNdB Description MCC3 0 change in EPNdB -5 Marginally compliant chapter 3 A -5 change in EPNdB > -9 Relatively noisy aircraft B -9 change in EPNdB > -18 Average noise producing aircraft C -18 change in EPNdB Relatively low noise aircraft Noise categories at Amsterdam Schiphol airport Source: Setting_Charges Conditions_1_April_17_.pdf Noise categories at Amsterdam Schiphol airport Source: 8

10 Quieter fleet initiatives - The A320 modification program Overview of research 6 of the 26 airports researched had undertaken some form of initiative to encourage A320 operators to modify the aircraft to alleviate the whine generated when the aircraft is on approach to land (see the introduction page to this section for further information). In May 2016, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago O Hare airports submitted letters to United airlines via their community round table groups. In December 2016, United agreed to install vortex generators on its aircraft. 13 aircraft were to be retrofit by early 2017 and subsequent aircraft at a rate of 2 per month. Heathrow airport publicly states that they encourage airlines to retrofit their A320 fleets but no specifics were identified. Frankfurt and Gatwick modified the noise element of their landing/take-off fees to encourage airlines to modify the A320. For the noise element of its landing/take-off charges, Frankfurt categorises aircraft into one of 15 charging bands based upon certified noise levels. An A320 that has been modified to remove the whine falls into a different (less expensive) band than its unmodified counterpart. Gatwick created a separate charging category for unmodified A320 family aircraft (see case study opposite). Case study Gatwick modified charging scheme As part of an independent review of arrivals in 2016, it was recommended that the airport introduce an A320 modification incentive scheme. Following a period of consultation with airlines, it was decided that a higher noise charge would be introduced for unmodified aircraft from 1 st January 2018 to give operators a chance to modify their fleets. The table below shows that unmodified A320s will be subject to the highest noise charges during both the day and night. The airport informed airlines of these changes and continues to liaise them through requests of quarterly updates of their A320 modification programmes. Season Charge category Charging unit Day Night Summer (1 April - 31 October) Winter (1 November - 31 March) Unmodified A320 family per movement Chapter 3 & below per movement Chapter 4 per movement Chapter 14 High per movement Chapter 14 Base per movement Chapter 14 Minus per movement Unmodified A320 family per movement Chapter 3 & below per movement Chapter 4 per movement Chapter 14 High per movement Chapter 14 Base per movement Chapter 14 Minus per movement Gatwick Unmodified A320 family noise charge effective 1 st January 2018, Source: public_publications/2017/ conditions-of-use---final---sent-30jan17.pdf 9

11 Runway schemes Research summary

12 Runway schemes Overview Introduction In order to ensure safe take-off and landing, aircraft normally land and take-off into the wind and air traffic control will select the runway direction based upon current and forecast weather conditions to facilitate this. Runway schemes At airports with multiple runways, preferred runway directions for take-off and landing are often nominated for noise abatement purposes, the objective being to utilize whenever possible those runways that permit aircraft to avoid noise-sensitive areas during the initial departure and final approach phases of flight 1. Use of runway schemes Of the 26 airports researched, most operate some form of runway scheme for noise management purposes. The exceptions were in the Middle East. Day-time and night-time runway schemes Both day and night-time runway schemes are common. Night-time schemes are more widely used as this is both a more noise sensitive period of the day, and airports are able to operate their runways with increased flexibility at night when traffic levels are lower. Types of runway schemes The type of schemes operated varied considerably, reflecting the influence of several local factors geographical location, location relative to populations and the number/orientation of runways. Each broadly aimed to either provide some form of predictability of flight path use, focussing overflight over sparsely populated/unpopulated areas and/or sharing noise. For the reasons stated earlier, schemes operated at night tended to apply more ingenious solutions. Conformance with runway schemes Factors such as weather, traffic demand, safety, pilot preferences and runway maintenance make it very difficult to provide 100 percent conformance with any runway scheme. For this reason a number of airports state that they will apply their runway schemes voluntarily or where possible. Reporting on runway schemes The majority of airports do not report on the level of compliance with their runway schemes ICAO PANS-OPS Volume 1 - Section 2.1 Noise Preferential Runways

13 Runway schemes - Best practice from around the world Runways schemes used to divert traffic over low population areas. Night time runway schemes typically operate between 2300 and Usually based on preferred operational direction (Vancouver) or set list of runways (Calgary, Montreal, Toronto). Only Vancouver and Montreal report on runway usage in annual or directors reports. No information available on runway schemes. Runways schemes are not typically used during the day. Only Hartsfield Jackson (Atlanta) states that the 4 northern runways should be used between 0700 and O Hare recently undertook a night-time runway use rotation trial to vary runway use on a 12 week rotation. Tendency to make use of inner runways during the night period. Voluntary night time runway schemes are used between 2200 and The protocol is designed to direct aircraft over water (Los Angeles, San Francisco). Where runway schemes are used, runway usage is reported in figures and maps in the applicable time period. Almost all airports make use of runway schemes to provide respite. However in some areas it s used to deliver capacity benefits (Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle). Schemes are either based upon fixed time (daily or weekly) rotations (Brussels, Zurich and Heathrow) or use a number of factors. Amsterdam uses software to share noise by assessing the potential noise impacts, traffic mix and metrological conditions. Schemes are typically the same during the night although some airports do not allow use of certain runways during the night (Amsterdam, Madrid). Runway usage is reported by Heathrow, Gatwick and Charles de Gaulle. However, Heathrow is the only airport that reports departure runway adherence. Sydney has an aspirational Long Term Operational Plan (LTOP) which aims to share traffic and drive traffic over water where possible. In Auckland, opposite runway directions (landing and take-offs nose to nose) are used to drive traffic over water during the night. Sydney reports on runway usage through an online community tool which is required to report performance against the LTOP. Changi and Hong Kong attempt to push departures away from residential areas by using the runway closest to the water for departures, with arrivals on the closest runway. In Changi this only applies in the early morning. 12

14 Number of airports applying the protocol w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Runway schemes Overview & types of runway schemes Overview of research Of the 26 airports researched, most operate some form of runway scheme for noise management purposes. Day and night-time runway schemes Day protocol Night protocol Publicly reported on protocol As shown in the chart above, night-time runway schemes were more common than their day-time counterparts. This reflected both the night-time being a more noise sensitive period of the day, and airports being able to be more flexible with the operation of their runways at night when traffic levels are much lower. Two airports, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt, had protocols but these are not specifically used for noise management. Night-time runway schemes typically start around 2300 and end around 0600 (see chart on page 16). Types of runway schemes The type of schemes operated varied considerably reflecting the influence of several local factors and examples are given below, these are supported by case studies in the following pages. In many cases combinations of the examples below were used at a given airport: Prioritised list of preferential runways: Many airports, publish an order of priority for runway use. If conditions such as weather are satisfied, the first preference runway combination is used. If conditions are not satisfied, the second preference is used and so on (see Amsterdam Schiphol case study). Fixed timetable for runway usage: In this example, airports had a timetable stating the preferred runways to be used at certain hours of the day. These aimed at providing those under the flights paths with a degree of predictability of when they would be overflown (see Zurich case study). (Continued on the next page) 13

15 Runway schemes types and limitations Directing traffic over the least populated areas: These examples aimed at focussing the use of runways for arriving and departing aircraft on the least populated areas. In particular, airports with a coastal location try to fly as many aircraft as possible of the sea (see Sydney Case study). At night, when traffic levels were lower, a number of this airports aimed to have both arriving and departing aircraft operating over the sea i.e. landing and departing in opposite directions. (see Auckland and Vancouver case studies). Long-term noise sharing: This approach aims to achieve some form of equitable sharing of noise over an extended period of time for example the amount of overflight certain areas will receive over a given period of time. The main example of this is Sydney airport which sets targets for the proportion of aircraft arriving/departing from/to the north, east, south and west of the airport (see Sydney case study). Rotating timetable for runway usage: Similar to the example above, but with a timetable that rotated, typically on a weekly basis. As well as providing those under the flights paths with a degree of predictability of when they would be overflown, it also aimed to ensure that overflight did not occur at the same time every day (see Chicago O Hare and Heathrow case studies). Use of runways furthest from populated areas: During the day-time, Los Angeles, with its four parallel runways, where practicable, aims to operate arriving aircraft on the outer runways (closest to populations) and departure operations, which are noisier than arrivals, on the inner runways (furthest from populations). At night, the aim is to maximise the use of the inner runways for both arriving and departing aircraft. Similarly, other airports focus night-time operations on the runway furthest from populations (see Vancouver case study). 14

16 Runway schemes Conformance and Reporting Conformance with runway schemes Research identified that it is very difficult to provide 100 percent conformance with any runway scheme. The level of conformance can vary quite considerably depending on the scheme for example 90-95% at Heathrow and 67% at Chicago O Hare. There are several factors for this, not all of which are under the control of the airport. For this reason a number of airports state that they will apply their runway schemes voluntarily or where possible : Weather: This includes wind direction/speed and nearby storms which preclude the use of a preferred runway. Traffic demand: Some preferred runway directions can only be operated during low traffic demand. Pilot preferences: Pilots will sometimes request a certain runway on safety grounds, for example the longest runway at the airport. Emergencies: Use of a non-preferred runway in the case of emergencies. Runway inspections & maintenance: Use of another runway while the preferred runway is being maintained or inspected. Reporting on runway operations Of the 26 airports researched, 8 provided public reports on usage of runways. The method and frequency of reporting varied from monthly, quarterly and annually written reports to daily online reports as provided by Heathrow. No clear trends were spotted in the frequency of reporting periods, however all of the reports provided graphics showing the percentage use of one particular runway direction over the reporting period. 15

17 Runway schemes Night time protocol benchmarking 16

18 Runway schemes Case studies Case Study - between 2300 and 0600, when weather conditions permit, Vancouver airport makes use of runways which direct both arriving and departing aircraft over the Strait of Georgia. In addition, the northern runway (08L/26R) is closed between 2200 and 0700 except in the event of an emergency or maintenance. During the day, where weather conditions permit, departures are directed towards the water. The airport has published a short paper explaining how the protocol works, the times at which it isn t possible to use it, and notes the specific operations which may not follow the protocol such as air ambulances or police flights. Reporting on compliance is made within the airport s annual noise report and covers 24 hour runway utilisation which is then subdivided up into operations over the Strait of Georgia. In 2015 the airport conducted 54% of take-offs over this body of water. There is no separate reporting of night-time runway operations. Case Study - Heathrow airport uses a day-time runway alternation scheme between 0600 and the last departure of the day when aircraft land from the east/depart to the west (for historical reasons, the scheme does not apply when aircraft land from the west/depart to the east). The scheme runs over a two week rotating cycle throughout the year and aims to provide residents under the flight paths with a predictable break from noise. During week 1, the northern runway is used for arriving aircraft until 1500, the southern runway is then used for arrivals until the end of the day. On week 2, the pattern is changed, with the southern runway being used for arriving aircraft until During arrivals can use both runways, and alternation can be broken for safety and emergency reasons. The airport publishes a yearly schedule outlining the preferred operational direction and publicly reports daily on the use of the preferred runway. The runway in use is also rotated at night on a weekly basis. Vancouver runway operations 2200 to 0700 Closure of Northern runway Arrivals overwater Departures overwater Heathrow s runway alternation program, source - om/noise/heathrowoperations/runwayalternation 17

19 Runway schemes Case studies Case Study - Amsterdam Schiphol operates both a day-time and night-time preferential runway scheme. The schemes are based upon a prioritised list of runway combinations, with the chosen combination being based upon weather conditions. The daytime preferences operate from , and the night-time preferences from The aim of the scheme is to focus aircraft noise into least densely populated areas. The airport makes use of an Environment-Aware Runway Allocation Advice System developed by NLR, the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory. The system is connected to a metrological system and therefore has up to information on current wind and visibility conditions. Using a known database of preferential runway directions, noise management procedures and situational inputs such as runway availability and the status of navigational aids such as the ILS, the system can provide recommendations on which runway to use. The system can also provide forecasts, or what-if analysis to inform future runway selections. The system is connected to a wider environmental management system which allows Schiphol to update the preferential runway listing in response to runway utilisation. This process allows the preferential runways to be re-prioritised to meet environmental targets. The system records data on runway utilisation and this is provided to communities to ensure transparency. A: Valid 0600 to 2300 hours local Required visibility - and daylight conditions Good visibility within UDP Good visibility Marginal visibility Pref. B: Valid 2300 to 0600 hours local Required visibility - and daylight conditions Good or marginal visibility Runway combinations ARR 1 ARR 2 DEP 1 DEP R 36L 36C 2 18R 18C 24 18L R 09 36L R 24 18L 5a 36R 36C 36L 36C 5b 18R 18C 18L 18C 6a 36R 36C 36L 09 6b 18R 18C 18L 24 Pref. Runway combinations ARR 1 ARR 2 DEP 1 DEP L R C - 36L R - 18C - Runway preferences at Amsterdam Schiphol, Source: 18

20 Runway schemes Case studies Case Study - between 2300 and 0600 and in low traffic periods, Auckland airport makes use of a single opposing runway for arrivals and departures to limit all noise exposure over water. This effectively means that arrivals and departures face each other on the same runway. As the procedure is only enacted in very low traffic scenarios, such as late night/early morning both arrivals and departures are never in conflict. Auckland runway operations 2300 to 0600 Arrivals overwater Departures overwater Case Study - Zurich airport has adopted a runway scheme similar to Brussels which shifts traffic based upon time periods, weekends and holidays as follows: Case Study - To investigate the potential benefits from a night time runway rotation, Chicago O Hare airport undertook a 25 week operational trial in The trial rotated the runways in use at night on a weekly basis. The aim was to reduce noise impacts at night and provide some predictability to this through a 25-week schedule published at the start of the trial (see extract below). Each night the trial commenced at either 2200, or a period thereafter when operations could be supported using a single runway for arrivals, and a separate single runway for departures. The trial ended at either 0700 or earlier when traffic demand dictated. Throughout the trial the airport tracked runway utilisation, noise events and feedback using a survey. A public report was generated at the end of the trial and showed 67% compliance with the planned schedule. Reasons for non-compliance included traffic demand at the start end of the night, runway inspections, weather and pilot requests for specific runways. The airport has since extend the trial into a second period. Runway Weekdays Weekends and German holidays to to and to to 1900 (Arrivals not allowed on German Holidays) to to 0500 An extract from the Chicago O Hare runway rotation test schedule, source - Zurich airport runway scheme, source - SkyGuide Zurich AIP Week-Schedule-1-page.pdf 19

21 Runway schemes Case studies Case Study - Sydney airport s Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) was introduced in response to community pressure to share noise around the airport. The plan aims to share traffic around the airport according to the following targets: 17% of movements to the North of the Airport 13% of movements to the East of the Airport 15% of movements to the West of the Airport 55% of movements to the South of the Airport The LTOP defines ten different ways, or modes, of using the airports three runways. The principal of LTOP is that when making selections of the runway each day the Australian air traffic control body, Airservices Australia, must ensure that, subject to safety and weather conditions: as many flights as practical come and go using flight paths over water or non-residential areas where aircraft noise has the least impact on people the rest of the air traffic is spread or shared over surrounding communities as fairly as possible runway modes change throughout the day so individual areas have some break (or respite) from aircraft noise on most days. Some of the modes of operation are referred to a noise sharing modes (mode 5, 7 and 14a). These procedures should be used whenever possible on weekdays between 6am to 7am, 11am to 3pm and 8pm to curfew. Longer noise sharing hours apply at weekends. Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) modes of operationhttp://sacf.infrastructure.gov.au/ltop/files/ltop_general _information_fact_sheet_2015.pdf 20

22 Runway schemes Case studies Case Study (con t) - Sydney airport, via Air Services Australia, reports on runway usage against the LTOP targets on its public engagement website. This information includes an interactive map which shows runway utilisation including the number of arrivals, departures and hours when the runway was not used and can be broken down by aircraft type. On a separate tab, the runway utilisation figures are reported against the LTOP targets. The website is easy to navigate and provides a good level of information for most readers however if more detailed information is required, the website provides links to detailed monthly reports. The reports, which are also produced by Air Services Australia, include a breakdown of runway operations per runway and per day on an hourly basis, the LTOP runway modes in use and the level of respite provided over the corresponding flight paths. (Above) online runway utilisation, (right) extract from detailed monthly LTOP report showing respite provided, source - /sydney/ Monthly runway utilisation reported against LTOP targets for 2016 for movements to (i) the north of the airport (left) and (ii) south of the airport (right), source

23 Night flight restrictions Research summary

24 Night flight restrictions Overview Introduction Many airports define a night period where a different and more stringent set of operating rules are applied compared to the day-time. Examples of night time practices include operating restrictions, night quotas, noise surcharges and rules for managing airline operations in the night period, including penalties if operations are off schedule. Duration of the night period Thirteen airports had defined night period of 6-9 hours in duration, typically starting at 2200 or 2300 and ending at 0600 or Some airports applied the same restrictions throughout the night, while others applied different levels of stringency typically at the start/end of the night period or during the hours before/after the night period. These were often less stringent than those applied during the night period. Typical practices Operating restrictions: Restrictions applied include movement limits, curfews/night-flight bans, restrictions on the operation of certain (noisier) aircraft and runway used. Night quotas: A small number of airports operate night quotas. These schemes aim to manage the overall amount of noise generated at night by having an overall noise quota limit as well as a movement limit. Each aircraft is allocated a number of points depending on the amount of noise they produce (the louder the aircraft, the more points allocated). The airport must operate within a defined limit of night quota points as well as movement limits. Night noise surcharge: Airports that included a noise element in their landing/take-off charges had a separate day and night-time charge. This is typically a percentage increase on top of the day-time charge. Management of late running aircraft: Some airports have rules applied to manage late running aircraft or have protocols in place to allow dispensations for aircraft not scheduled to operate in the night period that are running late. In the case of the latter these often refer to exceptional circumstances and require authority, or delegated authority, from a government department. Some airports also have a contingency set aside for off-schedule activity. Penalties applied for non-conformance: Some airports applied fines for non-conformance with night flight restrictions. Regional trends More than half of the airports researched had defined a night period although it was more common in Europe. Airports without a defined night period were primarily those in the Middle East and United States. 23

