Benchmarking Heathrow Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Transcription

1 Benchmarking Heathrow Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Final report 29 Hercules Way Aerospace Boulevard AeroPark Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6UU UK T F E info@askhelios.com W

2 Document information Document title Author Produced by Produced for Helios contact Produced under contract Benchmarking Heathrow Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Mike Fairbanks, Alex Goman, Helios Helios 29 Hercules Way Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6UU UK Katie Norton and Jane Dawes, HAL (Heathrow Airport Limited) Mike Fairbanks Tel: Fax: mike.fairbanks@askhelios.com P1464 (P/O Ref. PO ) Version V 4 00 Date of release 30 th March 2012 Document reference P1464D002 P1464D002 HELIOS 1 of 154

3 Executive Summary The Heathrow Noise Action plan underlines the importance of establishing a full understanding of aircraft noise to inform priorities, strategies and targets. In pursuit of this and in relation to action 5.1 of the Noise Action Plan, HAL (Heathrow Airport Limited) commissioned a study to benchmark the operational noise abatement procedures specified in the noise action plan against those used by other airports around the world. This document reports on the results of this study which is the second of its kind to be commissioned by Heathrow as part of its commitments to the Noise Action Plan. A bespoke benchmarking methodology has been developed to establish a set of quantitative performance scores for 40 airports from around the world, based on a capability scoring system organised into seven Key Performance Areas (KPAs), namely: Operating restrictions; Fleet Monitoring; Arrivals; Runway operations; Ground movements; Gate operations; and; Departures. A wide set of comparator airports of various sizes and regulatory environments are benchmarked against on the basis of the mechanisms used to manage airport noise at an operational level. The best performing airports are found to score consistently well across all KPAs compared with the remainder of the sample set. This initial ranking positions Heathrow third out of forty after the airports of Amsterdam and Brussels. Other highly ranking airports include Madrid, Stansted, Toronto, Gatwick, Manchester, Zurich and Chicago. Little value can be gained from comparing inherently dissimilar airports as they are invariably subject to different drivers outside their direct control (such as the local community environment and the type of air traffic they serve). In order to ensure the comparisons made between Heathrow and the other airports in sample set are as fair as possible a drivers of difference analysis is performed on the sample set. This analysis results in an appropriate weighting being given to the benchmarked scores of the comparator airports according to their inherent similarity or difference to Heathrow in terms of their local regulatory and physical environment. The structural characteristics such as scale, intensity of operations and complexity are also taken into account as part of this drivers of difference analysis. As a result of this analysis comparisons made against Brussels, Gatwick, Zurich, Geneva, Los Angles, Prague, Barcelona and Oslo become more relevant. The resultant ranking is summarised in the following exhibit. P1464D002 HELIOS 2 of 154

4 While Heathrow performs well against its peers (the majority of the operational procedures used by other airports to manage noise are either currently in operation or else in train at Heathrow) there is potential room for improvement in some areas. This is illustrated through a gap analysis from which specific recommendations on operating restrictions and reporting procedures are drawn. It should be noted that that these recommendations, listed below in order of appearance in this report, are drawn solely from a noise perspective and as such their implementation is subject to a wider feasibility and impact assessment. It is therefore recommended that Heathrow: Explore the potential to attach fines to airlines that fail to adhere to the arrivals code of practice (which is currently voluntary) by examining how similar schemes are administered by other airports and how compatible introducing such a performance scheme would be with the local legislative framework (in particular CAA, 2006) (Recommendation 1); Publish a clear breakdown of how noise fines relate to particular noise infringements (Recommendation 2); Implement a Fly Quiet performance scheme that incorporates a metric associated with airline fleet noise quality (Recommendation 3); Appraise noise infringement charges by examining equivalent penalties and fining methodologies in use around the world (Recommendation 4); P1464D002 HELIOS 3 of 154

5 Investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to administer airspace changes around the world (particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports (Recommendation 5) 1 ; In addition to the Fly Quiet scheme construct a framework of league tables to benchmark airline performance against the noise abatement procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP) (Recommendation 6); Reassess the climb out procedure for Heathrow (continuous climb departures [CCD] vs. cutback), moving to implement definitive guidance in the AIP and benchmark airline performance against an appropriate metric. This work will need to take due consideration the ICAO standard Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2 (Recommendation 7); Implement fines for non-adherence to noise abatement departure routes (Recommendation 8); Assess the duration and stringency of flight movement controls in place during the nighttime period relative to other major airports, noting that these periods and restrictions are defined by the DfT (Department for Transport) (Recommendation 9.1 and 9.2); Explore various means of reducing noise infringements, noting that departure noise limits are set by the Department for Transport (Recommendation 9.3). This recommendation originates from the finding that Heathrow experiences more noise infringements than other airports of a comparable size; and; Implement more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) from top of descent without an extended period of level flight, supported by innovative technologies and procedures as required. Such supporting technologies could include precision area navigation (P-RNAV), required navigation performance navigation area navigation (RNP-RNAV), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) supported segmented approaches, point-merge, advanced flow management, airborne separation assurance and arrivals management systems. It is recognised that this should be a long-term aim and that implementation is a complex issue involving various factors such as the revision of procedures and removal of stacks (Recommendation 9.4 and 9.5). From a compilation of supportive case studies it is recommended that HAL consider: Investigate various quota count (QC) systems used around the world to limit the noise impact by amount of traffic and aircraft type, paying particular attention to the means of determining QC value. It should be noted that the DfT is responsible for defining the QC limits and values in use at UK airports (Recommendation 10.1). Investigating how compliance with noise abatement restrictions on the airport surface may be improved (such as those relating to the use of reverse thrust, reduced engine taxi, auxiliary power units [APU], ground power units [GPU] and engine testing) (Recommendation 10.2). Reviewing the course of action followed by various airports against aircraft operators for persistent breaches of noise preferential routes, including any fines levied, as appropriate (Recommendation 10.2). 1 Note that other countries may have less formal procedures to administer airspace changes depending on the traffic density and complexity in a given volume airspace. P1464D002 HELIOS 4 of 154

6 How novel procedures such as continuous climb departures, steeper approaches, early cutback procedures, collaborative decision making (CDM) and local specific noise limits by aircraft type might reduce noise (Recommendation 10.3). Research into this comparator set has also provided a list of notable best practices that, although not directly related to the points of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan, (and so not actively benchmarked against), remain highly relevant. These recommendations are that Heathrow: Review its flight performance reports in relation to similar reports produced by other airports. In particular this review should consider how Heathrow breaks down and presents runway utilisation, the causes of track deviations, aircraft noise events, noise infringements and taxi performance (Recommendation 11.1); and; Investigate blue sky operational noise abatement procedures and how they might be monitored (such as segmented approaches and noise performance-based use of APUs and GPUs) (Recommendation 11.2). Consider the innovative use of social media and video to educate the public about flight operations at the airport and current flight performance (Recommendation 11.3). It must be remembered, however, that the above recommendations are drawn only from the noise perspective. They do not consider the potential impact their implementation could have on capacity, safety, connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented. These recommendations must therefore be considered in the context of Heathrow s local operating environment before they are taken further. The next step is therefore to assess the feasibility of implementing the above recommendations in the broader context of the Heathrow operating environment. This feasibility assessment should include an examination of legal and technical barriers through comprehensive PESTLE (Political, Environmental, Social, Technical, Legal and Economic) analysis. Such an analysis would enable each recommendation to be assessed as to its suitability, with a roadmap drawn up to move Heathrow towards best in class through a series of recommended actions and timelines. P1464D002 HELIOS 5 of 154

7 Contents 1 Introduction General Purpose Motivation Approach Contents of this report Approach and methodology Analysis framework Data gathering Sources used Basis of airport selection Data analysis List of comparator airports Basic Results Benchmarking scores Summary explanation of high level scores Notable other best practices Initial ranking Performance of Heathrow against best in class Gap analysis Analysing the performance of top ranked airports Normalised results Determining the drivers Establishing a fair comparison Weighting the KPI scores Sensitivity testing Case studies General Case study 1: Brussels Airport General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Case study 2: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Case study 3: Manchester Airport P1464D002 HELIOS 6 of 154

8 5.4.1 General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Case study 4: Zurich Airport General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Case study 5: London City Airport General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Case study 6: Chicago O Hare Airport General description of the local situation Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Enabling technology and procedures Summary and lessons learnt Summary conclusions and recommendations High level conclusions Specific recommendations A note on communication mechanisms An important caveat A Abbreviations and acronyms B Report references C Heathrow noise action plan - operational noise performance indicators D Benchmarking references E KPI Capabilities table F Airport KPI scores F.1 Operating restrictions F.2 Fleet monitoring F.3 Arrivals F.4 Runway operations F.5 Ground movements F.6 Gate operations F.7 Departures List of figures Figure 1 Trends in airport noise restrictions [12] P1464D002 HELIOS 7 of 154

9 Figure 2 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 1 and 2) Figure 3 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 3, 4 and 5) Figure 4 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 5, 6 and 7) Figure 5 Graph ranking airport performance score against benchmarked competitors Figure 6 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) Figure 7 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) Figure 8 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) Figure 9 Scores for inherent and structural drivers of difference across all the airports Figure 10 Influence of the weighting scheme on the scores and ranking of the airports Figure 11 Brussels airport layout [23] Figure 12 Local noise contours Brussels airport [23] Figure 13 Diagram of runways at Brussels airport and common runway configurations Figure 14 Total arrival/departure at Brussels airport 2010 (2009 comparison in table) Figure 15 Position of the noise monitors around Brussels airport Figure 16 Schiphol runway layout Figure 17 Schiphol local noise contours Figure 18 Schiphol Radar tracks of arrivals (red) and departures (blue) Figure 19 Representation of noise preferential runway system at Schiphol Airport Figure 20 Manchester airport noise contours (urban/sub-urban areas shown in pink) Figure 21 Manchester airport noise preferential departure routes Figure 22 Schematic of approach and departure routes Manchester airport Figure 23 Zurich airport noise contours Figure 24 Zurich airport noise preferential arrival (green) and departure routes (red) Figure 25 Zurich airport noise preferential routes Figure 26 Local noise contours London City airport Figure 27 Chicago airport departures (track colour indicates degree of adherence) Figure 28 Chicago airport average day noise events List of tables Table 1 Procedure and KPA category framework Table 2 List of competence levels for the night time definition KPI Table 3 List of comparator airports and locations Table 4 Notable procedures and metrics used by other airports Table 5 Initial ranking table (not weighted or normalised) Table 6 Ranking table for KPI 3.2.1, extracted from Annex F Table 7 Ranking table for the topped ranked airports Table 8 Example drivers of differences in procedure P1464D002 HELIOS 8 of 154

10 Table 9 Driver scoring difference between a given airport and Heathrow Table 10 Drivers of difference score table for inherent and structural drivers Table 11 Scores, weighting and ranking for weighted airports Table 12 Scores, weighting and ranking for all airports Table 13 The runway configuration scheme at Brussels airport Table 14 Environmental category and weighting value Brussels airport Table 15 Criteria for classification into environmental category Brussels airport Table 16 Determining the day/night factor [D] Brussels Airport Table 17 Noise limits for Brussels airport noise zones Table 18 Example arrival peak runway preference order for Schiphol airport Table 19 Conservative classification of noise categories, Schiphol airport Table 20 Quota count system at Manchester airport Table 21 Zurich airport runway alternation concepts Table 22 Noise surcharge by aircraft type Zurich airport Table 23 Night-time departures Zurich airport Table 24 Night-time arrivals Zurich airport Table 25 London City hours of operation Table 26 London City aircraft noise classification Table 27 Restrictions on number aircraft operated at London City Table 28 Track deviation classification Table 29 Chicago airport night-time runway preference P1464D002 HELIOS 9 of 154