25 Night flight restrictions - Best practice from around the world Night time restrictions vary across Canadian airports starting between 2200 and 0001 and ending between 0600 and Variations in type of aircraft restricted. Pearson is the only airport with a night flight budget (approximately 15,000 aircraft allowed per year). Number of night flights allowed to grow with traffic. Montreal prohibits aircraft over 45 tons at night. Violations of night restrictions incurs fines of up to CAD5000 for individuals and CAD25000 for corporations. No information on night restrictions. Only John-Wayne has a night period. It applies a night curfew from 2200 to 0700 on weekdays and 2200 to John-Wayne has a sliding scale for violations of the night time restrictions ($2,500 to $10,000). Other airports do not have penalties as no night restrictions are in place. Penalties are applied for violations with NAPs. Night period starts at 2200 or 2300 and ends between 0400 and Some airports define night shoulder periods (Zurich) or night quota periods (Heathrow, Gatwick, Brussels, Madrid). Night restrictions have noise at their core and are based on a number of criteria: noise certification (MCC3 banned at Amsterdam), quota system (Brussels, Gatwick, Heathrow, Madrid), night curfew (Zurich), movement limits (Amsterdam, Gatwick, Heathrow). Restrictions on scheduling and the operation of noisier aircraft during the night period, or periods before or after the night period (shoulder periods). Amsterdam, Charles de Gaulle, Madrid, Heathrow and Gatwick either apply higher charges in the night period or make use of a night noise surcharge. Changi restricts operations on one runway between 0000 and Has a scheme to shift noise away from residents. Sydney has a night curfew which restricts operations between 2300 and Auckland will soon introduce a similar scheme as part of its 2 nd runway. The curfew times are adjusted at weekends. Curfew applies to aircraft based on several criteria including weight, type, dispensations, missed approaches. Sydney curfew is under Australian law and violations incur a fine of up to AUD 650,

26 Night flight restrictions Duration of the night period Duration of the night period Of the 26 airports investigated, 13 had a defined night period where a different and more stringent set of operating rules where applied compared to the day-time. Night periods were 6-9 hours in duration, typically starting at 2200 or 2300 and ending at 0600 or Airports without a defined night period were primarily those in the Middle East and United States. hours adjacent to the night period. Often the rules/restrictions applied in these hours were less stringent than those applied during the night period, but more stringent than those in the day. Examples in these hours included gradual increasing of night-time charges and restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types. Some airports take a similar approach, but at the start/end of the night period (see below). Variation in rules/restrictions during the night-period While many airports apply the same rules/ restrictions throughout the night period, others apply different levels of stringency throughout the night. Examples include having less stringent restrictions at the start/end of the night period, allowing a small number of aircraft per night to be scheduled/operated at certain times and having periods where no aircraft may operate. Restrictions in the hours adjacent to the night period Four airports also applied additional restrictions in the

27 Night flight restrictions Operating restrictions Introduction Examples of the types of night-time operating restrictions identified by the research are summarised below. Movement limits Four of the airports researched applied night-time movement limits. These limits are either applied annually or based upon scheduling seasons. Examples of movement limits compared to Toronto are shown in the figure below. Movement limits are set by legislation. For example, Gatwick and Heathrow apply movement limits as part of their quota count systems which are set by the Department for Transport. Amsterdam Schiphol airport is currently limited to 34,620 movements per year but this could be reduced this year to 32,000 due to delayed implementation of continuous descent approach (CDA) operations. Curfews/night flight bans Frankfurt, John Wayne, Sydney and Zurich, airports have bans/curfews on night flights. At Sydney there are restrictions on the number and type of movements that can take place during the curfew (see case study on page 33) At Frankfurt, the curfew runs from , with a limit of 133 movements each night from 2100 to At Zurich a night-time curfew is in place between , with the time between used to reduce the backlog of delayed flights. Landings/take-offs between are only allowed in exceptional circumstance and incur high charges (see Zurich case study later in this document). Figure: Movement limits during the night period Source: Government legislation 26

28 Night flight restrictions Operating restrictions Night-time restrictions on certain aircraft types Airports apply restrictions on certain aircraft types, typically based upon their Chapter number of certified noise levels. Marginally compliant chapter 3 bans: Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels and Paris Charles de Gaulle airports implemented a ban on aircraft whose Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB) was close to the limit of Chapter 3 standards. Shoulder hour restrictions: Frankfurt airport ban airlines from scheduling marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft between (night period is ). Only Chapter 4 aircraft (which are quieter) are allowed to take off between Other examples: Airports with night quota systems (see later pages in this section), restrict the scheduling/operation of the noisiest aircraft types at night. Several airports define criteria to restrict certain operations at night. Montreal airport bans Chapter 3 aircraft that are over 45 tonnes. Calgary airport is one example of an airport that restricts Chapter 3 aircraft to certain runways at night. Chapter 2 bans: 18 of the 26 airports researched implemented a total ban on ICAO Chapter 2 aircraft during the night. Note that today, a limited number of those aircraft are in use. Runway restrictions Some airports also place restrictions on which runways can be used at night see the runway schemes section in this document. For aircraft quieter than Chapter 2, a range of different approaches are used: 27

29 Night flight restrictions Night curfew case study (Sydney) Case study Sydney airport night curfew The Australian Government enacted the Sydney Curfew Act of 1995 to restrict aircraft movements during the night. Specifically, the curfew includes the following: Time Movements are restricted daily between There are also additional restrictions daily during the shoulder period between and on weekends between and on the runways that can be used. Aircraft movements During the curfew period take-offs and landings at the Airport are restricted to specific types of aircraft and operations: Small (less than 34,000kg) noise certificated propeller driven aircraft and low noise jets (mostly business and small freight jets these are specified on a list which has been Gazetted by the Minister) are allowed to operate without a quota on the number of their movements 74 small freight (BAe146 size) aircraft are allowed to operate per week. Between 0500 and 0600, 24 intercontinental arrival flights are allowed to operate per week. Runways There are also restrictions on the runways that can be used: : Only runway 34L is allowed to be used for landings during the daily and additional weekend hours (unless assigned an alternative by ATC) : Only 16L or 16R can be used for take off and (weekends only): Only 16L or 16R can be used. Exemptions Exemptions are granted in exceptional circumstances such as emergencies or search and rescue operations Penalties If the curfew is breached, offenders can face criminal prosecution and fines of up to AUD$550,000. Other There are also restrictions and conditions on the use of reverse thrust and missed approaches. During the curfew aircraft must operate over Botany Bay, that is take-offs to the south and landings to the north. 28

30 Night flight restrictions Night quotas Night quotas Brussels, Heathrow, Gatwick and Madrid all operate night quota schemes. These schemes aim to manage the overall amount of noise generated at night by having a noise quota limit. Typically a number of quota points will be assigned to each aircraft depending on the amount of noise they produce. In the examples identified, this uses the certified noise levels of an individual aircraft. The louder the aircraft, the more points allocated (see example for Madrid below). For a given duration of time (year or scheduling season) the airport must operate within a defined number of night quota points. Typically the night-quota period will also have a movement limit. Both the Belgium and UK quota systems also limit the scheduling/operation of the noisiest aircraft types at certain times of the night quota period (see example for Heathrow opposite). For example, at Brussels take-off or landing of aircraft with QC>12 is forbidden A case study of the UK night quota system is presented on the next page. Night-time restrictions at Heathrow (source: Heathrow night flights fact sheet) Madrid airport quota points allocation Source: 29

31 Night flight restrictions Quota system Case study UK night quota system Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports use a quota system during the night quota period ( ). This was first established by the Department for Transport in The system is based upon aircraft movements and noise (note that a movement is defined as either a single departure or a single arrival). Each aircraft is placed in a Quota Count (QC) band according to their certified noise output. The band can be different for a given aircraft, depending on whether it is departing or arriving. Each band is associated to a fixed number of Quota Count points. The quietest band has 0 points and the loudest has 16 points (note that aircraft with Quota Count 8 or 16 are banned from operating in the night). In effect, the quieter the aircraft movement, the lower the number of points awarded. Each airport is granted a total quota limit for each season which is applied in conjunction with a limit on movements. This is shown in the table below. Quota count and movement limits for London airports. Source: ata/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwick-andstansted.pdf Airports Coordination Limited (ACL) is the independent organisation that allocates quota to airlines who wish to operate in the night quota period. Some quota count is retained by the airports as a contingency, for example in the case of aircraft were scheduled to operate outside of the night quota period, but for various reasons (e.g. mechanical failure, weather, ATC delay) operate inside it. Quota count points per noise classification. Source: ent_data/file/582863/night-flight-restrictions-at-heathrow-gatwickand-stansted.pdf In exceptional circumstance (e.g. prolonged disruption) aircraft are granted dispensations to operate in the night quota period with oversight provided by the Department for Transport (i.e. their operation does not count against the quota). The quota system is reviewed and consulted upon every few years. 30

32 Charges increase from 2100 until 0600 w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Night flight restrictions Night-time noise charges Night-time noise charges All 8 European airports that included a noise element in their landing/take-off charges (see the quieter fleet section for further information) had a separate day and night-time charge. significant. For example, an aircraft operating at 0030 in the noisiest class (class 1) will be charged CHF18,000 whereas an aircraft operating at 2130 in the quietest class (class 5) will be charged CHF40. The charges (in CHF) are as follows): The night-time charge is typically percentage on top of the day-time charge. In the case of Amsterdam Schiphol and Heathrow, charges are increased by a factor of at night. But in some cases the night-time charge can be 10 times higher. Zurich airport applies a different approach see case study below. Case study night-time charges at Zurich airport Zurich airport have a ban/curfew on flights between although in exceptional circumstances some flights are allowed. Charges increase if the aircraft is noisier Night noise surcharges at Zurich airport Source: A noise surcharge is levied between 2100 and 0700 local to cover both the night hours and shoulder periods. Charges increase from 2100 until 0600 and then reduce for operations between After 0700 the night noise surcharge no longer applies. Charges also increase if the aircraft is in a higher noise class. The discrepancy between the charge applied to aircraft is 31

33 Night flight restrictions Other practices Management of aircraft running late or arriving early in the night period Some airports have protocols in place to allow dispensations for aircraft not scheduled to operate in the night period that are running late or early. These often refer to exceptional circumstances and require authority, or delegated authority, from a government department. Examples include: The Transport Minister is able to given dispensations (permission) to aircraft operating late or early into Sydney airport s curfew period At Brussels airport, aircraft operating late or early into the night period must be given an exemption by the national CAA. Heathrow and Gatwick airport can given dispensations to aircraft running late/early. This power is delegated to them by the Department for Transport. In addition, the quota schemes has a pool set aside for off-schedule activity. Additionally, airports also apply some latitude for late running aircraft. Taking Frankfurt as an example: Chapter 3 aircraft (which are banned between ) are allowed to operate until 2100 or from 0500 if they are running late or early as long as the delay was not foreseen. Chapter 4 aircraft scheduled to land between are permitted to land until Penalties for non-conformance/late running Overview of research A number of airports were also found to apply penalties for non-conformance with night time restrictions. Examples identified were: At Toronto Pearson the penalty for non-conformance with restrictions is 16 times landing fee. Further enforcement action may be taken by Transport Canada. Across the rest of Canada, fines are applied by Transport Canada for violations. This is up to CAD$5,000 for individuals and CAD$25,000 for corporations. John Wayne Airport applies fines on a sliding scale. For the first 5 violations with night time restrictions the penalty is $2,500 per issue (i.e. if two rules were broken then the aircraft operator would be fined $5,000). The next 5 violations attract fines of $3,500-$5,000 per issue. For the next 10 it is $5,000-$10,000 per issue. Violations of the curfew at Sydney airport can incur fines of up to AUS$850,000. This is administered by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. 32

34 Noise abatement procedures Research summary

35 1 a continuous descent may not necessarily involve a continuous descent, level segments are permitted within the researched definitions. Level segments are often used to aid aircraft to slow down at the start of the descent without the use of the flaps / speed brake. w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Overview Introduction The noise generated by aircraft arriving and departing an airport can be influenced by the procedures used by the flight crew and air traffic control. A range practices and operational procedures can be employed to manage the noise generated by aircraft in these phases of flight. Common practices Many of the arrival and departure practices and operational procedures are in common use at the airports researched. These includes: Arriving aircraft: Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA), where the aircraft approaches the runway using a consistent descent angle. Altitude restrictions during the approach to an airport; Advisory restrictions on the use of reverse thrust in night and off peak periods. Departing aircraft: Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2. These are internationally recognised procedures intended to provide noise reduction to those areas close to the airport (NADP1) or to those areas further away (NADP2) Altitude restrictions limiting early turns; The application of noise limits for departures. Special and unique practices In addition to the common practices, a number of initiatives have been developed to either solve a local issue or as a creative and innovative solution to noise management. The initiatives in this area include Arriving aircraft: The combination of CDA and Low Power Low Drag (LPLD) operations; The joint development and introduction of an arrivals code of practice by airports, airlines and air traffic control; Swing-over arrivals when the aircraft approaches a pair of parallel runways. The approach is made to one runway with a visual manoeuver to land on the neighbouring runway. Steeper approaches such as a 3.2 degree glideslope. Departing aircraft: The joint development and introduction of a departures code of practice. Continuous Climb Operations (CCO). Trials In addition this section has also researched practices in the management and communication of trials. 34

36 Noise abatement procedures - Best practice from around the world CDAs used by NAV CANADA where possible, although its more commonly used on RNAV STARs. Vancouver request pilots to use LPLD approaches. NADP 1 or 2 used and altitude restrictions in place to limit turns post departure, applied in some areas to limit noise impact / maintain operations over industrial areas. Websites used to communicate information on trials such as P-RNAV/PBN implementation. Early turns are used to allow prop aircraft to exit the departure flow. NADP 1 or 2 used at Istanbul Ataturk. CDA not commonly used however are seen as a future step as part of NextGen and have been trialled at San Francisco. Implementation of departure procedures linked to P-RNAV implementation including FAA AC 91-53A NADP procedure. Some early turns used at San Francisco and Chicago O Hare to keep noise over industrial areas. Airports operate trials websites (NextGen program) which include detailed information, consultation, environmental reviews and workshop materials. UK airports arrivals and departures code s of practice. CDAs are commonly used at all airports, however definition varies along with the applicable time periods. LPLD used at both London, Madrid and Zurich airports. NADP 1 or 2 used at almost all airports. P-RNAV and PBN used at the majority of airports however this is mostly a straight replacement for the legacy SID. Early turns are not typically used, however noise preferential routes are applied. Airports used mini-websites to report on trials activities, which provide updates on progress along with trial reports. Steeper approaches (3.2⁰) have been trialed at Heathrow and Frankfurt with limited improvements in noise seen. Frankfurt uses swing over visual approaches to shift to a parallel runway up to 4 NM from touchdown to avoid directly overflying specific areas. CDA implemented using P-RNAV STARs. ILS joining point at 14nm and 4,000ft to keep aircraft higher on approach. ICAO NADP 1 or 2 used on departures. Early turns are not allowed and 3,000ft limit applied before turns can be commenced. Websites used for trials covering PBN implementation, includes status updates, consultations and output documents. CDA used based upon vectored approach/rnav implementation. NADP 1 or 2 used on departure at Hong Kong. Early turns are not used to maintain straight out departure over the water at Hong Kong. 35

37 Number of airports applying practices w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals Arrivals procedures - overview Twenty-two of the 26 airports researched prescribed at least one procedure or practice to manage noise from arriving aircraft. Often more than one initiative was used with the most common being the use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) and the application of altitude limitations during the approach phase of flight. Typical stepped approach vs a typical CDA The procedures which airports apply to manage arrival noise CDA CDA/LPLD Reverse thrust Altitude limits Continuous Descent Approaches Conventional approaches to an airport involve phases of level flight, as shown in the diagram on the upper right. A Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) aims to reduce the amount of time an aircraft remains in level flight during the approach phase. Doing so offers the opportunity to reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn along the approach path (see case study for Amsterdam on following sides). Work by the UK CAA shows CDAs to provide noise reductions of up to 2.5 to 5 db, varying over distances from touchdown of 10 to 25nm 1. The noise reduction is achieved by keeping the aircraft higher for longer and allowing the aircraft to maintain a managed gliding approach using low to idle thrust setting. Although sounding simple in theory, in practice it is difficult to currently enable CDAs to be flown without any level flight in the busy traffic environment experienced at international airports. For this reason airports tend to either operate less stringent definitions of CDAs which allow some periods of level flight (UK case study on the next page), thereby achieving some of the noise benefits of CDA throughout the day. At other airports, CDAs are only used at night or other periods of low traffic density CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.