11 1 Introduction 1.1 General 1.2 Purpose This report has been prepared for the Flight Evaluation Unit (FEU) at Heathrow Airport by Helios. It is the final report on a study to benchmark Heathrow s operational noise mitigation and abatement procedures. The purpose of this report is to detail the results of benchmarking the procedures used by Heathrow in the operational management of noise against other comparable airports on a global basis. It defines the overall process and methodology used in the analysis, sets out the operational procedures and processes being benchmarked, analyses the drivers of difference and presents conclusions. It also presents the results of five case studies of airports that perform well in the benchmarking in order for more detailed comparisons to be made. 1.3 Motivation This analysis will help to fulfil Heathrow s commitment to achieving a full understanding of aircraft noise to inform priorities, strategies and targets with reference to action 5.1 of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan [1] which states: Action: Working with members of the NTKWG (Noise and Track Keeping Working Group) we will commission research by independent consultants to benchmark internationally our ranking in airport operational noise management with other comparable airports in 2011 and We will publish the summary results on our website. Timescale: Performance indicator: Benchmarking survey ranking results. Target/goal: To be considered by independent consultants as the leading major international airport in operational noise management by Approach In addition it also documents global best practice in the Airport industry for managing noise at an operational level, identifying areas where Heathrow could potentially develop its current processes and procedures towards best in class. Our approach to this work follows a bespoke benchmarking methodology as described in section 2. This report details the scores applied to the airports benchmarked, provides an appropriate justification for the application of that score (with references as required), and produces an overall ranking for the airports considered. Notable best practice that is not directly comparable to the points listed in the Heathrow Noise Action plan is also noted for information although not used for active benchmarking. Drivers of difference are determined according to a defined framework, with a gap analysis performed between Heathrow and the comparator airports. P1464D002 HELIOS 10 of 154

12 1.5 Contents of this report The remainder of this report is composed of four further sections and six supporting annexes: Section 2 approach and methodology; Section 3 basic results; Section 4 analysis of drivers and normalised results; Section 5 case studies; Section 6 summary and conclusions; Annex A Abbreviations and Acronyms; Annex B Report References (as referenced in main body text); Annex C Heathrow Noise action plan action points; Annex D Benchmarking references (referenced in section 2 and 3); Annex E KPI Capabilities table; and; Annex F Airport KPI scores. P1464D002 HELIOS 11 of 154

13 2 Approach and methodology 2.1 Analysis framework All the procedures to be assessed in this benchmarking exercise have been categorised according to a three tier Key Performance Area (KPA) framework (described in Table 1) to ensure a consistent comparison is applied. The primary category of the framework is divided up into two categories of overarching metrics (operating restrictions and aircraft fleet monitoring) or phase of flight (arrivals, departures, gate holding etc.). The secondary and tertiary categories describe the type of performance metrics used by airports when assessing operational noise impact (e.g. movement count by day or by night). Each tertiary category is decomposed into three further levels of classification in order to benchmark different aspects of a noise abatement procedure, namely its: Implementation: a category used to classify efforts associated with the development and implementation of given noise abatement procedure. This could include efforts by airports to consult with local communities to define a set of optimal operating procedures to mitigate noise impact, for example. Definition: Stringency of any definition used in association with a noise abatement procedure (e.g. the amount of level flight allowed in a continuous descent approach [CDA]). Success rate: Compliance with the associated metrics by operational traffic (as reported on at least a yearly basis through performance reports). As this study is focused on benchmarking the operational noise management procedures described in the Heathrow Noise action plan (provided for information in Annex C and referenced in Table 1) a set of KPAs consistent with the measures described in this plan have been defined (in Annex F) and referenced (in bold in Table 1). For each KPA a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and five-point competence scale are defined to benchmark the relative level of performance. The competence framework is effectively a maturity scale that takes into account the best and worst practices observed during the benchmarking exercise. This classification framework allows the benchmarking exercise to contextualise procedures not currently applied at Heathrow but identified in the Heathrow noise action plan (such as continuous climb departures [CCDs] and precision area radio navigation [P-RNAV] amongst others). P1464D002 HELIOS 12 of 154

14 Key Performance Area (KPA) Category Noise Action Plan Refs - Primary Secondary Tertiary benchmark KPAs in bold Operating restrictions Fleet monitoring Arrivals Runway Ground movements Gate operations Departures Movement count Overall Day Evening Night ; (KPA 1.1.) Runway Noise limits DEN Day Evening Night Noise monitoring Background noise levels Aircraft noise levels (KPA 1.2.) Feedback, fines and punitive 1.2.6; 1.2.2; (KPA 1.3) measures Contour and population (KPA 1.4) exposure Differential Noise Overall 1.1.1; (KPA 2.1) charges Banned types Aircraft types 1.1.3; (KPA 2.2) Future aircraft (KPA 2.3) Noise Abatement CDA ; 1.2.5; (KPA Procedures (NAPs) 3.1) Airline adherence to AIP and (KPA 3.2) glideslope LPLD Defined arrivals routes and adherence Reduced flight delay Reduced stacking Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs) Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs) Reduced flight delay Reduced use of noisegenerating airport equipment Noise Abatement procedures (NAPs) Displaced threshold Alternation (KPA 4.1) Segregation/mixed mode Runway use timing restrictions Reverse thrust (KPA 5.1) Engine test/run-up ; (KPA 5.2) Start-up delay and on-stand (KPA 5.3) operating procedures (FEGP/GPU/APU) Reduced-engine taxiing and (KPA 5.4) tugging to/from runway Reduced ground holding Use of fixed electrical ground (KPA 6.1) power and pre-conditioned air CCD (KPA 7.1) De-rated thrust take offs Increased take-off gradient Defined departures routes and (KPA 7.2) adherence Table 1 Procedure and KPA category framework P1464D002 HELIOS 13 of 154

15 2.2 Data gathering Sources used The sources used in this benchmarking exercise are listed in Annex D. Nearly all of these sources are drawn from public documents, namely aeronautical information publications (AIPs), international standards [3], airport websites, online web tracking software applications, local authority information and directives/guidance from national governments and regulatory authorities. Many of the noise-related restrictions in Europe have been developed under the auspices of European Directives 2002/49/EC Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise 2 and 2002/30/EC Rules and Procedures for Introducing Noise Related Operating Restrictions. While this latter Directive does not require action to counter aircraft noise by airports it does establish principles for managing noise through airport rules, procedures and operating restrictions at airports. Similar legal instruments have been implemented at a Federal level in the United States [9] and these sources have been reviewed to understand operating environment of North American airports from a legal standpoint. In addition to the Heathrow Noise Action Plan itself various sources have been used to inform both the framework for this study and the benchmarked capability levels. In particular this has included the European Commission s Study of Optimisation procedures for Decreasing the Impact of NoisE (SOURDINE) [7]. This was a long running study launched in May 2001 with the aim of understanding perception about aircraft noise, the relationship between noise levels and annoyance, or sleep disturbance at night, and how they would value lower noise levels relative to other environmental factors. Other airport operational noise performance sources have also been consulted as required including ICAO s review of Noise Abatement Procedure development and implementation [11] and a recent performance assessment on airport noise charge policies [10]. These studies provided a valuable source of information on airport noise abatement approach and departure procedures and the impacts of these mitigation measures on local communities. Boeing s database of Airport Noise and Emissions restrictions has been widely consulted as a starting point for investigating the KPAs considered in this study. In particular this database provided a first level indication of the maturity of local noise management procedures prior to more detailed examination of local sources. A feature that is immediately striking is the diversity of reporting being tailored to reflect the particular needs of the local community. Nevertheless various studies indicate that airports around the world are beginning to impose progressively tougher noise restrictions [12] as illustrated below. 2 Also known as the European Noise Directive (END). The aim of the END is to define a common approach across the European Union with the intention of avoiding, preventing or reducing on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. P1464D002 HELIOS 14 of 154