38 Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals Nine of the airports researched made reference to CDA procedures, although only 4 actively used CDA at all operational times. The remaining airports had implemented CDA as part of an RNAV or PBN arrival routing which was not in use at all times. Although the majority of airports make use of new navigational technology, it is possible to undertake a CDA using radar vectoring (the provision of direction, speed and altitude commands by air traffic control to pilots). Case Study - CDA definitions vary around the world as follows: EUROCONTROL define CDA as follows: Continuous Descent Approach is an aircraft operating technique in which an arriving aircraft descends from an optimal position with minimum thrust and avoids level flight to the extent permitted by the safe operation of the aircraft and compliance with published procedures and ATC instructions. The UK use the following wording in the AIP: A descent will be deemed to have been continuous provided that no segment of level flight longer than 2.5 nautical miles (nm) occurs below ft QNH (FL070) and level flight is interpreted as any segment of flight having a height change of not more than 50 ft over a track distance of 2 nm or more, as recorded in the airport noise and track-keeping system. Frankfurt use the following wording in the AIP: pilots should expect a clearance to descend below FL 70 only 6 NM prior to reaching the above-mentioned points. Pilots should adjust their speed accordingly (approx kt when leaving FL 70) and are urgently requested to perform their descent from FL 70 as a continuous descent whenever possible. Schiphol use the following wording in the AIP: Executing a CDA implies that after NIRSI, NARIX or SOKSI a continuously descending flight path without level segments is to be flown in a low power and low drag configuration. A flight path is considered continuously descending when there is no level segment. A segment is considered level if the altitude loss is less than 50 ft over a distance of 2.5 NM. Continuous Descent Approaches and Low Power Low Drag When an aircraft extends its flaps and undercarriage on approach this disturbs the airflow around the aircraft and creates noise. Low Power Low Drag procedures are intended to safely delay the extension of flaps and undercarriage. In the United Kingdom LPLD is defined as a noise abatement technique for arriving aircraft in which the pilot delays the extension of wing flaps and undercarriage until the final stages of the approach, subject to compliance with ATC speed control requirements and the safe operation of the aircraft Not all airports in the UK start CDA at this altitude as it can vary due to airspace, for example Gatwick commences CDA at 7,000ft and Luton from 5,000ft.

39 Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals Work by the UK CAA shows LPLD can deliver reduction of between 3 to 5dB 1. Low Power Low Drag (LPLD) can be combined with a CDA to ensure the aircraft maintains a low noise configuration, with a reduced flap setting and the delayed deployment of the landing gear for as long as possible. 8 airports, mainly in Europe, prescribe the use of LPLD procedures in the AIP alongside CDA. Although the exact wording used is typically non-descript. Case Study - Amsterdam Schiphol uses P-RNAV routing to accurately direct aircraft on approach to the ILS in the night period between 2300 to 0600 making use of both CDA and LPLD. The procedure has been specifically designed for night time operations and commences around 30 nautical miles from the airport. Aircraft are directed onto the P-RNAV routing, which has been carefully designed to maintain a vertical path direct to the ILS. An LPLD configuration with minimal thrust setting is maintained throughout, providing an optimum low noise approach. Whilst the lateral path was designed to minimise overflight of noise sensitive areas. The introduction of the procedure has reduced the noise footprint of a Boeing aircraft by 20km as shown in the figure on the next page. (Continued) Case Study - LPLD definitions vary around the world as follows: Heathrow and Gatwick use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: Where the aircraft is approaching the aerodrome to land it shall, commensurate with its ATC clearance, minimise noise disturbance by the use of continuous descent and low power, low drag operating procedures. Schiphol use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: Executing a CDA implies that after NIRSI, NARIX or SOKSI a continuously descending flight path without level segments is to be flown in a low power and low drag configuration. Vancouver use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: Use low power/drag profiles consistent with safe operating procedures, conforming to published visual approaches and as directed by ATC. Hong Kong use the following LPLD wording in the AIP: During a CDA pilots should maintain a low thrust setting and should not have recourse to level flight CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.

40 Altitude w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals According to the Netherlands slot coordinator (SACN), the implementation of CDAs is delayed and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is facing temporary environmental restrictions in order to compensate this. Due to these temporary restrictions, a further reduction of night movements to 29,000 per year (from 34,620) is expected within a maximum of three years time. Reports via the Environmental Council Schiphol note that the difficulty in implementing CDA is due to the nature of the RNAV CDA arrival routing, limiting capacity to a level where it is not sustainable given the current airport and network traffic levels. Altitude Limits Thirteen airports applied specific altitude limits within their noise abatement procedures, these restrictions focus on: Restricting the altitude at which aircraft can join the glideslope/instrument Landing System (ILS); Specifying altitude limits over noise sensitive areas such as urbanised areas. In all situations, the restrictions aimed to increase the altitude of aircraft and keep them higher for longer thus reducing the impact of noise. Noise footprint comparison between CDA and typical approach for a B744 Case Study - Heathrow airport applies restrictions on the ILS joining point and does not permit aircraft to join the ILS below 2500ft in the day (0600 to 2330 local) and 3000ft or 10nm in the night. Distance from airport (km) Case Study - Auckland airport applies altitude restrictions in its AIP. The entry notes that Except when operating in accordance with an instrument approach procedure aircraft must not be flown over the high density population areas of greater Auckland city at an altitude of less than 5000 ft. The boundaries of these high density population areas are defined in the Auckland Noise Abatement Chart. The Auckland noise abatement chart provides a map of the area around the airport and clearly marks areas of high population density for which this restriction applies. Source: NLR Research Paper, environmental benefits of CDA at Schiphol Airport NLR-TP Case Study - Los Angeles airport applies restrictions on helicopter flights over the city requiring operators to avoid flying below 2,000ft during the day and not flying over the city between 2200 and 0700 local. 39

41 25 L 25 C w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals Reverse thrust Nine of the airports researched have voluntary restrictions on use of reverse thrust on landing where pilots were asked to minimise the use of reverse thrust unless it was required to maintain safety. The majority of airports applied these restrictions in the overnight period only. Case Study - Madrid Barajas restricts the use of reverse thrust in the night period with the following wording contained within its AIP, The use of reverse thrust above from idle regime is prohibited at night time ( LT) except if necessary for safety reasons, in this case, it must be notified to TWR and the Departamento de Medio Ambiente of the airport. Additional noise based restrictions The research also highlighted a number of specific practices applied at individual airports. These included: Voluntary industry code of practice: In the UK, the Department for Transport, Civil Aviation Authority, airports, airlines, the air navigation service provider developed an industry code of practice for noise from arriving aircraft. The document defines options to reduce approach noise including the implementation of CDA and LPLD procedures and provides guidance to air traffic control, flight crews and airports on how to deliver improvements. The document also reports on improvements made since the work commenced including the benefits made to air traffic controller training and the improvements seen in CDA compliance. The document was widely circulated within the industry and is publicly available on the Sustainable Aviation website 1. Swing over arrivals: This is a visual procedure implemented at Frankfurt airport to reduce the impact of noise on populations living under the approach path to one of the airports runways (runway 25C). The procedure is outlined in the figure below. It requires the crew to initially fly an approach to runway 25C using the approach path for runway 25L. At any point on the approach, but not less than 1,000ft AGL (above ground level) and 4 nautical miles from touchdown, the pilot will visually manoeuver the aircraft onto the approach path for runway 25C. The swing-over approach procedure in use at Frankfurt Town under approach path Approach path if continued Typical approach path Swing-over procedure

42 Number of airports applying practices w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Arrivals and Departures Steeper Approaches Steeper approaches have recently been trialled at both Frankfurt and Heathrow. A steeper approaches involves flying along the instrument landing system at a slightly steeper angle, of 3.2 degrees in comparison to the typical 3 degrees. The increase in approach angle increases the height of arriving aircraft and therefore reduces the noise for aircraft closest to the airport. Case Study - Heathrow airport conducted a trial on a slightly steeper approach angle of 3.2 degrees. To maintain normal operations when the steeper approach was not in use, the 3.2 degree glide path was implemented with RNAV. The trial ran for 6 months and no adverse impacts identified in terms of go-arounds and complaints. The trial did identify a small improvement in noise, however this was small with an average reduction of 0.5dBA and a maximum reduction of 1.4dBA SEL. The A380 was the only aircraft to achieve the full 3.2 degree slope and thus provided the greatest noise reduction. Heathrow airport steeper approach angles Source - w.com/noise/latest -news/steeperapproach-trialreport/ Departure procedures - overview Twenty three of the 26 airports researched applied procedures to manage the noise from departing aircraft. Often more than one initiative was used with the most common being the use of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP), or the use of a similar procedure The procedures which airports apply to manage departure noise NADP or similar Turn restrictions Altitude limits Noise Abatement Departure Procedures, or similar Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) involve operating an aircraft in a way as to reduce noise close to the airport or at a distance away and focus on the point at which engine thrust is reduced on departure (see diagram on next page). NADP is an ICAO defined procedure and are listed within an appendix to Chapter 3, departure procedures, of ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS Part 1. (continued) 41

43 Altitude w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise abatement procedures - Departures Fourteen of the researched airports either prescribed the use of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 and 2 (NADP1/NADP2) or made use of an equivalent procedures which was either described or referenced to another document such as the FAA Advisor Circular AC91-53A. The procedures reduce departure noise by either: NADP1: Reducing noise impact close to the airport by requiring aircraft to climb quickly by using; or NADP2: Reduce the noise impact at an increased distance from the airport when the airport climbs quickly initially before transitioning into a low drag configuration with a reduced power setting. Of the airports which prescribed NADP, only Amsterdam Schiphol recommended the use of a single procedure (NADP 2) but permitted the use of NADP 1 if it was not possible to comply with NADP 2. All other airports were non-prescriptive and simply required the use of NADP 1 or 2. 3,000ft AGL 800ft AGL Comparison between NADP 1 and NADP 2 procedures Climb thrust Accelerate to flaps up speed and retract flaps Climb thrust + 10 to 20 kts Take-off Thrust V to 20 kts Climb thrust Accelerate to flaps up speed and retract flaps Normal climb speed and thrust NADP 1 NADP 2 Case Study - A study carried out by NLR, the Dutch Aeronautical Research Institute, at Schiphol investigated the implementation of NADP 2 in comparison to NADP 1. The study conducted a robust test using a scientific sampling group to determine the fuel saving, noise exposure and community annoyance levels following the implementation of NADP 2. Testing took place using Boeing and and showed a: reduction in fuel burn of between 20 to 60kg, a reduction in SEL db(a) if up to 2.2dB. The study noted that this could provide a reduction in the number of highly annoyed or sleep deprived people in the vicinity of Schiphol. Departure routes altitude restrictions A total of 7 airports applied altitude restrictions on the minimum altitude before air traffic control were allowed to vector aircraft off the departure route. The minimum altitude varied between airports but typically remained between 2,000 and 6,500ft. This aimed to limit the noise exposure of departing aircraft to a specific area. Case Study - Vancouver airport applies SID departure restrictions within the Canada Air Pilot. The restrictions require the use of NADP 1 or 2, and pilots to follow the SID to 3,000ft or 2,000ft on runway 08R before proceeding on course. Distance from airport 42

44 Noise abatement procedures - Departures Continuous climb operations Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) are an aircraft operating technique facilitated by airspace and procedure design to execute an optimised departure profile. It commences at lift off and continues to cruise level with no level segments providing a reduction fuel burn and emissions. The Sustainable Aviation Departures code of practice notes the main benefit is in terms of fuel and emissions with reductions of 50kg on an A320 to 475kg on a B747 with a continuous climb to 6,000ft. The overall noise benefit is neutral. As CCO focuses on the climb from lift off to cruise level it is often a concern of the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) rather than the airport. Our research has shown that the ANSPs in the UK and Denmark facilitate CCO. Whilst SESAR trials have been undertaken at Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt are currently developing CCO procedures with DFS, the German ANSP. Case Study - In the UK, CCO procedures have been promoted since 2006 when 55% of departures operated CCO to 10,000ft, that figure has since risen to 67% in Due to airspace constraints, wherever possible CCO is facilitated to the cruise level and NATS, the UK ANSP, reached an agreement with DSNA, the French ANSP, to coordinate with the Paris and Brest Area Control Centres to allow CCO to FL290 with 260 aircraft per day using this new profile in Further improvements in CCO are planned as part of the future airspace strategy as part of the restructuring of UK airspace. Departure routes - early turns Early turns are typically used to allow slower aircraft such as propeller driven aircraft to exit the main departure flow (e.g. to maintain safe separation between faster jet powered aircraft that can catch-up with the slower propeller powered aircraft). They can also be used to manage departure noise (e.g. by turning aircraft off the extended centreline before the aircraft reaches and overfly residential areas). Of the 26 airports researched, 8 had procedures covering early turns, this included: 5 which restricted early turns and required aircraft to either maintain the centreline or SID routing, usually though the application of altitude restrictions. 3 which allowed early turns, this typically was only allowed on certain aircraft types (e.g. propeller) by reducing the altitude restrictions applied. Of the 3 airports which allowed early turns, these could be started shortly after take-off and 2 of the 3 airports used early turns to allow aircraft to take-off and turn before reaching noise sensitive areas. Case Study - As part of its Fly Quiet program, San Francisco airport uses early turns to minimise noise disturbance over residential areas, early turns are used keep noise over mainly industrial areas and business parks. As part of its fly quiet program, the airport tracks airline performance on this turn by measuring the distance from the turn to a local highway, beyond which, the residential area exists. 43 The airport publicly reports this compliance figure.

45 Noise abatement procedures - Departures Departure noise restrictions Four of the airports researched measured the noise generated by departing aircraft. Noise limits were set with financial penalties applied if the limits were breached. The noise restrictions were as follows: New York JFK: limit set at PNdB as measured using noise monitors at the end of the runway. Heathrow and Gatwick: Limits set according to time period as follows, using noise monitors under the departure routes: Day, 0700 to dba Lmax, Shoulder, 2300 to 2330 and 0600 to dba Lmax, Night, 2330 to dba Lmax. Both Heathrow and Gatwick apply fines for aircraft which breach these noise limits. Fines range between 500 and 1000 and are paid into the airport community fund. John Wayne: limits noise on both arrival and departure. Limits are based upon aircraft category with noise levels set at each noise monitor. These level range between the following limits: Class A, db to 93.7 db SENEL, Class E, 94.1 db to 86.6 db SENEL. If an aircraft breaches the noise limits, the airport can either apply a fine of up to $500,000 USD and it may also ban the operator from operating for up to half a year. Case Study - John-Wayne airport is surrounded by noise sensitive areas which a particular concentration to the south of the airport under the main departure path. Previously the departure routings were based upon older ground based navigational aids which led to dispersion over the noise sensitive area and due to the extensive noise abatement techniques employed by the airport, the issue was not a major annoyance to the community. The recent move to satellite based navigation systems such as PBN and RNAV has improved navigational accuracy but at the same time this has resulted in a concentration of departing aircraft. Attempts by the FAA to improve the situation have not delivered an improvement in dispersal. In 2013, the City of Newport Beach contracted GE Aviation to undertake a study to investigate the feasibility of a curved PBN departure routing to mainly overfly the river/bay and non-noise sensitive areas. The study concluded that although the problem is complex, the curved departure routing is possible and the city should engage with the FAA to develop this solution further. Example future PBN SID Typical flight path John Wayne Airport Departure Feasibility Study, Source - ocument?id=

46 Noise abatement procedures - Departures and Airspace Trials Voluntary industry code of practice Similar to the arrivals code of practice, in the UK industry partners have developed a code of practice for departing aircraft to align and improve operations. The document defines options to reduce departure noise through the implementation of systems to reduce APU usage, implement reduced engine taxi, introduce Airport Collaborative Decision Making systems and Continuous Climb Operations. In particular it investigates the feasibility of CCO, its impacts, and measurement techniques. The document provides guidance to air traffic control, flight crews and airports on how to deliver improvements. It was widely circulated within the industry and is publicly available on the Sustainable Aviation website 1. Trials The airports researched did not list their processes or procedures for trials. Of the airports researched, Sydney, Auckland and the US airports (as part of the FAA NextGen program) had information available. This information typically took the form of a dedicated website and if a trial was currently ongoing, the websites included information on: Trial routes, Reasons for testing and selection of routes, Consultations and outcomes, Ways to provide feedback. If no trials were ongoing, summary information was provided on the most recently completed trial along with links to the trial completion reports which provided additional information. Case Study - In addition to the airspace trial website, Sydney airport undertakes a dedicated and proactive process to engage with the public as part of infrastructure and airspace changes. The most recent engagement was undertaken as part of a runway upgrade and involved the following actions: Setup and management of phone lines for comments. Directed s providing information and updates. Adverts in the local media. Production and distribution of information brochures to over 100,000 residences. The organisation of community and stakeholder consultation meetings. The organisation of community question and answer sessions. Door to door visits. Air Services Australia, Sydney airport, investigations and consultations page Source - v.com/sydney/noiseimprovementscommunity-consultation/