16 Figure 1 Trends in airport noise restrictions [12] While many of the larger airports do have a noise monitoring system (an equivalent to Heathrow s airport noise and operational management system [ANOMS]) the quality of the local reporting varies dramatically. Some airports use their system to facilitate the creation of highly sophisticated weekly, monthly or quarterly reports while others only produce sporadic reports on an ad-hoc basis. Worldwide, reported metrics typically include: Movement total by runway; Hourly movement average (broken down by arrivals and departures); Breakdown of movement by aircraft type/noise classification chapter; % CDA compliance or track keeping compliance (including instrument landing system (ILS) joining point and adherence to noise abatement departure procedures [NADPs]); Engine run-ups relative to any restrictions; Number of noise infringements; and; Summary of noise measurements at remote monitoring sites Basis of airport selection Key to the success of any benchmarking exercise is the need to avoid specifying a comparator pool based on pre-conceived subjective judgement that biases the results prior to the analysis. Specifically there is also a danger that, if the criteria applied to the selection of comparators are too restrictive, then valuable lessons that could be learnt from airports excluded from the peer group on that basis might be missed. To avoid introducing this bias as large a comparator pool as practicable has been selected with the results analysed for differences to ensure a fair like-for-like comparison is made and drivers of difference are accounted for. A variety of P1464D002 HELIOS 15 of 154

17 selection criteria have been chosen to ensure a wide pool of appropriate comparators are included in this benchmarking exercise. Specifically this includes: four other major UK airports, to provide a domestic comparison against Heathrow. Such a comparison is advantageous as it provides a homogenous regulatory environment against which performance can be compared; eight major airports in EUROCONTROL member states, to provide a comparison at European level noting that some airports within this category operate under very stringent environmental legislation (e.g. Switzerland); ten major airports that cover a diverse set of countries around the world to contrast how differing political economic social and regulatory environments can impact performance; ten of the world s twenty busiest airports (in terms of air traffic movements); and; seven of the world s most mature airport in terms of operational noise management from a brief survey of airport operating restrictions [4]. Thus the list of comparator airports has been selected according to overall comparability with Heathrow in terms of air traffic movements and level of maturity used in the operational management of noise. This list is provided in section Data analysis For the purposes of this benchmarking exercise five capability levels have been defined for each KPI ranging from 5 (highest capability level of set) down to 1 (lowest capability of set). Overall and average performance is then determined based on the resulting total score (a summation of the scores over the subcompetence levels). The capability levels were initially defined based on a summary survey of Heathrow s own performance in these areas. However as benchmarking provides a relative analysis between comparators the methodology used to score the sample is dictated by the comparator sample set. Thus as the analysis progressed so the capability levels defined for assessing each KPI were refined to reflect this relative performance. The result is a five-point scale that reflects the spectrum of poor to good practice, in relative terms. The definition of the capability levels has been designed to be objective; defendable by the use of published evidence. For example definition of night-time is scored on a 5 point scale as shown below. Competence level 1 5 hours (e.g ) Competence level 2 6 hours (e.g ) Competence level 3 7 hours (e.g ) Competence level 4 8 hours (e.g ) Table 2 List of competence levels for the night time definition KPI Competence level 5 9 hours (e.g ) While subjective discretionary judgement may need to be used in some cases, it is important to remember that the score applied is relative to the others in the sample set and that all benchmarking scores are supported by appropriate evidence referenced as appropriate. Details of all the KPIs and their competence levels are defined in Annex E. P1464D002 HELIOS 16 of 154

18 2.4 List of comparator airports Airport Ref.# Airport Airport Reason for inclusion 1 LHR London (Heathrow) 2 LGW London (Gatwick) UK comparator 3 STN London (Stansted) UK comparator 4 MAN Manchester UK Comparator 5 LCY London (City) UK comparator 6 FAB Farnborough UK comparator 7 ZRH Zurich European comparator 8 BCN Barcelona European comparator 9 DUS Dusseldorf European comparator 10 CPH Copenhagen European comparator 11 MUC Munich European comparator 12 ORY Paris (Orly) European comparator 13 OSL Oslo European comparator 14 YYZ Toronto Worldwide comparator 15 SFO San Francisco Worldwide comparator 16 HKG Hong Kong Worldwide comparator 17 SYD Sydney Worldwide comparator 18 SIN Singapore Worldwide comparator 19 ORD Orlando Worldwide comparator 20 JFK New York (JFK) Worldwide comparator 21 DXB Dubai Worldwide comparator 22 DCA Washington National Worldwide comparator 23 LGA New York (LaGuardia) Worldwide comparator 24 HRD Tokyo International Worldwide comparator 25 ORD Chicago (O'Hare) High movement numbers 26 FRA Frankfurt High movement numbers 27 CDG Paris (Charles de Gaulle) High movement numbers 28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) High movement numbers 29 ATL Atlanta High movement numbers 30 LAX Los Angeles High movement numbers 31 PEK Beijing Capital High movement numbers 32 MAD Madrid (Barajas) High movement numbers 33 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul High movement numbers 34 ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) Noise management 35 BRU Brussels Noise management 36 AKL Auckland Noise management 37 SNA San Ana (John Wayne) Noise management 38 PRG Prague Noise management 39 SZG Salzburg Noise management 40 GVA Geneva Noise management Table 3 List of comparator airports and locations P1464D002 HELIOS 17 of 154