47 Ground and gate operations Research summary

48 Ground and gate operations - Overview Introduction Restrictions are often applied to activities on the airport surface (taxiways/aircraft parking positions etc.) to reduce the impact of ground noise on the local area. The restrictions focus on two areas: Restricting engine testing which can be required following routine and specific engineering works on the aircraft. Restriction the use of the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a small jet engine usually located in the tail of the aircraft. It is used to provide electrical power and air conditioning when the main engines are off. It also provides power to start the start the main engines. Typical practices Engine testing restrictions typically take the form of limiting the times at which ground runs can take place (i.e. not during the night), as well as associated limits on the duration and engine power settings. Engine testing restrictions can also specify the locations where testing can take place, such as a remote location or within a ground run pen. A small number of airports have introduced monitoring systems to check compliance with any restrictions. For example, Los Angeles (LAX) have made this monitoring system publicly available. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) restrictions limit the time period they can be used when the aircraft is on the ground and/or parked on the stand for example limits on the amount of time an APU can be used (i) after arriving on stand and (ii) before the scheduled time of departure. The restrictions require the aircraft to make use of the fixed ground power units rather than the APU. Some airports also undertake monitoring to track compliance. Regional trends Almost all airports surveyed, with the exception of airports located in the Middle-East, were found to apply some form of restriction, or practice to reduce the impact of ground noise from aircraft. However, both the stringency of restrictions and time period for which they were active varied. Due to the close proximity of airports to residential areas, rules for ground runs and APU usage tended to be more restrictive in Europe. Special and unique practices Landscaping can be used to limit the propagation of sound emanating form the airport. A large scale system in Schiphol has reduced ground noise by 2-3dB and took two years to construct. Reduced engine taxi or electric tugs can be used to reduce engine usage on the ground either by operating on a single engine or by using a system to manoeuvre the aircraft without the use of its engines. 47

49 Ground and gate operations - Best practice from around the world Engine run ups at high RPMs or noisy aircraft are restricted in the overnight period. Vancouver has built a ground run up pen which reduced ground noise by 50% (15dB). Airports tend to have ground power units and preconditioned air-conditioning units installed at the gate, but requirements to make use of these systems are not applied. Montreal and Air Transat are trialling a wheel tug system. Istanbul Ataturk has prescriptive APU operating limits and restricts engine ground running in the night period. Engine ground runs are restricted in the overnight period. San Francisco and Los Angeles and have ground running monitoring systems. The system at LA is publicly available. APU usage is limited on stands at noise sensitive airports such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and John-Wayne. But restrictions are not typically applied at the other airports. Los Angeles and Chicago O Hare have constructed sound barriers around the airport perimeter to reduce the noise impact. Almost all airports limit engine testing in the overnight period. Like the US some airports, Frankfurt monitors ground running with a 57dbA limit in the day and 50dBA at night. Prescriptive limits are applied for APU usage on stands this includes time limits. Limits on reverse thrust on landing including a ban (unless safety requires) in the overnight period. Pilots are requested to use minimal thrust when manoeuvring. Landscaping used for sound barriers. Limited restrictions on engine ground running locations and test durations. No APU restrictions could be found. Limitations on engine testing, Auckland track noise using a 7 day rolling average of 55 dba LDN with a 75dBA Lmax limit in the overnight period. Sydney supports the use of single engine taxi and reduced APU usage on stand. 48

50 Ground and gate operations - Engine run ups Overview of research The research highlighted that the majority of airports apply a limitation on engine run ups, with a sub-set applying additional restrictions. Airports applying engine run up restrictions No publicly available information Additional noise management initiatives 6 5 Although the specific nature of these limitations varied they generally limited the number of ground runs, duration and power settings during the night. The night-time period was defined anywhere between 2100 and 0700, with the most common definition being between 2300 and In this period 11 restricted ground testing by applying power, location, time limits or an outright ban on testing. A chart on the next page provides an overview of this practice. The six airports which applied additional initiatives to manage the noise generated by ground runs included (also see separate case studies): Purpose built ground run-up pens Monitoring systems to manage, approve or decline engine testing requests. Reporting on the number of engine run ups that took place in either the last month, quarter or year. 15 Airports applying a limitation on engine run ups Case Study - Both Los Angeles And San Francisco have engine testing monitoring systems consisting of cameras and sound monitors. The system is used to track compliance with the restrictions and the approved testing request. The system at Los Angeles is publicly available through a website address as shown across. Case Study - Both Vancouver and Chicago O Hare have installed a ground run up pen. The pens work by either diverting or absorbing sound and reduce ground noise from engine running by up to 50% or between 10 to 15 db. Although the pen reduces the sound, the same engine testing restrictions apply as if it was taking place outside the pen. The publicly available ground running monitoring system at Los Angeles Airport Source: The ground run-up enclosure at Vancouver airport Source: Case Study - In Auckland, engine ground testing is monitored using a maximum noise value of 55dBA Ldn with an Lmax of 75dBA over a 7 day period. Effectively moderating the noise output from engine testing over a weekly period. 49

51 Ground and gate operations - Engine run up benchmarking 50

52 Monitoring, reporting and enforcement - APU operating restrictions Overview of research Just over 50% airport researched with information available applied some form of restriction on the use of APU. Airports applying APU operating restrictions No publicly available information Applied no APU restrictions 4 10 The restrictions varied in terms of stringency, but all intended minimise use of the APU when the aircraft is on the stand with the restrictions using the following wording the APU should be shutdown as soon as practical following parking on the stand. Often these restrictions also stated how long after (i) arriving on stand the APU should be shut down and (ii) how many minutes before departure it should be switched on. All European airports, along with Istanbul Ataturk, applied these APU restrictions at all times of the day. LA, John- Wayne and San Francisco applied limited restrictions based upon stand location and time periods. For example, San Francisco only applies limitations at the domestic terminal between 2200 and Heathrow and Gatwick were the only airports to undertake audits and on the spot checks. These audits are publicly available in the flight performance reports. 12 Airports applied APU operational restrictions Case Study - Both Heathrow and Gatwick apply the same restrictions on APU usage, this is included within the airports aeronautical information publication within a section controlled by the Department for Transport. The restrictions are shown below: Aircraft type Before scheduled departure After arrival on stand Narrow Body aircraft No more than 15 minutes 10 minutes Wide body aircraft, A300, A310, A330, A340, B747, B777, B787 etc. No more than 50 minutes Or not more than 90 mins prior to departure when the FEGP has not been upgraded to provide enough power to support the FMS. 10 minutes APU operational limits as per the AIP, Source EGKK AIP: 703A80648F8F74C6A637AC48FC23D00B/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2 _EGKK_en_ pdf Extensions to these times are allowed in specific conditions such as when the aircraft is under tow or if the temperatures reach high or low extremes to manage passenger comfort. The airport operational teams at both airports conduct audits on compliance. The results of the audits are publicly reported in yearly reports. Reported APU compliance Source Gatwick Flight Performance Team Annual Report, source: 51

53 Monitoring, reporting and enforcement - Special and unique practices Case Study - following the opening of the 5 th runway at Schiphol airport residents in the area were subjected to an increase in low frequency noise from take-offs. Due to the low-lying and flat terrain surrounding Schiphol, this noise could be heard up to 18 miles away. To mitigate the impact of noise, the airport undertook a study which reported that there was a reduction in noise following the end of the harvest and the ploughing of the fields as the furrows both deflected and absorbed the sound. To build upon this finding the airport undertook a large scale landscaping project was commenced to create parks made up of numerous ridges to both absorb and deflect the noise. In total 150 perfectly straight and symmetrical six foot (1.82 metre) ridges were created over an area of 80 acres (0.36 km squared). When complete the park reduced the noise by 5.5dB at a cost of 3million euros. Other airports including Gatwick and Los Angeles have made use of similar civil engineering projects to reduce the impact of noise around the airport. Case Study - There are options available to reduce emissions on the airport surface, this focusses on a reduction in engine use. The procedures in this area varied and can often be airline specific rather than airport specific but our research has highlighted the following practises/technologies: Frankfurt applies restrictions on engine use so that any manoeuvre that doesn t lead to take-off must be done with a tug. Airlines are adopting reduced engine operations (e.g. single engine taxi on a twin engine aircraft). These procedures tend to be within the airline specific Standard Operating Procedures to reduce fuel burn rather than being specific to a particular airport Airlines and system manufacturers are developing electric systems to allow aircraft to taxi with no engine power. This includes the: WheelTug system is currently under FAA certification on the Boeing 737NG. This system has been trialled at Montreal in association with Air Transat. A Honeywell and Safran joint venture which has developed a system which will enter service in late 2016/early 2017 as a retrofit for A320 family and Boeing 737 jets. Aerial photo of the Schiphol Buitenschot Land Art Park, source: rojects/land-art-parkbuitenschot A WheelTug system installed on an Air Transat Boeing 737, Source t/2017/01/air-transat-to-testfuelsaving-taxiing-system/ 52

54 Land use planning Research summary

55 Land use planning - Overview Introduction This area of research investigated how aviation noise influenced land use in the vicinity of an airport. Typical practices In relation to land-use and airport/aircraft noise, the research has focussed on two main areas land use planning and noise mitigation schemes. Land use planning: 20 of the 26 airports researched published, or provided access to City, State or Federal websites covering rules on land use around their airport. In the majority of cases rules will be set regarding land use around airports. Typically these rules that will state, within a given noise contour, either to restrict development altogether, restrict development of certain land uses or allow the development subject to certain conditions (e.g. requirements for noise insulation). Rather than having a single set of rules, a number of airports have a tiered approach to land use around an airport. 3 or 4 zones are be defined, with each zone having more stringent land use restrictions the closer it is to the airport. Policy on land use around an airport is typically provided by the Federal Government for the entire country. These rules are then often augmented by local authorities. Noise insulation schemes: Land use zones around an airport can also specify the need for sound insulation to be provided for dwellings and public buildings such as schools. Just over half of the airports researched currently have, or have operated a noise insulation scheme. Almost all airports made use of noise contours, along with other criteria, to determine which properties were eligible for sound insulation. Some airports had different insulation zones (i.e. higher levels of insulation were provided the closer the zone to the airport) or provided daytime and night-time insulation schemes. The type of insulation provided varied from ventilation/double glazing in bedrooms only to insulation of roofs, doors and all windows. Whether this was full or partly funded again varied by airport, distance from the airport and type of scheme (e.g. daytime/night time). The impetus for schemes included those being voluntarily set up by airports, the availability of government grants or as part of expansion plans. Schemes were found to be administered by a mixture of local authorities, airports and government departments. Typically funding comes from the government (sometimes via aviation taxes) or the airport (via noise charges levied on airlines see quieter fleet section). 54

56 Land use planning - Best practice from around the world AOA defined using NEF contours between 25 and 30. Transport Canada guidelines apply to: Discourage development above NEF 30 Insulate between NEF 25 and 30 Municipal/provincial guidelines can overrule Federal guidance. Ottawa notes that weather insulation mitigates sound and Montreal applying the following restrictions: Discourage development above NEF 35 Insulate between NEF 30 and 35 Typically construction allowed inside NEF25/30 contour if building is sufficiently insulated. Limited information could be found on specific local noise insulation program. Vancouver requests realtors to inform buyers of noise impacts. AOA not formally defined but a similar metric is the noise contour typically based upon the 65 DNL metric. FAA Part 150 study required to develop current and future noise impacts to align local land policy. Land policy rules are typically as follows: No build above 70 LDN with compulsory purchase of extant properties in some areas Insulation between 65 and 70LDN and realtors will need to inform buyers of noise impacts No build of noise sensitive buildings within 65 LDN contour Local rules can overule FAA guidance, JFK airport notes that if local noise is higher than aviation, construction can go ahead regardless of contour. Noise insulation schemes are used. These are majority funded by the FAA with input from Airport and aim to cut interior noise by at least 5dB. There are limits on noise insulation applicability dependant on housing age. AOA not formally defined but noise contours available. Land use policy varies between countries but is typically based upon zones based on noise contours. Both Amsterdam and Copenhagen have clear policy based upon contours and zones as defined below: Copenhagen note that no-one should be exposed to sound levels above 55 db Lden at airports and 45dB Lden at airfields. Amsterdam use 4 zones, zone 1 (safety) and zone 2 (noise) involve purchase and demolish. Zone 3 involves no new building. Zone 4 is restricted building. Almost all airports have a noise insulation scheme, based upon 60/65 dba noise contours adapted for local or geographic boundaries. The scope and level of insulation varies depending on the contour and some airports apply different day/night contours to determine the scope of the noise insulation program. Funding is often provided by the airport, but the State provides funding in Amsterdam, Brussels and Copenhagen. No information on land use planning could be found. Limited information could be found, only 1 airport defined the AOA as the NEF 25 contour. Zoning laws based upon the NEF 25 and 30 contours depending on country. Sydney AOA is defined as the airport perimeter, whilst it is based upon the 55dB contour in Auckland. Cities have guidelines on the type of construction allowed in specific areas based upon noise contours. Houses affected by noise have a note listed on their land registry record. Noise insulation schemes in operation and funded by the airport, this is based upon the contour in which you reside. ANEI 25 in Australia and 60dBA contour for airborne and 57dBA for ground noise in Auckland. Auckland must make a noise insulation offer every year and tracks progress. 55

57 Land use planning - Land use restrictions Land use restrictions Policy on land use around an airport was typically provided by the Federal Government for the entire country. These were typically in the form of restrictions based upon noise contours which either: Restrict development all together: Sometimes including mandatory purchase of buildings already inside the contour. Restrict development of certain land uses: Such as residential developments or public buildings. Allow the development subject to certain conditions: For example, the use of noise insulation programmes or identification in the land registry that a residential building is subject to aircraft noise. Although guidance was provided by the Federal Government, in some areas this could be augmented by local planning laws. In some cases this has led to a variation in planning rules between different neighbourhoods that are close to an airport but fall under the jurisdiction of different local authorities. In the United States a Part 150 study seeks to review and align policy with the future development of the airport. This process is covered in a case study on the next page. Despite being a national/local government responsibility, 20 of the 26 airports researched either directly provided information of land use rules around their airport or provided information on how to access this information. Case Study - Transport Canada provide guidelines on land use within certain areas. Development within the NEF 30 contour is discouraged and insulation is recommend within the NEF 25 contour. However in Montréal, city guidance prohibits residential development within the NEF 35 contour and requires soundproofing within the NEF 30 contour. Land use zones and noise contours A number of airports have a tiered approach to land use around an airport. 3 or 4 zones are be defined, with each zone having more stringent land use restrictions the closer it is to the airport. Examples are shown in the case study below, and on the following page. Case Study - In Auckland land use planning is based upon noise contours as follows: High Aircraft Noise Area (HANA) above 65 dba Ldn, Moderate Aircraft Noise Area (MANA) dba Ldn, Aircraft Noise Notification Area (ANNA) dba Ldn. These areas are used to apply certain planning restrictions on new buildings and make use of mitigation strategies for those already affected. For new educational buildings, this includes an assessment of the current noise environment to determine the required noise insulation, of which 50% of the costs will be paid for by the developer with the remainder provided by the airport authority. A land use memoranda is added to the land registry if a property is within these zones to note that it is currently subject to, or may be subject to, aviation noise in the future. 56

58 Land use planning - Land use zone and noise contours The following airports either publicly state their land use zoning guidelines, or have links to the relevant local, state or federal guidance: Airport Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Notes United States airports 70 db DNL, no new build, potential for compulsory purchase 65 to 70 db DNL, noise insulation area 65 db DNL, no new build of noise sensitive buildings Canada / Toronto NEF 30 and above, no new residential development Australia Above ANEI 40, (70dB Ldn) mandatory purchase and conversion to parks ANEI 30 to 40, residential sound insulation ANEI 25 to 40, public building sound insulation Public building is defined as a school, church, hospital, day care centres etc.) New Zealand Above 65dB, 100% funding for noise insulation programs Above 60dB, 75% funding for noise insulation programs Above 57dB, (ground noise) noise insulation program No percentage cofunding is reported for the 57dB ground noise contour Amsterdam Demolition for safety or high noise levels typically located around runway ends No new build of housing or businesses. Areas for noise insulation Previously restricted new housing development but now permits development in urban areas only Zones based upon the national spatial study 57

59 Land use planning - Land use zoning case studies Case Study - Following the Independent Arrivals Review at Gatwick Airport, it was identified that a joint review of land use policy was required. The airport has engaged with local planning authorities to share best practice and align working relationships using a land use workshop. Ongoing works have been identified to create an airport owned planning portal to provide information on noise contours, aircraft tracks and other relevant aviation information for planning purposes. Case Study - Within its 2033 master plan, Sydney airport provided a summary of the land use surrounding the airport. This included specific areas allocated by the City of Botany Bay to the airport and infrastructure works to support ongoing development, along with the management of the areas surrounding the airport. The area dedicated to the airport is shown in yellow, with zoning around the runway ends in industry allocated in purple and low density residential shown in red. Sydney 2033 Master plan Figure 11.2, existing land use around Sydney Airport, Source: ort.com.au/corporate/~/ media/files/corporate/en vironment%20plan/mast er%20plan/2033/chapte r%2011_land%20use% 20plan.pdf?force=1 Case Study - In the US, Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning outlines a methodology for the production of: Noise exposure maps. Development of land use compatibility programs. This includes the development of noise abatement procedures. Although the study is voluntary, the results are the primary vehicle for the application of federal grants for noise abatement projects, in particular noise insulation. The study involves the production of noise contours for the current and future (5 year) fleet mix. This is used to review the current and future land use plans and noise abatement procedures. Although looking at current and future land use and development, it is not an update to the airports master plan. Local citizens, public agencies and airport users were encouraged to engage in the study through public workshops and hearings. The final report along with the noise maps are publicly available. San Francisco airport is currently updating its part 150 study to ensure the continuation of funding for its noise mitigation programs including the sound insulation program. The study involved two public workshops and information sharing. The study has developed noise contours to align current and future land use planning based upon: 70 db CNEL no new build, potential for compulsory purchase, 65 to 70 db CNEL, noise insulation area, 65 db CNEL no new build of noise sensitive buildings. 58