19 3 Basic Results 3.1 Benchmarking scores The results below compare airports at the secondary level of the performance framework (outlined in Table 1, section 2.2.1). These level charts are scored according to the methodology of Section 2 relative to the capability levels of Annex E. The scoring of the airports against the KPAs below is free from any weighting scheme and is organised to have the best performing airports at the top of the table. Figure 2 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 1 and 2) P1464D002 HELIOS 18 of 154

20 Figure 3 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 3, 4 and 5) P1464D002 HELIOS 19 of 154

21 Figure 4 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 5, 6 and 7) More detailed scoring at the tertiary KPI level is provided in Annex F. The background sources used to determine relative performance against the KPI criteria listed are described and referenced in Annex D. As can generally be seen from Figure 3 and Figure 4, the highest performing airports maintain consistently good scores across all KPI areas. A general correlation can be seen as, reading down the columns, the X levels move from right to left. While there is some variation in the ranking between the levels on the three graphs (each are ranked according to the overall performance of the airports against the KPIs listed) it can be seen that, in general, the highest performing airports remain in the top half of the table. P1464D002 HELIOS 20 of 154

22 3.2 Summary explanation of high level scores The level chart provides a broad indication of Heathrow s performance relative to the other airports sampled across the 7 KPAs of this benchmarking survey. As can be seen Heathrow performs well overall however there are areas for potential performance improvement relative to the peer group selected. While the specifics of what others do and what this means for Heathrow are explored in the following sections of this document some summary points can be drawn out, specifically: Although a series of best practice documents have been developed by Heathrow in collaboration with industry partners 3 other airports go further in the promotion of such schemes by introducing a supporting performance framework. Similarly such initiatives could be developed further by imposing targets to drive performance improvement, introducing financial incentives and penalties that are tied to such performance schemes - balancing against any legislative, operational and safety requirements; and; There are opportunities for Heathrow to tighten up on some of the guidance it uses in defining its performance metrics. For example while there are high levels of CDA achievement at Heathrow, the definition of what constitutes a CDA within the UK Arrivals Code of Practice (ACOP) is relatively lenient compared to other airports around the world. More advanced operating concepts (that would be accompanied by more stringent definitions of performance) are in use around the world, supported by such technologies as P-RNAV. Moreover there is a need for the airport to continue to work with its industry partners to analyse the efficiency of the current operation and formulate noise mitigation options. 3.3 Notable other best practices The KPAs benchmarked above are consistent with the articles of the noise action plan [1]. In the course of performing the benchmarking research numerous activities allied to the operational management of aircraft noise, but with no direct benchmarking KPA, have also been identified. These notable other best practices are described here for future consideration by HAL. 3 For example the arrival, ground movement and departures codes of practice P1464D002 HELIOS 21 of 154

23 Description of reporting best practice Flight operations broken down by hour of the day Comments Airport Reference Provides details on the number of arrivals and departures by hour of the day, total operations by hour and operations by runway. Chicago 1 Track-keeping performance statistics Deviations by year; overall on-track performance of all aircraft; on-track performance by aircraft type Gatwick 1 Quietest airline award linked to the Fly Quiet Program which currently consists of five elements: - the overall noise quality of each airlines fleet operating at SFO - an evaluation of single overflight exceeding the noise level (noise monitoring); - A measure of how well each airline complies with the nighttime preferred noise abatement runways (adherence to procedures); - Assessment of how well each airline adheres to the Gap Departure (track keeping); - Assessment of how well each airline adheres to the Shoreline Departure (track keeping);and; - Assessment of how well each airline adheres to the bay approaches to runways 28L and 28R (track keeping). The overall goal of the Fly Quiet Program is to influence airlines to operate as quietly as possible in the San Francisco Bay Area. A successful Fly Quiet Program is expected to reduce both single event and total noise levels around the airport. It should be noted that Heathrow is already pursuing this aspect of operational noise management through the development of its Fly Green report. San Francisco 1 Number of aircraft noise events of 85dB or greater and 65 db or greater Statistics presented in diagrammatic form alongside noise contours Chicago 1 Fleet noise quality; Assigns a higher rating or grade to airlines operating quieter, new generation aircraft, while airlines operating older, louder technology aircraft would rate lower. FEGP stand equipage (percentage equipage of stands) Evaluates noise contribution of each airline's fleet as operated San Francisco Annual report Geneva P1464D002 HELIOS 22 of 154

24 Description of reporting best practice Marginally compliant aircraft and the number of night slots operated Runway usage in absolute and % terms by aircraft type Summary of noise measurements for every day of monitoring period (max, min, mean and mode) for every monitoring station Comments Airport Reference Quota count system for night flights operating over different night time periods based on a different calculation regime to Heathrow (see section 5.2) Per day and per night; Runway usage (% of flights, number of VFR and IFR flights), annual total number of movements Hourly noise level site report for each day (Aircraft LEQ, aircraft events; dba noise levels and frequency) Brussels 1 Chicago 1 Chicago 1 Fly quiet awards; flight paths, overall level and timing of operation and ground runs. Radar data plots Ban on aircraft operators using this airport if found to be infringing noise restriction. Note the airport supports both commercial air traffic and general aviation In monitoring overall adherence to departure flight routes the following attributes are reported: total number of 'registered deviations', proportion investigated, number of cautions issued, number of discussions with pilots and number of cases reported to the regulator (FOCA) Online training of WebTrack software application. Drag and drop game use to familiarise users with the online version of ANOMs. Quarterly report; monitoring designated noise-abatement flight routes and procedures to reduce impact of aircraft noise at night using Airport Noise Management System (ANMS) Colouring of radar tracks according to compliance with height or lateral restrictions (red indicating noncompliance, amber marginal compliance and green full compliance) A three strikes and you re out policy. Note that the airport caters for a multitude of individual operators. Significant deviations from these paths are investigated on an ad-hoc basis and a caution issued following a formal consultation with the FOCA. Further details can be found in section At Washington National noise levels are visible on NTK system permanently and not just when monitors are triggered by aircraft movements (air scene software by ITT). 'What if' model used to see modelled footprint from an imaginary type. Chicago 1 Gatwick, Chicago, Geneva 1 John Wayne 1 Zurich 1 Manchester 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 23 of 154

25 Description of reporting best practice Skytrack awards for good track keeping; off track fined 750; preferred runways used; noise limits depend on Time of day - departure and arrival noise surcharge; type surcharge (marginal chapter 3) Point merge in operation; noise blight highlighted in an informative video describing changing noise impact emphasising noise reduction rather than blight to a particular area Investigation by FAA/Congress into developments in tracking compliance with noise abatement procedures New NADP for Lufthansa Cargo GNSS-assisted 'segmented approach' Comments Airport Reference Interesting diagram depicting downward trend in aircraft noise certification chapters. Absolute reduction in number of noisiest departures New airspace noise abatement procedures. No interactive NTK website available. Report suggests the need to downlink information about thrust settings from FMS to ground station to determine compliance Manchester 1 Oslo 1 Washington National Currently trial testing period Frankfurt 1 1 Trials to tug aircraft to runway Ground movement best practice guidelines introduced. Prague, Gatwick 1 Green Fly system; to encourage operators to use quiet operating procedures, minimise ground running with punitive fines levied to minimise noise from aircraft operations and MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) activities. Greenfly scheme also limiting use of APUs. Ground running penalties and incentives also introduced. Strict limits on overall number of flights and number of flights on particular days throughout year weighted by quota for type. London City 1 Noise budget indicated on map Stringent night noise controls Noise budget and infringements thereof are illustrated pictorially; specifically an annual equivalent noise level must not exceed noise contours on map specified in the AIP Night-time noise limits in place and enforced. Fines of $5000; hours of operation Stockholm (Arlanda) Washington National 1 1 Innovate use of social media Social media page set up to perform survey of community needs inviting feedback and voting on what improvement is needed next. Toronto 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 24 of 154

26 Description of reporting best practice Innovative use of video to convey message Comments Airport Reference Video used to explain arrivals and departure procedure Oslo 1 Innovative use of aircraft ground movement data Taxi noise level monitored by noise and track keeping system Copenhagen 1 Innovative use of aircraft ground movement data Use of taxi route modifications to reduce noise Munich 1 Noise protection scheme in operation APU restrictions on the ground and aircraft type restrictions within given volumes of airspace Prague 1 Ban on aircraft operators Ban on operators whose aircraft trigger noise correlated position measurements above a given noise threshold Salzburg 1 Table 4 Notable procedures and metrics used by other airports 3.4 Initial ranking The benchmarking scores of section 3.1 can be compiled to produce a global ranking table of airport noise management competence. This semi-quantitative unnormalised score is shown comparative purposes in Table 5. This ranking is developed, through a systemised weighting system, in section 4 to create a combination of KPA scores that take into account the influence of local drivers on the performance of a particular airport. P1464D002 HELIOS 25 of 154

27 Ref No. Code Airport Score Rank 28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) BRU Brussels LHR Heathrow MAD Madrid (Barajas) STN Stansted YYZ Toronto LGW Gatwick MAN Manchester ZRH Zurich ORD Chicago (O'Hare) DUS Dusseldorf GVA Geneva CPH Copenhagen LCY London City FRA Frankfurt SYD Sydney SNA San Ana (John Wayne) ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) DCA Washington National MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul SZG Salzburg LAX Los Angeles ORY Paris - Orly PRG Prague CDG Paris - Charles de Gaulle MUC Munich HRD Tokyo International BCN Barcelona SFO San Francisco AKL Auckland OSL Oslo FAB Farnborough LGA New York LaGuardia Airport HKG Hong Kong ATL Atlanta SIN Singapore JFK New York JFK PEK Beijing Capital MCO Orlando DXB Dubai Table 5 Initial ranking table (not weighted or normalised) P1464D002 HELIOS 26 of 154

28 This benchmarking exercise of 40 airports serves to demonstrate the comparable significance of local regulatory environment. As can be seen from the top level ranking table the larger UK, European Union and Swiss airports score highly overall, followed by the major airports in North America. It is notable that there is no obvious correlation between the size of the airport and the position in the initial ranking scheme. This underlines that airports manage noise in relation to the influences of their local environments by developing specific procedures and operational measures to mitigate the impact of airport noise. Thus those airports under greatest pressure to reduce noise at all stages of the landing and take-off (LTO) cycle appear highest in this list. Figure 5 Graph ranking airport performance score against benchmarked competitors P1464D002 HELIOS 27 of 154

29 3.5 Performance of Heathrow against best in class Gap analysis While Heathrow performs well overall compared with the selected comparator set the benchmarking exercise identifies relative areas of strength and weakness. Examining Heathrow s benchmarked scores against the full set of KPIs in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 over the page reveals the range of competence levels against the scoring criteria identifying areas for potential improvement. Overall Heathrow is particularly strong in: Fleet Monitoring (KPA 2); Runway NAPs (KPA 4); Ground Movement NAPs (KPA 5); and; Gate operations (KPA 6). Areas where Heathrow has a potential opportunity to improve performance include the: tightening up of general operating restrictions (KPA 1); and; monitoring of arrival and departure movements (KPAs 3 and 7). Potentially scope exists in these areas for Heathrow to improve its performance through the development an airline noise performance scheme (which could be linked to financial incentives such as fines) and improved communication activities. P1464D002 HELIOS 28 of 154