60 Land use planning - Land use zoning case studies Case Study - Following a National Spatial Study looking at current and future land use, the zones around Amsterdam Schiphol airport were updated and expanded. The zones which are outlined in the figure opposite and includes zones for airport development and corresponding areas for building demolition on both safety and noise grounds along with zoning covering limited and restrictive development. A recent review of airport usage and housing requirements has since led to the adaptation of the previous rules as highlighted in figure opposite. As it is now forecast that an extra 300,000 homes will be required in the Greater Amsterdam Metro area by 2040, the following restrictions have changed/been updated in the short term: The area allocated to the airport, in the centre of the coloured zones has been updated to take account of future development and traffic levels. Accordingly the areas marked in red, orange and green have also been updated but this has not increased their overall size. National planning restrictions in the purple zone have been relaxed in urban areas, it has been agreed that municipalities will enforce planning policy. This relaxation is focused on urban areas only and continues to restrict development outside these areas to allow aviation to develop. In the medium to long term, the Schiphol Airport Environment Council has been tasked to develop a framework to support and balance the future development of the airport, airspace and construction of housing and businesses in the surrounding areas. Demolition zones (safety). Demolition Zones (noise). No new build of offices, business and homes, and insulation zone. No new build of housing or redevelopment allowed The Amsterdam Schiphol land use zoning. Source: ekbas.nl/# 59

61 Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes Existence of noise insulation schemes Of the airports researched, just over half currently have, or have operated a noise insulation scheme. Most put the emphasis on residents to make applications. However, 6 airports operated proactive schemes which directly engaged with local communities (see Auckland case study). Airports with a noise insulation scheme No information available or no scheme 10 6 Proactive insulation Insulation provided schemes The type insulation provided varies greatly from the installation of double glazing and ventilation through to complete sound insulation schemes. For the airports which published information, the following works were included: 7 airports offered complete home sound insulation programs, which included aspects such as double glazing, loft/wall insulation and ventilation systems. The majority of these airports were in the US. 6 airports offered double glazing or ventilation systems. Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Zurich provide more than one insulation scheme. For example, Heathrow has day-time, night-time and quieter homes schemes, each of which provides different levels of sound insulation (see page 10 Has a noise insulation scheme 67). In addition, some airports offer to purchase housing which was affected by the worst noise levels. Eligibility for sound insulation Almost all airports made use of noise contours to determine which properties were eligible for sound insulation. Examples of eligibility criteria as a follows (further information can be found in the case studies): The 6 US airports used the 65dB CNEL contour; Copenhagen used the 65dB Lden contour; Sydney airport used the ANEI 25 contour; and Auckland airport used the 60dBA contour. As mentioned above, airports such as Heathrow apply more than one scheme, with each scheme have a different eligibility criteria. Heathrow and Gatwick have also taken pragmatic steps to adapt their contours to ensure, for example, that the scheme doesn t stop half way along a street. In addition to the noise contours, eligibility criteria often apply. This includes: Properties must be built before a certain year (in the US this is set as 1998 and is based upon Federal Legislation), but varies depending on when the scheme was established; Claims can t be made for previous insulation works; In the US, interior noise within an eligible property must be above 45dB DNL. 60

62 Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes Impetus for noise insulation schemes The reasons for starting a noise insulation scheme varies, but in most cases it is part of a plan for airport development, government initiatives or a voluntary plan. Our research has shown that: Legislation, voluntary schemes & development: Both Heathrow and Gatwick undertake insulation programmes voluntarily under Section 79 of the UK Civil Aviation Act of 1982, but both airports have recently expanded the offering as part of expansion plans. Airport development: Copenhagen, Sydney and Frankfurt all undertook noise insulation schemes in response to expansion plans such as new runways. However, for Frankfurt this was through a voluntary scheme not enforced by Government. Availability of Government funding: In the US, under a Part 150 airport noise compatibility study, noise insulation programmes were identified as a potential mitigation method eligible for federal funding. Due to the availability of funding and community concerns, noise insulation schemes were started. Source of funding for noise insulation schemes Funding was linked to the reasons for the program and the country in which the airport was located. For the airports that provided information, the following funding was used: Federal Grants: In the US, 6 airports used a Part 150 airport noise compatibility study as a means to implement a noise insulation program. This was supported through Federal Grants which can provide between 75% to 90% of the total cost. Funding comes from the taxation of airspace users. Noise charges: Four airports made use of noise charges levied on airlines and/or passengers to fund noise insulation schemes Government funds: Two airports made use of Government funds for which the exact source could not be identified. Provision of insulation to recipients All of the insulation programmes researched used an external contractor to assess, process and install noise insulation at the recipients property. Although all programmes made use of the same process, the funding provided to cover the work varies, for the airports which provided information this ranged between the following values: The provision of a fixed amount: Two airports, Gatwick and Paris Charles de Gaulle provides a fixed amount towards total cost determined by the airports contractor. Part funding: Three airports provided funding toward the total cost of the insulation, this ranged between 50 and 75% with the total cost determined by the airports contractor. Complete funding: Seven airports, of which five were in the US, provided complete funding towards the cost of the noise insulation provided under the program. Auckland was the only airport which funded 75% of the cost of noise insulation at newly constructed schools in the insulation area. 61

63 Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes Case Study - Heathrow airport has three noise insulation schemes which are based upon noise contours and time of day: Day noise scheme which based upon the 69dB Leq 18h contour. It includes 8,500 houses that are affected by noise after 0600 and during the day. It covers free loft insulation and ventilation and 50% of the cost of double glazing. Night noise scheme which is based upon the 90dB SEL noise footprint of the noisiest aircraft. It includes 41,000 houses that are affected by noise between 2330 and It covers free loft insulation and ventilation and 50% of the cost of double glazing in the bedroom. The quieter homes initiative includes the 1,200 homes closest to the airport and includes custom made noise solutions. This is undertaken at no cost to the resident. The airport manages the programme internally and makes use of a single contractor to undertake the works. Scale of airport noise insulation programmes The scale of the noise insulation programmes varies significantly. By comparing the total funding available and the number of properties insulated the various noise insulation programmes can be compared as shown in the figure below. Scheme management The insulation schemes are either managed by the airport directly, or more commonly by a public body such as the local City or central Government. Of the airports researched that published information, the following bodies were responsible for the management of the program: Local authority: The six US airports assign the management of the scheme to the relevant local City, which can often involve more than one City per airport; Airport: Four airports manage the programme internally; Government department: Three airports had schemes managed directly by Government departments such as Infrastructure or Environment. The following noise insulation schemes are closed (figures in brackets denote the year of closure - John Wayne (2009), Sydney (2000), Brussels (2004) and Copenhagen (2016)). For these schemes the spend per building at the time of closure has been recalculated to 2017 values. 62

64 Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes and case studies Case Study - The residential noise insulation Program at Chicago O Hare is one of the largest schemes in the United States and to date the program has insulated 10,900 homes. The program has reached a total expenditure of $200 million (US dollars) which is made up of a mixture of FAA grants and airport funds. In 2005 the FAA determined the noise insulation programme to be the best mitigation as part of expansion at Chicago O Hare and therefore allowed for the use of Federal Grants. Prior to this date the airport had funded the programme itself. The decision made the by FAA required all properties within the 65dB DNL noise contour and built before 2005 to be insulated. The programme is overseen by the Chicago O Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) with the assistance from external building contractors who are certified to undertake works and carry specific airport supplied ID badges. The contractors will conduct an initial survey and will offer options to insulate the property. The option offered are based upon the interior noise level and will include works such as window modifications, improvements to main and storm doors along with the installation or upgrade of air conditioning systems. In any case, the home owner is responsible for choosing the insulation option that meets there needs. ONCC contractors conduct a post installation survey to confirm that the insulation has reduced interior noise by at least 5dB in accordance with FAA guidance. The noise insulation programs are managed by six local jurisdictions, or cities, who use a variety of methods to select properties including: first come first served, lottery and noisiest first. These jurisdictions have the authority to choose which buildings they are interested in insulating, this includes public buildings, mutli-family residences and/or rental properties in addition to housing. Eligible properties are identified on a yearly basis and the city will write a letter to the properties which have been selected in each phase. The letter asks the owner if they would like to participate in the programme, and outlines the process involved. The letter is supported by a handbook which provides an overview of how noise propagates in properties and the works which can be undertaken to limit the impact of noise. This handbook is also given to residents who are not in the insulation program for information. In addition to the letter, the airport conducts informative briefings on the programme and maintains a showroom of the available insulation treatments. Progress is tracked and reported publicly to the ONCC and in addition an online mapping tool is publicly available from the City of Chicago, as shown below. This tool shows the homes insulated to date along with the locations of the homes which are planned for insulation in future phases of work. The ONCC has previously conducted surveys on residents who had participated in the scheme. The survey reported that 94% of residents had an improved or greatly improved quality of living, with 98% saying that they would recommend the scheme to their neighbours. Chicago O Hare online GIS tool for sound proofing assessment and awareness Source: Web/ 63

65 Land use planning - Noise insulation schemes and case studies Case Study - Sydney airport had a noise insulation scheme which was managed by the Department of Infrastructure. It was introduced following an increase in noise complaints after the opening of a new runway. The programme was funded by a noise levy on airlines and sought to insulate properties based upon the: ANEI 30 contour for residential properties, ANEI 25 for public buildings. The program included insulation, double glazing and air conditioning works and insulated a total of 4,083 houses and 99 public buildings. In addition, 147 properties were brought, demolished and turned into parkland. The scheme had a maximum cap of 60,000 Australian dollars per property, but at the end of the project, an average of 81,000 dollars was spent due to the number of noise sensitive public buildings and lightweight housing. The program has since been subjected to a detailed independent review on its effectiveness, conducted by the University of New South Wales, with the results publicly available. The report noted that the overall improvement delivered by the program had been good. A suitable reduction in sound level had been achieved for brick based structures, however lightweight structures required more extensive work to take account of the additional sound insulation required in the walls. The report noted that there was a reliance on the installation contractor to identify and install suitable insulation systems. A lack of detail on the correct installation of items such as door and window seals, along with limited post installation survey was the main reason for a low reduction in interior noise following the works. A post installation review of any sound insulation works was recommended. Case Study - Auckland airport has a noise insulation scheme which is funded by the airport. The scheme is based upon noise contours which denote the funding level available: Within the 65dBA Ldn contour the airport must provide 100% of the costs of insulation Within the 60dBA Ldn contour the airport must provide 75% of the costs of insulation, however a 25% top-up is available from the community fund to assist lower income residences. Residences within the 57dBA ground noise contour are eligible The insulation package includes the installation of heating and ventilation systems to maintain a healthy home with the windows closed. Only housing built before 2001 is eligible for the scheme, however the airport is required to fund noise insulation schemes at new schools built within the contour, to a total value of 75% of the works. The airport produces several documents to introduce the noise insulation program, the potential works on offer and the process for consultation and installation. In addition the airport is required to actively engage with residents and will make an offer every 12 months to affected properties, even if that property has previously declined the offer. Auckland airport noise insulation information brochure and background information Source: 64

66 Noise complaints Research summary

67 Noise complaints - Overview Introduction Airports receive complaints about aircraft noise from local communities. Complaints have been researched three areas: Complaints process how complaints are made. Complaints policy how the complaints are handled. Complaints reporting - how complaints are reported upon and analysed. Typical practices Complaints process how complaints are submitted: Airports typically provide a number of different options for communities to submit complaints. This is to account for the different demographics that can be affected by aircraft noise. Online forms, dedicated online tools and phone lines were the most prevalent methods available. Dedicated online tools, such as the WebTrak system used at Toronto Pearson can link the complaint to an individual aircraft. The majority of airports accepted complaints about specific aircraft and/or general complaints. Complaints policy how complaints are handled: Half of the airports researched provided some information on how complaints were handled. Some of these detailed the conditions under which they would provide responses, their target response time and specific policies on communication with high frequency complainants. Complaints reporting: Several airports reported on the number of complaints received each month, quarter or year. The methods of reporting and level of additional detail provided varied significantly. It was most common for airports to provide complaints data in traditional print friendly report which included data on the number of complaints and location of complainants. However, other information, such as the number of complainants and reason for the complaint was provided less often. Special and unique practices Responding to complaints: In addition to responding to complaints in writing/by phone, San Francisco airport provides responses to complaints via Community Round Table events. These events are a useful forum for acknowledging and addressing complaints and can also help improve the airport s understanding of noise concerns. Use of online tools: Gatwick airport provides an interactive platform for viewing complaints data as part of its Casper system. It is a useful method of providing relevant, detailed and up to date complaints data. Regional trends Whether or not an airport chose to accept complaints and provide any additional related information is not dependent on the region. It appears to be up to the airport s discretion although proximity to local communities is a key factor. 66

68 Noise complaints - Best practice from around the world Online complaint forms are widely used. Hotlines are also available (24/7 at YVR and Calgary). Montreal and YVR also accept complaints. Toronto and Vancouver accept Webtrak complaints. Complaints are logged and investigated. GTAA responds on request whereas Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa respond if appropriate. Calgary provide a response time of 3 days. Complaints reporting varies per airport but includes total complaints broken down into reasons and geographical locations including numbers of complainants. Vancouver separates top 5 chronic complainers from graphs and charts to avoid skew. Complaints are reported to the Montreal Community consultative committee. No information available on complaints. Complaints are accepted through the normal means. O Hare are considering introducing a web chat to accept complaints. Complaints policy is only available for San Francisco and Los Angeles. San Francisco investigates to see if NAP has been broken. Response are provided in writing, phone or at community round table. At Los Angeles, staff investigate up to 5 complaints a month per complainant. Responses provided by letter if requested. Monthly reports describe number of complaints and complainers in a table and on a map, and per aircraft type. Los Angeles provide a record of all noise complaints and responses online - provides a transparent record. Complaints can be made via phone, , online form or Webtrak (where applicable). Schiphol require you to create an account and fill in a detailed questionnaire to register a complaint. Complaints policy is not readily available but where it is, they will be typically responded to within 3-10 days. Responses provide as much information as possible. The reporting of complaints is carried out at some airports including Amsterdam, Gatwick and Heathrow, where provided they typically include the total number of complaints and complainants. Gatwick reports on the geographical spread of complainants, this information is also available online via their Casper flight tracking tool. For regular complainers, if no new information is available, complainers will be notified of the airport s intention to register but not respond to complaint (Heathrow, Gatwick). Brussels has an independent noise complaints body and Amsterdam has a joint airport/ansp complaints handling team. Complaints and complaint policy is reviewed by the NATMAG group at Gatwick, a joint industry and community working group. Complaints in Hong Kong can be made to CAD via 24hr hotline, fax, or in writing. Complaints are investigated and a response provided. HK report complaints in the airport sustainability performance indicators as per 1 million passengers. All complaints are handled by AirServices rather than the airport. Complaints can be made via phone, CASPER/Webtrak, online, mail. In Sydney an interpreter is also available 24/7 in 18 languages. Airports investigate and respond to complaints. Sydney caveat by saying they will respond within 21 days if complaint is relevant and not abusive. Sydney produces quarterly reports which covers complainants only. In Auckland a written responses are provided to all complaints. Auckland reviews complaints in community consultation group. 67

69 Noise complaints Complaints process Submission of complaints Complaints were accepted via the following methods. Complaint method Number of airports Online form 17 Online tools (e.g WebTrak, Casper) 10 Phone 16 Information requested Thirteen airports enabled complaints to be made against a specific aircraft, typically via online flight tracking tools such as WebTrak and Casper. This enables the investigation process to be more targeted and efficient. Two airports were found to only accept complaints about a specific aircraft type via their online systems. 6 Letter 6 Other 3 Of the 16 airports accepting complaints by phone, 5 specified that their phone lines are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Examples of airports using newer approaches were also found. Chicago O Hare is investigating introducing a live web chat function to accept complaints. Los Angeles airport has introduced a mobile application that can accept complaints Case study 24/7 interpreters. The complaints process at Sydney airport is similar to other airports in that it accepts complaints via an online form, WebTrak, mail or telephone. To accommodate all those potentially affected by aircraft noise a telephone interpreter service is available in 18 different languages. The service is available at all hours and is free to use. It is noted that complaints for Sydney and other airports in Australia are managed by the air navigation service provider, Airservices Australia, which may provide some economies of scale to provide a translator service. For the seven airports accepting general complaints only, complainants were given a general comment box to comment but no specific aircraft information was requested by the airport. 68

70 Noise complaints Complaints policy Availability of policy Thirteen of the 26 airports researched made some aspect of complaints policy available to the public. Some complaints policies detailed the conditions under which responses will be provided to complainants. This includes: When responses will be provided. How long complainants can expect to wait for a response. Limits on the number of complaints that can be handled for each complainant. Complaints against specific aircraft must be made within 10 days of the event: Amsterdam Schiphol airport state that noise complaints can only be accepted for aircraft that have operated within the past 10 days. Response to complaints Policies on responses to complaints can be grouped as follows: Response always provided: Five airports indicated that they always provide responses to complaints. This is typically a written response. Amsterdam Schiphol note that although they will always provide a response, only causes of noise can be investigated. Response provided on request: Five airports provide responses to complaints on request. Some airports such as San Francisco allow complainants to specify whether they would like a call back or an response. Heathrow airport will invite high frequency complainants to visit the airport at their discretion. Los Angeles airport state that their reply will look at noise trends and comment on issues in the area. Response provided if appropriate - 3 airports. Response time Only 6 airports specified a response time to complaints. Airport San Francisco Calgary, Frankfurt Heathrow Response time 1 day (for call backs) 3 days 5 days Amsterdam 7 days * Sydney 21 days * Amsterdam Schiphol state that complainants will be notified if responses are not possible within 7 days 69