30 Figure 6 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) P1464D002 HELIOS 29 of 154

31 Figure 7 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) P1464D002 HELIOS 30 of 154

32 Figure 8 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA ( ) P1464D002 HELIOS 31 of 154

33 The following text provides descriptions of the KPAs recommended for Heathrow to examine to understand if scope exists for competence improvement in those areas. Note that an identified deficiency in the gap analysis does not equate to poor performance but rather is generally symptomatic of particular airports responding to local environmental pressures. Equally particular local environmental pressures, concerns or debates may preclude Heathrow from improving its capabilities in these areas. The assessment is made solely from the noise perspective other factors such as capacity and commercial implications are not considered at this stage but must be factored into the analysis should the Airport act on any of the recommendations. Regarding KPI while it was noted that Heathrow has developed an arrivals code of practice in collaboration with NATS and the airlines and that this was being actively promoted amongst all stakeholders more pro-active engagement could be encouraged. By comparison Zurich Airport has developed specific routes and procedures for early morning arrivals; these are detailed in the monthly noise reports with fines imposed for airlines not flying in compliance with defined arrival routes [5][6]. The comparison suggests that this could be an area for operational improvement subject to discussions between the airport, airlines and NATS (National Air Traffic Services) (Recommendation 1). Currently, through the FEU quarterly and annual report, Heathrow publishes monthly totals of daytime and night-time noise infringements along with the total raised over the course of the year. This data is subsequently compared to that from the past 9 years of operations and a short commentary provided. There may be scope to present this information in a more usable/understandable format; such as that produced by the Airport Noise Management System of Zurich [13] or Chicago airport [14]. It should also be noted that Heathrow does not levy the highest noise charges of all the airports considered within this benchmarking exercise (see KPI 1.3.4) (although these fining levels were reviewed in 2007). By comparison with Heathrow s fine limits of 500 (for 0.1 to 3.0 dba infringement) and 1000 (for an infringement in excess of 3.0 dba), fines by other airports include: Sydney airport can, in theory, impose fines of up to 350,000 for unauthorised aircraft operations outside airport curfew hours, failure to provide information on an aircraft movement or providing false information[15][16] 4 ; Orly and Charles de Gaulle airport may impose fines of up to 8500 on airlines and 1000 on pilots that disregard noise abatement procedures 5 ; Frankfurt has seven noise categories for chapter 3 compliant aircraft with noise taxes of up to 7000 per movement for the noisiest types [12]; San Francisco and Prague airports impose a 650 noise infringement fines[16]; Stansted Airport fines 750 for night-noise infringement, as does Zurich [13]; 4 5 The Sydney Curfew Act of 1995 restricts all aircraft movements between 2300 and 0600 local with additional restrictions imposed between and between 0600 and 0700 on Saturday and Sunday mornings. A draft bill was approved by the French Parliament July 1 st 1999 that set up an independent group "Authorite de Control des Nuisances Sonores Aeroportuaires" to monitor noise levels at French airports including abatement procedures on take-off, landing or engine run-ups. This law also restricts helicopter operations over populated areas. P1464D002 HELIOS 32 of 154

34 Barcelona Airport adds a noise-surcharge fine that is dependent on the time of day and the degree of infringement [16]; Schiphol imposes a noise surcharge of 30% above the base landing charge for the noisiest aircraft (i.e. those only marginally compliant with ICAO chapter 3 standards); and; Arlanda levies a noise tax per aircraft movement weighted by the correlated noise value. With reference to KPI 1.3.2, while Heathrow collects a relatively high amount of fines from noise infringements, scope exists for Heathrow to publish a clearer breakdown of how fines relate to the infringements incurred. In addition Heathrow may wish to investigate and benchmark its current fines against comparable airports (Recommendation 2). While Heathrow appears to perform relatively poorly against KPI & in reality only two airports in the sample set were found to have an active noise control scheme in place in the form of Fly Quiet programmes (Chicago and San Francisco [17][18]). Note that this noise control scheme is in no way related to the home insulation scheme. Activities are already in train to ensure that Heathrow establishes its own Fly Quiet scheme [1]; however progress against this target should be monitored closely (Recommendation 3). Other unusual punitive measures may be imposed by smaller airports. At the general and business aviation airport of San Ana (John Wayne) aircraft operators are banned from operating if three separate noise infringements are detected (a three strikes and you re out policy)[4]. While it should be remembered that this airport differs significantly from the local situation at Heathrow, it may be of interest to Heathrow to reassess its noise infringement scheme in this context (Recommendation 4). The legislative environment of some of Heathrow s comparator airports provides for more rigorous safeguarding of pre-existing quiet areas when they are affected by airspace changes and consultation processes (Ref KPI 1.4.1). French national legislation, for example, is particularly strong in this respect and this is reflected in the high competence score of Paris Orly and Charles de Gaulle [4]. Specifically the French system defines environmentally protected airspace (VPE); airspace volumes by coordinates listed as an appendix attached to a ministerial order. Deviations from set procedures in these VPE airspaces are only allowed for safety reasons or due to direct air traffic control (ATC) interventions. Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Washington National, Minneapolis St Paul, Toronto and Oslo airport also score equally highly. The German restrictions have developed through a recent tightening of legislation in response to airport development; specifically Frankfurt airport s new runway. In this instance the noise monitoring system became enshrined in the air traffic and noise regulation and became active in October The recommendation is therefore to investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to administer airspace changes around the world (and particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on understanding how volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports are protected (Recommendation 5) [4]. Examining the mechanisms used to ensure airlines adhere to various noise abatement procedures, set out in the UK AIP (KPI and 3.2.2), indicates a capability gap between Heathrow and its benchmarking comparator set. Thus, in addition to the Fly Green scheme, Heathrow could consider the feasibility of constructing a framework to benchmark airline performance against the noise P1464D002 HELIOS 33 of 154

35 abatement procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP) (Recommendation 6). However an extract from the detailed KPI score sheet from Annex F, shown below in Table 6, indicates those airports that out perform Heathrow in this area are London City and the Swiss airports of Zurich and Geneva. Zurich airport, for example, publishes a full list of the airlines that deviate from the departure routes along with details about when and where an infringement took place. A small investigation is launched into every deviation to examine the reasons for why it took place (e.g. weather avoidance or a direct instruction from ATC). If no plausible reason for flight track deviation (approximately 12% of cases) is provided by the airline the flight crew are contacted and asked to provide an explanation; if necessary this is escalated to the national regulator, the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) [19]. In the case of London City the airport enforces aircraft operator conformity with the AIP through a system of punitive fines for track keeping, ground operations (including maintenance) and maximum detected noise level [20]. P1464D002 HELIOS 34 of 154