71 Noise complaints Complaints policy High frequency complainants A number of airports receive a high proportion of their complaints from a small number of complainants (see graph on the next page). Many of these airports have defined policies for high frequency complainants: Los Angeles airport state that their staff will investigate up to 5 noise complaints per person per month. Sydney airport states that if they have been contacted previously and a response has been provided, they may not respond if no further information can be provided. Additionally Sydney only reports on number of complainants. Heathrow and Gatwick airports have a policy on regular complainants (see case study below). Responsibility for complaints handling Most complaints are handled by the airport. However, it is not unusual for complaints to be handled by other bodies and organisations. Responsible party Airport 16 Local Government Air Navigation Service Provider Airport Committee Civil Aviation Authority Independent body Number of airports concerned 2 (Chicago O Hare, New York JFK) 1 (Sydney) 1 (Amsterdam Schiphol) 1 (Hong Kong) 1 (Brussels) Case study Handling regular complainants. Gatwick airport receive approximately 15,000 complaints per year. To ensure that they are able to give due consideration to all of those affected by the airport s activities, they have adopted a clear policy on handling regular complainants. It is expressed as follows: where we have repeatedly explained the policies and noise measures which affect a complainant s postcode area and previously supplied sufficient information to the extent that we are unable to further enhance understanding, we will notify the complainant of our intention only to register rather than respond to all future complaints Gatwick airport s noise complaints policy. Source Unknown (or no complaint information available) 5 70

72 Noise complaints example complaint policies published by airports Heathrow Heathrow has a short description of what happens to complaints on its website with a link to a more detailed policy 1. What happens with complaints Receiving complaints: We will respond to all complaints within five working days (as long as we have all the contact details we need). If we need to do more investigation, we will let you know within the five days and tell you when you will get a complete answer. Providing information: We aim to provide a full and comprehensive information service but we do have to consider the resources we have available, to ensure all complainants are treated equitably. Type of information provided: We supply information which explains the relevant procedures and includes maps for a complainant s postcode area. We will also do our best to provide details of particular flights. Use of complaint data: We only use your personal details for registering complaint details. We do not make them public or use them for any other purpose. All complaints are reported daily on our Heathrow Operational Data website, in the airport s quarterly Flight Performance Reports and to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC). We monitor complaints for trends to inform our noise management priorities but flight paths are not changed purely on the basis of the number of complaints received from a particular area. For more information read our complaints policy. Text taken sourced from: and

73 72

74 Noise complaints example complaint policies published by airports Gatwick Source: community/b_7_aircraft-noise/yla-complaints-handlingpolicy-2016.pdf 73

75 74

76 Noise complaints example complaint policies published by airports San Francisco Source: How do I File a Noise Report? Noise Complaint Hotline: Toll Free Noise Complaint Hotline: Noise Complaint sfo.noise@flysfo.com Mailing Address: Aircraft Noise Abatement San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA All information submitted is secure and not shared with other agencies. Members of the community can view flight tracks of aircraft operations at SFO either in real-time with a 10 minute delay or playback the desired time period. Click here to view flight tracks. When viewing a playback of flight tracks, double-clicking on the flight track gives detailed information for the flight. Investigating Noise Events The SFO Noise Monitoring System uses a combination of microphones and radar data to record and track aircraft events throughout the Bay area. Flight track information gathered includes single event and cumulative (over time) noise levels, time of day, aircraft type, altitude and airline. Using this data, staff can determine whether the event in question violated any noise regulations or established noise abatement procedures. Reports to Airport Community Roundtable Call tallies along with trends and recent events are reported on a bimonthly basis to the Airport Community Roundtable during its public meetings. Response to Citizens When making a complaint, if you request a call back or more information, you will receive a response from a noise abatement specialist. In general, first time complaints receive a written response. In some cases, especially at Community Roundtable meetings, responses are made personally. If you wish to be contacted by telephone, two attempts will be made to reach you and at least one message is left, if possible. During normal business hours (Monday Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm) a member of the Noise Abatement staff is available at , the main office number. 75

77 Noise complaints example complaint policies published by airports Sydney Source: content/uploads/11-147fac_complaints_management_web.pdf Note: Complaints made against Sydney Airport are managed by the Australian Air Traffic Control provider, Airservices. 76

78 77

79 Noise complaints example complaint policies published by airports Vancouver Source: 78

80 Airports (that report on complaints) w w w. a sk he l i o s. c o m Noise complaints Statistics on the number of complaints and complainants Number of complaints and complainants at different airports in the study Gatwick Heathrow Amsterdam Sydney John Wayne (SNA) Chicago O'Hare San Francisco Los Angeles Montreal Calgary Toronto Vancouver 108, ,890 4,058,1611 3,542, Number of complaints/complainants complainants (where data is available) complaints Figure: Number of complaints and complainants per year. Note that data comes from either 2015 or 2016 (whichever had complete annual data). Source: Airport noise reports Some airports (e.g. San Francisco) reported on the number of complainants each month (cannot be annualised). Chicago and San Francisco receive a high proportion of their complaints from a small number of complainants (e.g. in June 2016, San Francisco received 79,307 complaints from 437 residents). Sydney reports on complainants only. Amsterdam Schiphol received 120,000 complaints from 35 complainants in 2015.

81 Noise complaints Reporting and analysis of noise complaints Reporting of complaints The majority of airports researched report on complaints. These were grouped as follows: noise reports (ready for print) dedicated online platform website & reports website only none Traditional noise reports: The majority of airports produced ready to print reports on their website. These are produced monthly, quarterly or annually. Such reports vary greatly in terms of level of detail some (e.g. Montreal) report monthly on the total number of complaints and reasons why, while others (e.g. Chicago O Hare) provide additional information including the geographic distribution of complaints/complainants and times of day. Web-based reports: Four airports reported complaints data via their website. Heathrow s website provides statistics on the number of complaints received each day. Amsterdam Schiphol reports on complaints on a website as well as in traditional reports. A table is available on their website separating the number of high frequency complainants from others. Online platforms: Gatwick reports complaints using an online platform. Gatwick s Casper platform is interactive allowing users to obtain more specific information related to their postcode or time frame of interest. (see case study on next page). Analysis of complaints In addition to reporting on number of complaints, some airports further segment complaints or allow members of the public to do so. Some examples are summarised below and expanded upon in cases studies on the following pages. Vancouver provides data on complaints, complainants, type of operation and geographical location. Sydney segments complaints into reasons such as aircraft height, runway choice etc. It also provides a quarterly commentary of changes in complainants, the main issues raised and associated explanations. For a given post (zip) code Gatwick allows users to segment complaints by number of complainants, aircraft type/number of engines, hour and reason for the complaint. 80

82 Noise complaints Case study Case study use of online tools. Gatwick provides an interactive platform for complaints reporting via its Casper noise lab. The platform has been in use since 30 th September 2016 and provides live updates of not only complaints data but also noise monitor data and flight tracking. Complaints are presented on a map of the airport locale with each postcode (ZIP code) coloured according to the number of complaints received. The date range for viewing complaints can also be altered if the user wishes to understand the number and location of complaints during specific periods. about aircraft types are presented in this chart. Complaints by hour this chart describes the number of complaints received each hour within the desired time period. Complaints by number of engines this chart describes whether the complaint related to 2 or 4 engine jet aircraft or otherwise. Complaints by issue/statement this chart provides an overview of the key points made in complaints (e.g. aircraft should fly higher, flight paths should be dispersed over a wide area). Further detail is presented to the user if a specific postcode is selected. Charts are presented showing: Number of complainants and type of complaints this chart describes the number of individuals complaining and whether they submitted a generic complaint or complained about a specific aircraft. Complaints per aircraft type the top 3 most complained Gatwick noise lab complaints reporting. Source: b.casper.aer o/lgw/#page =complaints 81

83 Noise complaints Case study Case. study Separating complaints complainants. Vancouver airport reports on complaints within its annual noise reports. To avoid skewing the data and to enhance the airport s understanding of local noise concerns, the data is split between complaints and complainants. The reports contain simple maps and charts showing: Numbers and locations of complaints and complainants For example, in 2015, the airport received 1,667 complaints from 298 individuals. This was a 5% decrease in complaints and a 7% decrease in individuals compared to the previous year. Types of operation For example, in 2015, 25% of noise complaints were due to jet departures, 25% were due to jet arrivals and 2% were due to helicopters Case study Online reporting on the number of complainants only. Sydney airport reports on the number of complainants only. This is to help enable Airservices Australia to focus on analysis of noise issues and causal factors. Data is reported on an online platform in a clear and understandable manner. This includes a series of charts showing: Main issues of concern. Complainant location. Data explaining possible reasons for a spike in complainants. When Airservices Australia made the change from reporting on complaints to complainants only, the total number of complaints decreased by 70%. It is important to note that Sydney airport is the only airport in the study that reports on complainants only. Frequency and Geodistribution of Noise Concerns. Source: Complaints and complainants per year (2015 Annual Noise Report). Source: Noise concerns for the 869 complainants registered in Source: 82

84 Community outreach Research summary

85 Community outreach - Overview Introduction Airports undertake various activities to engage with local communities on aircraft noise. The purpose of engagement with local communities typically includes sharing information, gaining feedback and addressing specific topics. Research in this area primarily focuses on community forums similar to the CENAC group at Toronto. Typical practices Community forums: Are used to bring together the stakeholders who have a direct impact on, or are directly impacted by, aviation noise. This includes both industry and local stakeholders (i.e. elected officials and/or community representatives). Information sharing: Almost all airports will share information with communities. For example, online publications explaining the operation of the airport, activities to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise and reporting on noise metrics (e.g. complaints, noise monitor information etc.). basic information sharing using websites or reports through to collaboration using community engagement forums. Some airports undertake additional activities such as noise labs to further engage communities and provide an opportunity to share information. Special and unique practices Noise exhibits: Madrid-Barajas airport has an expoambiente area which is used to raise awareness of noise, highlight the airports work to improve the noise environment and provide an area for debate and presentation of environmental topics. Community engagement vehicles: Chicago O Hare airport, has a community engagement vehicle which attend local events to share information on airport operations and provide an opportunity for the local community to ask questions. Regional trends With the exception of airports in the Middle East and Asia, almost all airports researched undertaken some form of engagement with the local community. This varies from 84

86 Community outreach - Best practice from around the world Community forums are common throughout Canadian airports. Consultative and have no express authority. Generally, committees are chaired by the airport and attended by NAVCANADA, airline representatives, airport, Transport Canada, councillors and residents. Vancouver also invites tribal group representatives, industry groups and Department of Health. Only Vancouver and Toronto publish ToR: Relate to noise mitigation, adherence to targets and NAPs, land use etc. Meeting minutes highlight group have positive impact on NAP development and reporting (Calgary). Vancouver undertakes annual noise survey. No information available on community groups. Other than Hartsfield-Jackson, all other US airports have airport committees. Committees usually do not have direct engagement with communities as elected representatives are involved instead. There is a drive towards community roundtable events involving airport, city officials, FAA, airlines and community representatives (public allowed to watch and engage at certain times). Committees are usually chaired by somebody other than airport (Los Angeles use independent consultant). Groups usually meet every 2-3 months. Large groups (O Hare) meet more often. Groups often have sub-committees to focus on technical or other matters which are then brought to the main group. Community groups have improved NAPs: at Los Angeles this includes satellite departures, minimum overflight altitudes. At San Francisco and O'Hare, the groups introduced the FQ program. FAA has setup a national website which acts as a repository of knowledge to aid noise enquiries. Airport have own fact sheets as well as news feeds, twitter (although usage varies). O Hare has a community engagement vehicle. 50% of European airports have a community committee. Others have community engagement spaces or noise labs. Where committees exist they include airport, airline, community and Government representatives. They are usually chaired independently. Groups meet approx. 4 times a year. Aims are to discuss issues at the airport through engagement with community, develop workable solutions to problems. Some airports have additional groups that focus on specific tasks such as Gatwick s Noise and Track Keeping Group. Gatwick have recently undertaken an Independent Arrivals Review which has developed a number of recommendations to improve noise and created a Noise Management Board to oversee progress and the development of new actions. Independently chaired community groups composed government officials, airline representatives, elected MPs, community representatives. Public forums also exist at Auckland airport. Responsible for identifying community noise concerns, identifying mitigations to reduce impact and meeting minutes are published online. Sydney airport has a sub-group which monitors operations and noise. Both Sydney and Auckland engage with the community using either online information (videos) and an experience centre to explain how the airport operates and how it might impact residents. Sydney makes an concerted effort to engage: websites, phone lines, , adverts, and direct postal to 100,000 addresses, forums and FAQ sessions and door to door visits. No formal committees exist. Community outreach at Changi is charitable. At Hong Kong the Civil Aviation Department visited some councils to explain aviation noise. 85

87 Community outreach Membership of community forums Which airports have a dedicated forum Of the 27 airports investigated, 13 airports have a dedicated community engagement forum. Of the remaining 13 airports, 4 airports have undertaken ad-hoc community engagement activities such as consultations, studies and the provision of information. Airport community engagement programs Ad-hoc engagement No engagement 9 4 Membership of the community forum All of the forums included the following organisations: The airport, The Air Traffic Control Provider (ANSP), The safety regulator (and/or the relevant government department), A pilot or airline representative, Community members. Community members were drawn from one or both of the following: Elected officials i.e. councillors / members of parliament, (Non-elected) community representatives. 13 Community committee If the community representatives were involved they were required to represent a local area. No clear trend was seen in the inclusion of either community groups or elected officials. Some airports involved local noise lobby groups to provide this representation. Case Study - To determine which community groups sat on the newly created Gatwick Noise Management Board, Gatwick asked the 14 local noise action groups to nominate candidates to share 4 positions on the NMB. 8 groups were nominated and a consensus was developed amongst all 14 groups to determine the pairings to allow these 8 candidates to share the 4 positions. If community representatives did not sit on the forum, common practice was to include a public session as part of the forum. This could take the form of a Q&A session or a full public meeting. The structure of the Q&A sessions varied, from requesting questions in advance to a holding drop-in sessions. Typically all organisations represented on community forums were allowed to nominate a primary and reserve representative. 5 airports prescribed terms of between 2 to 4 years before these representatives require re-election. No airports applied restrictions on the seniority of forum representatives. However, representatives were generally required to be is competent in their position and able to make decisions on behalf of that organisation. Typically, community forums were found to involve leaders of lobby groups, mayors or members of parliament, senior managers 86 and company directors.

88 Community outreach Governance of community forums Authority and Chairmanship All groups researched held an advisory status (i.e. they could make recommendations but not mandate enforcement or apply penalties). All groups had a Chairman with some groups also using a Vice Chairman. More than 50% of the committees were not Chaired by the local airport. Instead the Chair and Vice Chair was typically another member on the forum who was elected by the committee, or a Chair selected for their independence. In some cases, it is understood that the election of a Chair was difficult and instead a mayor, member of parliament or an independent consultant was used. Structure The community forums researched typically involved up to 20 members, with the majority operating as a single group. However in some cases where the membership of these groups was larger, working groups or sub-committees are used to manage specific tasks. The Frankfurt Airport and Regional Forum, which has 60 members, provides a good example of committee structure involving a main committee and sub-groups. A case study is shown opposite. Although only five of the community forums researched use sub-groups, almost all forums held the mandate within their Terms of Reference to create subgroups, with the subgroup chair nominated by the chair, on an ad-hoc basis, to tackle specific issues.. Case Study - The Frankfurt airport and regional forum includes 60 representatives from the airport, airlines, pilots, research institutes, government and trade unions. The group is structured as follows: A 3 person board of directors (one from the airport operator, one community representative and a neutral (currently the head of the European Space Agency) representative). Steering committee decides the work of the forum. Expert group on active noise abatement researches and examines different options for active noise abatement. Airport and Region group undertake constructive dialogue on the airport and its effect on communities through discussion of environmental issues and supports the Steering committee. Environment and Communication centre inform communities of the forum s activities. Board of Directors Steering committee Expert group on Active Noise Abatement Airport and Region group Environment and Communication centre Structure of Frankfurt Airport and Region Forum, Source 87

89 Community outreach Community forum workplans Sub-groups and workplans The committees followed two clear trends with the majority operating with a dedicated workplan, or undertaking works to actively identify options for improvement. The remaining airports focused on reviewing the works undertaken by the airport. The workplan of community engagement committees Passive role mainly reviewing airport works and reports 6 If a workplan was in place, it had been developed by the committee before being recommended to the airport or ANSP. These workplans typically covered similar topics including: Noise and tack monitoring. Monitoring and reducing the impact of departures. Monitoring and reducing the impact of arrivals. Providing input into consultations, policy and legislation. The workplan would be regularly reviewed with progress reports made by the airport or ANSP to the committee. These reports would be made publicly available to ensure transparency. 8 Workplan and active engagement with airport Case Study - The Los Angeles community roundtable has developed an extensive work program to identify noise impacts in the surrounding communities and to recommend courses of action to reduce noise without shifting noise between communities. The workplan was developed and agreed by the entire roundtable. It is reviewed on an annual basis and was updated in January 2017, it currently covers the following topics: Provide input to, and review the FAA airspace redesign project; Monitor departures, go-arounds, arrivals, engine run-ups and the noise insulation scheme; Engage airlines on the A320 family whine ; Review noise metrics to update processes including the metrics used within the noise insulation programme; Establish relationships with other roundtables to increase influence; Engage with technical, legislative and regulatory updates. Each topic on the workplan is assigned a priority and workload from airport personnel to manage key topics with the available resources. Progress updates on each topic on the workplan are provided at the roundtable meetings. The minutes from these meetings are made publicly available on the airports website. The group has recently engaged with Untied Airlines who have committed to undertake the modification to their A320 family fleets to fit the vortex generators to reduce the impact of the A320 whine. This initiative was part of a joint action with San Francisco and Chicago O Hare community committees. 88

90 Community outreach - Additional case studies Case, Study - In the US is it is becoming more common for airports to host community roundtables. The San Francisco Community roundtable is a good example. The group meets every 2 to 3 months and is chaired by a member of the roundtable. The chair is elected by the other members with the position held for 12 months. Membership consists of elected officials who volunteer to represent their community and may take part in one of 5 standing sub committees which include the: Work programs subcommittee, Operations and efficiency subcommittee, Legislative subcommittee, Departures technical working group, Arrivals technical working group. Members of public can raise issues through their roundtable representative although time is provided for public comments. The forum has a dedicated website explaining their work and many resources available to help public understand noise issues. Evidence of the roundtable s activities/successes is publicly available as the round table: Publishes their annual work program online, Updates the public on the progress of its projects online and via social media. The round table s most significant success is the introduction of the airport s Fly Quiet program. Case Study - The Gatwick Noise Management Board (NMB) was formed as a result of an independent review of aircraft arrivals. The group is made up of representatives from the airport, tower and approach ANSP, the safety regulator, government transport department, local, parish and county councillors and community noise lobby groups. The group is chaired by an independent consultant and meets every 3 months with a public forum held once a year. The NMB is currently tasked with providing oversight on the implementation of the remaining 22 recommendations of the independent arrivals review to reduce the impact of arrivals noise. In just less than a year the board has supervised the implementation of the following changes: The introduction of a revised charging regime to promote the FOPP modification of the Airbus A320; Reviewed land use planning rules around the airport and shared best practice between planning authorities; Reviewed procedures to improve Continuous Descent Arrivals and have identified follow-on initiatives; Changed the minimum ILS joining point to reduce the concentration of approaching aircraft; Undertaken a review on the implementation of new technology including Time Base Separation along with AMAN and DMAN integration. To ensure transparency, the group publishes its meeting agendas, minutes and presentations online on a dedicated page on the airports website. 89

91 Community outreach - Additional community engagement initiatives Case Study - Sydney airport has a dedicated community engagement forum which is Independently chaired. Its membership includes Government officials, airline representatives, community representatives and Members of Parliament. It meets quarterly and allows 30 minutes for prearranged questions from the public. In addition to the community forum, the airport undertakes a dedicated and proactive process to engage with the public as part of infrastructure and airspace changes. The most recent engagement was undertaken as part of a runway upgrade and involved the following actions: Setup and management of a dedicated consultation website. Setup and management of phone lines for comments. Directed s providing information and updates. Adverts in the local media. Production and distribution of information brochures to over 100,000 residences. The organisation of community and stakeholder consultation meetings. The organisation of community question and answer sessions. Door to door visits. Case Study - Chicago O Hare airport is publicly owned and its engagement forum, the O Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) is made up of elected and city officials. In total 58 members are represented with a full time executive director and administrative assistant which manages three standing committees covering technical matters, the residential and schools noise insulation schemes. Ad-hoc standing committees are used to manage the fly quiet program, budgeting and governance. Across all of the standing and ad-hoc committees, the ONCC held 39 meetings in 2016, of which more than 20 were open for public attendance and the raising of comments. In addition, to the regular community engagement meetings, the ONCC has a mobile community engagement vehicle which travels to community events, festivals, schools, and libraries through out the year. The vehicle has video presentations and computer demonstrations that explain, among other things, the O'Hare Airport Noise Management System and noise profiles of different types of aircraft. The Chicago Department of Aviation community engagement vehicle attending an event, Source ces/publications/303-oncc-trifold final-web/file 90

92 Noise ombudsman Research summary

93 Noise ombudsman - Overview Overview A noise ombudsman is an independent body or person responsible for oversight and intervention in noise activities. Their typical responsibilities include: Complaints: Handling of complaints or oversight of the complaints process; Community: Review consultation processes and community concerns related to aircraft noise; and, Reviews: Reviews of specific aspects of noise management. More recently, proposals for ombudsman in the United Kingdom and United States have moved the emphasis of the role towards involvement in the airspace change process, in particular community engagement during this process. In the United States, the noise ombudsman is part of the FAA. The role is being revised through the FAA Community Accountability act, which is currently with the Senate. This act will put more emphasis on the ombudsman liaising with communities, including the appointment community ombudsman in each FAA region. In Belgium, the Airport Mediation Service acts as a complaints management service rather than a review and action body. In the UK, an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) has been proposed following the Airports Commission review into future aviation capacity. Although the role of ICCAN is still to be finalised, it is proposed to be focussed on airspace change and assisting communities. Case studies for each of the above are provided in the following pages. Existing ombudsman Currently, only Australia, the United States and Belgium have noise ombudsman: In Australia, a noise ombudsman has existed since The role of the ombudsman is to review complaints handling, monitor community consultation processes, monitor the presentation of noise data to the public and undertake targeted reviews of specific aspects of noise management. The ANO can make recommendations but these are non-binding. 92

94 Noise ombudsman - Best practice from around the world No noise ombudsman, Transport Canada has ultimate responsibility. No noise ombudsman exists in the Middle East. Noise ombudsman is part of the FAA. It acts as "serve as a liaison with the public on issues regarding aircraft noise" and "be consulted when the Administrator proposes changes in aircraft routes so as to minimize any increases in aircraft noise over populated areas. No reports of implementation or progress to meet the targets. It also has no jurisdiction over military matters. Brussels has the Airport Mediation Office which acts as an independent flight performance team for the airport, by collecting information, complaints and providing support to forums. Noise ombudsman recommended in the UK as part of the Airports Commission work onto future airport capacity. Ombudsman is currently under consultation. Noise ombudsman in existence in Australia. Time limits apply for historic complaints. Noise ombudsman is a single person. No noise ombudsman exists in the Far East, however in Hong Kong the Civil Aviation Department is responsible for noise management. 93

95 Noise ombudsman - Case studies Case Study - The Australian Noise Ombudsman (ANO) was founded in 2010 following a white paper on future aviation. The Ombudsman exists as an independent office funded by the Department of Infrastructure and regional development that: Reviews handing of complaints. Monitors and reports on the effectiveness of community consultation. Monitors the presentation and distribution of noise information. Provides targeted reviews of specific aspects of noise management. The ANO has a Service Charter which is publicly available and outlines its working practices, including timescales for responding to complaints, practices for investigation and information sharing throughout the investigation. Unlike other ombudsman, the ANO also has jurisdiction over military aviation. The ANO can take direct complaints but prefers to settle upon cases that have already been investigated and considered unsatisfactory by the complainant. The ANO has also published reviews on complaints handling and the presentation of noise information at Sydney/Perth. On conclusion of its investigations the ANO will provide an initial response to either Air Services or the Department of Defence to resolve the matter. If the ANO believes the response is not suitable the ANO has the power to make recommendations. If these are made, they are delivered to the responsible party in advance with 60 days to respond. The recommendations are non-blinding and they can either accept or reject the recommendations, but regardless of the decision the report is made public alongside a joint ANO, air services/department of defence press statement outlining the issues and the relevant response. (continued) The ANO will track and publicly report on progress against the recommendations generated by these reviews. The ANO also investigates specific noise issue such as the handling of airspace improvement proposals, specific peaks in complaints and military flying. The ANO has a legal/policy background and is supported by three staff. A new ANO was placed in post in February 2017 on a 3 year term. Case Study - The Noise Ombudsman in the United States is part of the FAA and was established in 1996 as part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorisation Act. The role is defined as follows, however no public reports are available after 1999: Review route changes over noise sensitive areas to assure process have been followed with appropriate consultation. Communicate with local officials on aircraft noise. Review noise concerns and facilitate resolution. Review noise concerns. Prepare and issue public reports. The role of the FAA ombudsman is being revised through the FAA Community Accountability which is currently with the a Senate. The proposed revisions focus on the noise ombudsman: Acting as a liaison between communities affected by aircraft noise and the FAA Administrator. Monitor the impact of the FAAs NEXTGEN (Next Generation Air Transportation System) programme on communities in the vicinity of airports. Appointing community ombudsman for each FAA region. 94

96 Noise ombudsman - Case studies Case Study - The Belgium Airport Mediation Service was established in 2001 Royal decree to develop an independent mechanism for residents, municipal administrations and airlines to: Collect and handle complaints and suggestions from residents on the use of the Brussels-National airport. Collect and disseminate information on the trajectories followed and the nuisance caused by aircraft using the Brussels-National airport according to the complaints received. Collect, record and analyse all relevant information to address and determine causes of complaints from airport residents. Keeping up-to-date documentation on aircraft noise and trajectory at Brussels-National airport. Facilitate mediation between all parties involved in the activities of Brussels-National Airport. Provide logistical and administrative support to the Consultation Forum, which should bring together periodically the various parties concerned by the nuisances caused by overflights of aircraft (Regions, Provinces, Municipalities, operators, associations of local residents). The service is an independent mediator for handling complaints rather than a reviewer of complaints such as a typical ombudsman. In addition, the service is focused on Brussels-National airport, in comparison to the other ombudsman researched which covered a much wider area. Limited information is publicly available from the service. Case Study - Following the Airports Commissions study into new airport capacity in the South East of the UK, a recommendation was made to establish a UK Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN). The exact roles and responsibilities of this body are currently under consultation by the Department for Transport as part of a wider public consultation on airspace policy, but could include: Involvement in any CAA Tier 1 or 2 airspace change processes*. Work with both large and small aerodromes. Review plans and make recommendations on behalf of communities on airspace/noise changes. Assisting communities to understand proposed changes. Review engagement plans to ensure accessibility and awareness of proposed changes. Although the role of ICCAN is still to be finalised, it is proposed to be more focussed on airspace change and assisting communities. In addition, ICCAN: Could have the power to publish data to improve noise management, which could include airline statistics and the use of league tables, and Produce best practice guidelines for noise management and community engagement. * CAA Tier 1 or 2 airspace change includes permanent/temporary changes, trials or procedural changes resulting in the redistribution of air traffic. 95

97 Fly Quiet programs Research summary

98 Fly Quiet programs - Best practice from around the world Vancouver has a FQ program which directly measures aircraft noise and compliance with noise abatement procedures. Best performers are publicly reported upon. No Fly Quiet programmes. No Fly Quiet programmes. San Francisco has a voluntary FQ program. It tracks several metrics and has a useful video on the website. Metrics include: fleet noise quality, noise limit violations, night runway protocol compliance etc. Chicago O Hare has run a voluntary Fly Quiet program since It is designed to encourage airlines to use night time runway use and flight tracks The program tracks performance across 6 metrics - night time runway usage, night time flight tracks, complaints, ground run-ups and night time aircraft noise. Heathrow airport has a FQ program which ranks airline performance against noise related metrics (CDAs, track keeping, early arrivals, noise certification etc.). Reports are published quarterly. No Fly Quiet programmes.

99 Fly Quiet programmes - Introduction to the area What is a Fly Quiet program? Fly Quiet program is a term used to describe a voluntary initiative designed to encourage airlines to adopt new aircraft or fly existing aircraft in a manner which minimises their noise impact on the communities surrounding the airport. Typically, Fly Quiet programs include the following: A set of metrics used to measure noise performance. Comparison of performance between different airlines. Public reporting of results. Awards for the best performing/most improved airlines. Fly Quiet metrics Fly Quiet programmes typically have 5 to 6 metrics. The decision to use a given metric depended on a number of factors such as ease of measurement, importance to local communities and whether it was linked to the airport s noise abatement procedures (NAP)s. Some metrics measure noise directly using noise monitors, while others are proxy metrics that give a strong indication of if the aircraft is being flown in the quietest way possible (e.g. departure route adherence or continuous descent approach achievement are two such proxy metrics). In general, metrics used in Fly Quiet that can be categorised as follows: Strategic metrics: These metrics are easier for airlines to influence in the longer term such as average aircraft noise certification or fleet composition (e.g. Chapter number certification). Operational metrics: These relate to how aircraft are being flown and whether they are compliant with NAPs (e.g. Continuous Descent Approach). Night metrics: These are based on restrictions on aircraft operations at night (e.g. night-time flight tracks). Comparison of performance A key element to Fly Quiet programmes is comparing performance across airlines either for individual metrics or across all metrics. This allows airports to identify and publicise which airlines are having the lowest noise impact. Airports typically score airline performance in each metric and based on the results, will work with airlines to address any identified issues. Public reporting of results The incentive for an airline to improve its performance is the publication of quarterly Fly Quiet reports. As per above, these reports can include rankings relative to other airlines, and also how the airline s performance complies with minimum criteria set for each metric. Some airports also have annual awards ceremonies to recognise the best and most improved performers. Public reporting in this way is a major incentive to airlines as FQ reports are often of interest to media outlets who will name and shame the worst performers, particularly if they are based in the same country. 98

100 Fly Quiet programs - Introduction to the area Where are Fly Quiet programs used? Fly Quiet programs have been implemented at 4 of the 26 airports researched in this study. They are: Vancouver, London Heathrow, San Francisco, Chicago O Hare. Case studies of each are provided on the following pages. Reporting An annual awards ceremony each year to recognise the best performers in different aircraft categories. The categories and 2015 winners are: Propeller aircraft - WestJet Encore. Narrow body jet aircraft American Airlines. Wide body jet aircraft All Nippon Airways. Vancouver is the only airport with a Fly Quiet program that does not produce reports on airline performance. Case Study Vancouver airport. Vancouver has had a Fly Quiet programme for 12 years. The program is based on noise monitor data and compliance with NAPs. Qualification criteria Airlines qualify for the program if they fly a regular service to the airport. Metrics used Two metrics are used: The airline must not be in suspected violation of any of the published Noise Abatement Procedures. Vancouver Fly Quiet award winners ( ) (source: The airline must have the lowest average annual noise level for their aircraft category (as measured by the Aircraft Noise & Operations Monitoring System). 99

101 Fly Quiet programs - Case studies Case, Study - Heathrow airport. Heathrow airport has run a Fly Quiet program since The program is intended to further encourage airlines to use quieter aircraft and to fly them in the quietest way possible. Qualification criteria Airlines qualify for Heathrow s Fly Quiet program if they ranked in the top 50 in terms of number of movements in a given quarter. This covers over 90% of the flights at Heathrow airport and is done to avoid airlines with low movements at Heathrow achieving inconsistent rankings due to small variations in actual performance (i.e. one extra violation could cause such an airline to drop significantly in terms of overall ranking). Metrics used The program tracks airline performance across 6 metrics. These are split between strategic, operational and nigh-time metrics: Quota count/seat/movement: This strategic metric is based on the quota count system described as part of the quieter fleet initiatives section. The aim of this metric is to score the noise produced per flight whilst accounting for the fact that different aircraft operate with different frequencies and carry a different number of passengers. Track keeping achievement: This operational metric measures how closely a departure follows its planned route. Continuous descent arrival achievement: This operational metric measures whether aircraft on arrival descended in accordance with the published definition which focuses on the use of continuous descent, with minimal level segments until touchdown. This method of flying reduces the noise impact on communities. Pre 0430 arrivals: This is the first of two night metrics. Aircraft are not allowed to arrive at Heathrow before A violation is registered when an aircraft arrives before this time without a dispensation (which are granted in exceptional circumstances). Unscheduled pre 0600 arrivals: Aircraft that are scheduled to arrive at Heathrow after 0600 may not arrive before that time (without a dispensation). This metric measures the number of violations of this restriction. (continued on next page) Chapter number: This strategic metric accounts for the average ICAO noise chapter certification of an airline s fleet. 100

102 Fly Quiet programs - Case studies Case, Study - Heathrow airport (continued) Reporting are described in the fly quiet reports. Reports are publicised via the airport s website and via press releases. These have often been picked up by the media and prompted airlines to work with the airport to improve their performance. Heathrow airport does not currently hold an awards event to recognise good performance. An example report can be found here: Quiet_Q4_2016.pdf Working with red dot operators If an airline has a red dot in a particularly area of the leagues table, Heathrow works closely with them to improve performance. Extract of Q league table showing airline rankings and RAG scores. Source: Heathrow airport publishes quarterly FQ reports /league tables which describe the performance of each airline in two different ways: Overall ranking & league table: Each airline s score in the 6 metrics is combined to give an overall Fly Quiet ranking. RAG score: Instead of providing a numerical score in each metric, Heathrow airport sets Red-Amber-Green thresholds for performance in each metric. For example, if over 75% of an airline s flights use CDAs, then a green score is awarded. Above 55% (but lower than 75%) an amber score is awarded. Measurement of each metric and the thresholds Media headlines related to Heathrow Fly Quiet program Source: various ITV, The Daily Telegraph, News

103 Fly Quiet programs - Case studies Case, Study San Francisco airport. San Francisco s Fly Quiet program is a Community Round table initiative implemented by the Aircraft Noise Abatement Office. The goal of the program is to reduce single event and total noise levels by influencing airlines to operate as quietly as possible in the San Francisco Bay area. The San Francisco airport website contains a 15 minute video explaining the program, its goals and the rationale for the metrics used. Qualification criteria There is no information available on qualification for the program. Metrics used The program consists of 6 metrics, 4 of which are specific to the local environment: Fleet noise quality rating: This strategic metric is similar to the chapter number metric at Heathrow airport. It grades the overall noise performance of each airline s fleet. This is likely to be based on certified noise levels (although that is not explicitly stated). Noise exceedance rating: The airport sets maximum limits on the noise levels allowed at each of its noise monitors. This operational metric measures the number of violations for each airline. Night time runway use rating: San Francisco airport implemented voluntary preferential runways scheme in 1988 to maximise the number of night flights that operated over water. This operational metric measures the use of these preferential runways. Shoreline departure quality rating: This operational metric measures track keeping on a VFR route designed to keep aircraft over industrial areas Gap departure quality rating: Flights departing runway 28 use a procedure that involves them flying straight out over urban areas (referred to locally as gap departure). This operational metric scores aircraft depending on their altitude at on mile intervals over these areas. Foster city arrival quality rating: This operational metric scores approaches to the airport depending on whether or not they arrived using an over water procedure at night and thereby avoided overflying Foster City Reporting San Francisco produces a quarterly Fly Quiet report which ranks airline performance across the 6 metrics. It also presents awards each year in the following categories: Quietest overall airline. Most improved airline. Chairperson s award for exceptional commitment to all aspects of the Fly Quiet program. An example report can be found here: 6.pdf 102

104 Fly Quiet programs - Case studies Case, Study San Francisco airport (continued) Case Study Chicago O Hare airport. Chicago O Hare has had a Fly Quiet program since It is a voluntary program that is designed to encourage the use of night time preferential runways and flight tracks. Chicago O Hare s Fly Quiet program is slightly different to others as it combines elements of traditional noise reports with elements of a Fly Quiet program. Qualification criteria There is no information available on qualification. Extract of Q league table showing airline rankings, scores for each metric and overall scores. Source: Metrics used The program measures five metrics, two of which are used to compare airline performance. Night time runway usage: summarises night time runway usage on each of the 7 runways. Graphs and charts are presented showing the number of movements by aircraft per runway, per hour and per airline. Night time flight tracks: This operational metric compares the average deviation from planned flight tracks for each airline departing from 09R or 28R at night. Night-time complaints: This metric tracks complaints and complainants per community. Ground run-ups: This metric describes the number and location of engine run-up tests for different airlines and aircraft types. Unlike other metrics it is measured throughout the day. 103

105 Fly Quiet programs - Case studies Case, Study Chicago O Hare airport (continued) Night time aircraft noise: This metric presents the average Leq measured at each noise monitor during the night for a given quarter. Reporting Chicago O Hare publishes Fly Quiet reports quarterly. Data is presented for each metric using a number of graphs, tables and charts (depending on what is appropriate) to illustrate how performance has changed over time. Red-Amber-Green (RAG) scoring is to emphasis different levels of performance for the night flight tracks and night time aircraft noise metrics. An example report can be found here: ity/noise/ohare/fq/quaterlyreports/2016/2016-q2.pdf Extract of Q Fly Quiet report for average deviation from night-time preferential runway. Source: QuaterlyReports/2016/2016-Q2.pdf 104

106 Fly Quiet programmes Summary of metrics used The diagram on the right summarises the metrics that have been used in airport Fly Quiet programs. Metrics have also been categorised into either strategic, operational, night (or a combination of two). Although complaints are part of Chicago O Hare s Fly Quiet program, this metric does not fit into any of the categories. Where metrics used are similar at different airports they have been grouped into a generic description (e.g. Heathrow s chapter number metric is similar to San Francisco s fleet noise quality rating and therefore these have been grouped into fleet noise certification ). STRATEGIC Complaints QC/seat/movement Fleet noise certification Pre 0430 arrivals Unscheduled pre 0600 arrivals Night time runway use Continuous descent OPERATIONAL arrivals achievement (CDA) Flight track keeping achievement (TK) Average annual noise Minimum height achievement Night time TK Night time over water departure achievement Average measured night noise Noise exceedances Over water departure achievement Ground run up monitoring Violation of NAPs NIGHT 105

107 Reporting of noise monitor data Research summary

108 Reporting of noise monitor data - Introduction to the area Introduction This area of research investigated how airports report on aircraft noise. It concentrates on the types of noise measures used and how noise information is presented to the public. Typical practices Traditional metrics: A number of different metrics were used by airports to measure noise. The majority of these were internationally recognised, such as Leq, or a variation of these. Decibel units were commonly used but these are considered difficult to understand on paper as they are a logarithmic measure. Online platforms: Online flight tracking tools such as WebTrak or CASPER were commonly used to report live and historical noise data. The tools displayed the location and noise measurements at each noise monitor, accompanied by a colour scale to provide an idea of relative volume. Traditional noise reports: Many airports produced print friendly noise reports, either monthly, quarterly or annually. These typically presented charts and graphs of noise monitor. The level of detail varied significantly, with some including additional explanation of data and others, only graphs. Special and unique practices Number above metrics: Sydney airport uses number above metrics to report on noise data. This metric describes the number of noise events that exceed a threshold set by the airport. Bespoke noise reports: Heathrow, Chicago O Hare and Sydney airports use temporary noise monitors to produce bespoke noise reports for specific communities. Noise contours: Some airports produced noise contours either based on historical or forecast noise data. Typically contours were based on traditional noise metrics. Regional trends There were no significant regional trends in this research area. The majority of airports measured and reported noise, although the specifics of how this was done were up to the discretion of each airport. 107

109 Reporting of noise monitor data - Best practice from around the world YVR, Toronto and Montreal use Leq as reported in online monitoring tools. Reports are produced annually and summarise data over the entire year. However, by the time the reports are produced they are often out of date. No information available on noise reporting. Airports have online tracking systems which are integrated into noise monitor systems. Data is reported using a variety of metrics but Leq and CNEL are most common. Noise reports are produced annually but these could be considered to be a data dump. O Hare provides noise monitor information in Lmax, Leq and Sel for each monitor. However, although this provides a detailed overview it could be considered confusing. Airports have noise monitoring systems which are sometimes integrated with flight tracking systems. Data is reported as Leq, LAeq and dba depending on the airport. Airports prepare reports available online. In general these present data in bar charts or similar. Reports are generally either too simple to be meaningful or too technical to be understandable. However, online tools are useful. Heathrow produces specialist noise reports for specific local areas. Hong Kong has 16 noise monitors along with a flight track monitoring system. Reported in a table online but cannot be sure how often it s updated. Covers all noise monitors and the percentage of noise levels between various limits (<65, 65-69, and >75.). Airports use online tools which are integrated with web tracking tools, Data reported in Leq in Sydney and dba in Casper. Reports are generated on a annually. However they are technical and could be improved with description and layout. Sydney identifies the number and location of noise events above 70dBA and reports these online along with the aircraft type which broke the limit. Sydney reports are also not easy to understand as noise is reported in dba which is different to the online tool. 108

110 Reporting of noise monitor data Noise metrics Noise metrics Overview of research The key findings of the research were: 22 of 26 airports researched used noise monitors. A number of different metrics were used by different airports to report noise monitor data. The Leq metric was used most frequently. All metrics have advantages and disadvantages in terms of usefulness and understandability. Traditional noise metrics The majority of airports reported noise in terms of traditional acoustic measures such as decibels. A variety of metrics are used to report on aircraft noise. Some are internationally recognised such as Leq, while others are national metrics such as the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI), often based on variations of internationally recognised metrics. Traditional noise metrics are often regarded as difficult to understand by the general public as they are logarithmic and can be difficult to equate to an individual s perception of a noise event. change if traffic increased or decreased. For example, if the number of flights doubled the number of events about 70dBA would double this of course relies on all things being equal and does not account for changing in traffic mix. Another weakness of this metric is that it treats all events above 70dBA the same. Conversely it is argued that this does not matter as long as the 70dBA threshold reflects the point at which aircraft noise becomes an annoyance. In any case, if necessary it is possible to report on the number of events over other thresholds. Number above metrics are typically reported either in tabular format or using noise contours. If a tabular format is used, then the table shows the number of events in a fixed area. If noise contours are used, the number of events is fixed and the area within the contour varies. Further detail on the use of the number above metrics at Sydney airport is provided in a case study on the following pages. Number above metrics Sydney airport reports on the number of aircraft events above 70 decibels (dba), referred to has the N 70 metric. The advantage of this metric is that it is simple to understand and gives an indication of how noise would 109

111 Reporting of noise monitor data Metrics Case study N-above metrics Sydney airport is the only airport in the study that currently uses the N-above metric to publicly report noise data and has done so since The decision to use the metric arose from extended consultation with community representatives on understandable methods of reporting noise data as part of the development of Sydney s Long Term Operational Plan (LTOP). Discussions initially focussed on creating single event dba noise contours for each aircraft type and flight path. However, this proved too complicated to implement for the large number of people concerned and the multiplicity of flight paths and aircraft types involved. Thus the N- above metric was deemed more suitable. In addition to producing noise contour reports, Sydney airport also reports on N-above metrics on an online platform. Maps are presented for each quarter which display the average daily noise events over 70dBA at each noise monitor. Charts are also presented showing the hourly distribution of noise events over 70dB, distribution by event noise level and average noise level per aircraft type. Sydney airport currently uses the N 70 metric (the number of noise events above 70dBA) and produces contour maps for day time hours and sensitive times of day ( and ). These are available. in the Sydney airport Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) reports which are published on a quarterly and annual basis Sydney airport Q ANEI report N 70 contours. Source: m/wp-content/uploads/sydney- N500-ANEI-Report_Q42016.pdf Average daily noise events over 70dBA for Q Source: Short term noise monitoring Sydney airport also has a number of temporary noise monitors which are typically installed for a period of 3 months. These are used to assess the impact of a procedural change, obtain data to refine the airport s noise modelling or assess a site s suitability for a permanent noise monitor. The airport produced noise reports for these monitors, focussing on the number of events over 60dBA and 75dBA. 110

112 Reporting of noise monitor data Noise metrics Challenges of establishing suitable noise metrics Establishing a suitable metric for airports to measure and report noise is challenging. Noise is a complex phenomenon and as such no one metric is perfect. Each has its merits and drawbacks. Useful insight into the challenge is provided by the UK CAA in its survey of noise attitudes. Case Study UK CAA survey of noise attitudes The UK CAA published its survey of attitudes to noise in The overall aims of the survey included understanding current attitudes to aviation noise, what influences these attitudes and to examine whether the currently used measure of annoyance in the UK, LAeq, is the appropriate measure of annoyance for measuring the impact on people living around major airports. Conclusions One of the main conclusions of the survey was that, compared to other noise indicators, the traditional LAeq metric correlated best with annoyance with aircraft noise, but the population struggled with the metric. It therefore summarised that there is, therefore merit in considering greater use of Nx [number above] metrics as supplemental indicators to help portray noise exposure, but recognising that evidence-based decisions should continue to use LAeq Source: UK CAA Survey of noise attitudes 2014, CAP1506, Methodology The main body of the survey was composed of two parts: Social survey: This aimed to understand the household characteristics, attitudes to noise (from all sources), noise sensitivity and attitudes towards the environment of survey participants. Correlating noise exposure and annoyance: The second part of the survey asked more specific questions on annoyance caused by aviation noise, combined these results with the social survey and then with actual noise data to determine the correlation between noise exposure and annoyance. 111

113 Reporting of noise monitor data Methods of reporting Noise reporting Overview of research Four main ways of reporting measurements of aircraft noise were identified by the research online platforms, reporting of noise monitor data, bespoke noise reports for a given community and noise contours. noise events about 70dBA, number of noise events at different dba levels and average noise generated by aircraft types (see case study regarding N 70 metrics on previous pages). Online platforms 12 of the airports researched had an on online platforms with all except one providing both live and historical noise data. In general, these presented flight tracking data, together with the location of noise monitors. As aircraft passed a given monitor, some form of colour coding was used to visualise the change in noise levels typically louder events were presented as being towards the red end of a colour scale, and quieter events as towards the green end of the colour scale. An example for Copenhagen airport is shown on the right. The peak in aircraft noise due to the arriving aircraft is clearly visible. In addition to live data, online platforms are now starting to emerge which summarise noise data in a given timeframe. For example, Gatwick s Casper system presents a series of charts (see case study on the following page). These can be updated by the user for a specific timeframe and/or noise monitor. Sydney uses a simple website to report quarterly on noise monitor data. For a given monitor/community the site provides the hourly number of Copenhagen airport s WebTrak system showing a single noise event. Source: Best practice Gatwick s Casper system presents a series of simple and easy to understand charts to the user. These can be updated based on timeframe or for a specific noise monitor and are provided in addition to live reporting. Gatwick s system is therefore best practice. 112

114 Reporting of noise monitor data Noise metrics Case study Simple, automatically generated graphs and charts Online tools such as Webtrak and Casper are being implemented by an ever increasing number of international airports and are proving to be the most effective means of presenting noise monitor data to communities. This is particularly true as they are designed for live updates of noise data and tracking of individual aircraft. Members of the public can select an individual aircraft and can view the aircraft type, height, speed and flight path. Furthermore, when an aircraft passes a noise monitor, users are able to observe the spike in registered noise. Noise monitor data is typically presented with colour scales to aid understanding of the relative volume of the noise event. Gatwick s Casper system also presents noise monitor data in a series of graphs including (for each monitor): Distribution of noise level measurements (top left), Noise events per hour (top right), Noise events per day (bottom left), Cumulative distribution of noise (bottom right). Graphs of noise monitor data from Gatwick s Casper system. Source Live noise monitor data from Gatwick s Casper system. Source 113

115 Reporting of noise monitor data Methods of reporting Traditional noise reports 13 airports produced traditional print friendly noise reports. These were typically produced either monthly or annually and typically provided information on noise monitor data only, focussing on data such as the number of single noise events, average and maximum noise levels, and noise contours. The level of detail in noise reports varied significantly. For example, Vancouver airport presented charts on night operations, runway use, run-ups, noise concerns and noise monitoring data, all with accompanying explanations (see case study opposite). This was particularly useful as it allowed the reader to draw meaningful conclusions from the information presented. Other airports published a series of automatically generated charts per noise monitor. Bespoke noise reports Chicago O Hare, Heathrow and Sydney place temporary monitors in local communities and produce bespoke noise reports for that area (see case study on the following page). These report on both aircraft tracks and noise levels in the area. For noise, background noise levels, aircraft noise levels and maximum aircraft noise levels are typically reporting upon. Case study Vancouver airport annual noise reports Vancouver airport produces annual noise reports that describe the airport s noise management initiatives, noise monitor data, operational statistics and complaint summaries. Detailed tables and graphs are presented in each section of the report. Most importantly, the reports contain clear explanation of each graph/chart and any trends that should be noted. This helps the reader better understand the impact on them. Data reported Specifically, the reports cover the following: 2015 highlights: This section details the main changes introduced by the airport including any new procedures that have been introduced and the conclusions of any trials/studies. Operations in review: This section describes movements and passenger statistics including graphs showing the change over time, movements per hour, night flights and fleet noise certification. Air traffic flow: This section presents a graph of the monthly percentage of operations in the easterly or westerly directions. Runway use: This section describes the percentage of operations on each runway on a map of the airport. Run-ups: This section describes the number of engine run ups over the past few years, their locations and a graph of the types of run-up and percentage of run-ups conducted per hour. Noise concerns: This section described the number of complaints and complainants (see noise complaints section for further details). Community survey: The airport conducts an annual survey to track public opinion of aviation noise. A graph is presented of percentage of respondents not annoyed by aviation noise each year. 114

116 Reporting of noise monitor data Methods of reporting Case study Vancouver airport annual noise reports (continued) Noise monitoring data: This section describes the location of noise monitors, a table of average annual noise (in dba) for the past 5 years, the number of single event noise levels above 70dBA per district and the average daily number of noise events at each noise monitor. Case study Chicago O Hare bespoke noise reports Chicago O Hare uses portable noise monitors to provide aircraft noise information at specific residential areas of interest to citizens. Noise monitors are typically placed at a site for 2 weeks. Reports are typically 15 pages long and contain several charts and graphs describing: Daily average noise level (DNL metric) and daily noise events. Noise events per hour. Average noise level per hour (Leq). Average aircraft and average other community noise per day. Cumulative distribution of aircraft noise events. Ranking of loudest noise events (including date, time, operator, max noise level (Lmax), type of operation, aircraft type). Extract from Vancouver airport 2015 noise report. Source Extract from one of Chicago O'Hare's bespoke noise reports. Source o.com/community/o RDnoise/ANMS/Pag es/portable.aspx 115

117 Reporting of noise monitor data Methods of reporting Noise contours Some airports also produce noise contours, presenting both historical and forecast future noise levels. These are produced for a variety of reasons statutory obligations, future planning, assessing the impact of new aircraft types/operational changes and noise insulation schemes. Similar to noise monitor data, noise contours usually use traditional noise metrics based upon noise exposure over a given period of time. The exception is Sydney which includes contours based upon the number of events above 70dBA. Sydney airport N 70 contours for an average day in Source 116