36 Airport Airport Airport Name KPI 3.2.1: Noise abatement procedures Ref. No. code Airline adherence to AIP: success rate LHR Heathrow X 2 LGW Gatwick X 3 STN Stansted X 4 MAN Manchester X 5 LCY London City X 6 FAB Farnborough X 7 ZRH Zurich X 8 BCN Barcelona X 9 DUS Dusseldorf X 10 CPH Copenhagen X 11 MUC Munich X 12 ORY Paris - Orly X 13 OSL Oslo X 14 YYZ Toronto X 15 SFO San Francisco X 16 HKG Hong Kong X 17 SYD Sydney X 18 SIN Singapore X 19 MCO Orlando X 20 JFK New York JFK X 21 DXB Dubai X 22 DCA Washington National X 23 LGA LaGuardia Airport X 24 HRD Tokyo International X 25 ORD Chicago (O'Hare) X 26 FRA Frankfurt X 27 CDG Paris - Charles de Gaulle X 28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) X 29 ATL Atlanta X 30 LAX Los Angeles X 31 PEK Beijing Capital X 32 MAD Madrid (Barajas) X 33 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul X 34 ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) X 35 BRU Brussels X 36 AKL Auckland X 37 SNA San Ana (John Wayne) X 38 PRG Prague X 39 SZG Salzburg X 40 GVA Geneva X Table 6 Ranking table for KPI 3.2.1, extracted from Annex F The ranking of Heathrow s competence level in the development of best practice noise abatement procedures for departures (CCD, cutback etc.), KPI invites closer examination. Specifically Heathrow is out performed in this KPI by Brussels, Amsterdam, Manchester and Stansted airports. While these airports have a minimum climb gradient specified in their AIP (e.g. at Brussels this is 7%), as Heathrow does (4%) the other airports report infringements at a greater level of detail and have initiatives in place to tackle non-compliant airlines. In addition P1464D002 HELIOS 35 of 154

37 Manchester is currently looking to trial CCD procedures. By comparison discussions on the various merits of CCDs and cut-back climbs have been ongoing at Heathrow for a number of years and are still the subject of research [21]. It is recommended that this research is reviewed periodically to understand the merits of the two different scenarios with Heathrow continuing to work with the airlines, ICAO and the CAA in relation to developing departure procedures with due reference to ICAO s defined NADP1 and NADP2 (Recommendation 7). In relation to the development of NAP departure routes (KPI and 7.2.2) Heathrow is out performed by the Swiss airports of Zurich and Geneva. This is specifically because fines are not levied for non-adherence to set departure routes and because Heathrow could potentially publish details of infringements at a greater level of granularity (Recommendation 8). The analysis also identified numerous areas where Heathrow has a small capability gap relative to the airports it has been benchmarked against. This capability gap could potentially be closed through implementation of the minor recommendations listed below: Recommendation 9.1 Revising the definition of the night-time period (Ref KPI 1.1.1). A selection of airports in the benchmarking study define a 9 hour nighttime period including Geneva, Chicago, San Ana (John Wayne, VA, USA), Los Angeles and Tokyo International. This can be compared to Heathrow s 8 hour night period defined by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) that runs from 23:00 to 07:00. Recommendation 9.2 Reviewing the stringency of controls during night time period (Ref KPI 1.1.2), relating to restrictions on the number of movements, the types operated (either through a direct specific ban or a quota count system) or an outright ban of movements. Here Heathrow scores relatively highly due to its operation of a quota count system however it does remain open to night movements and this marks Heathrow down relative to the airports within the benchmarked set. While it is recognised that Heathrow may need to run its operations into the night, particularly when recovering from disruption due to fog or snow, other large airports such as Frankfurt and Madrid do operate a night curfew. Zurich, by comparison, publishes details of night-time noise movements by hour of the night [13] and Heathrow could look to move its reporting towards this level of detail Recommendation 9.3 Examine means of reducing the relatively high number of noise infringements (KPI Ref 1.3.1). Heathrow experienced more recorded correlated noise infringements then Frankfurt, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels, Barcelona, Sydney, Copenhagen, Paris Orly, Washington National, Los Angeles, New York LaGuardia and Toronto during Q It should be remembered that this infringement level depends on the threshold level of the noise monitor and is therefore subject to the limits imposed by the UK government in addition to local metrological and environmental conditions. Recommendation 9.4 Implement P-RNAV as called for in the Heathrow noise action plan (KPI Ref 3.1.2); by comparison several other airports in the benchmarking sample set have implemented this technology in support of arrival operations. Recommendation 9.5 Appraising the sophistication of the design of approach procedure (KPI and 3.1.4). It is noted that while Heathrow operates a relatively high proportion of CDAs, as a percentage of total arrivals, the P1464D002 HELIOS 36 of 154

38 definition of a CDA at Heathrow is set out in the arrivals code of practice and includes all approaches with no more than 2 NM of level flight from 6000ft [22]. Other airports in the benchmarking study are beginning to initiate more continuous decent approaches by comparison utilising RNP technology and point-merge procedures to perform CDAs from top of decent Analysing the performance of top ranked airports The top ranked airports perform consistently well across all KPAs while typically displaying particular strengths in one area. The best in class for each KPA are highlighted in the table below. Toronto scores particularly well against KPA 1 (Operating restrictions) due in part to the strict legal guidelines that protect quiet areas and high fining levels for aircraft that are older, noisier and generate more noise infringements. Specific procedures have also been defined for early morning arrivals. Heathrow performs particularly well under KPA 2, Fleet monitoring, due in part to the use of the quota count system. The QC system is a feature shared with the other UK airports including Stansted, Gatwick and Manchester according to a standard model outlined in the UK AIP supplement [3]. Other international airports operating a quota count system include Zurich, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, New York (JFK), Paris (Orly), Prague, Washington National and Toronto. By comparison the airports of San Francisco and Chicago operate a noise control scheme through their respective Fly Quiet programmes however a similar scheme is now also in train at Heathrow [1]. The regular publication of noise contours and the operation of a relatively modern fleet of aircraft are characteristics shared by other airports that performed well under KPA 2; including Stansted, Gatwick, Zurich and Geneva. A good performance is also demonstrated by Heathrow in relation to KPAs 5 and 6 which relate to the management of ground noise. Brussels airport performs well against KPA 3, the development of noise abatement procedures for arrivals. This airport operates a high proportion of stringentlydefined CDAs supported by P-RNAV. In addition a performance framework quantifies the performance of different airlines against given CDA targets. The airports that manage noise through runway alternation schemes also score well against those that do not under KPA 3; this includes Heathrow, Brussels, Schiphol, Zurich and Geneva. Under KPA 7, the management of departure noise, the airports of Schiphol and Brussels perform well due to the implementation of CCD procedures and good adherence to noise preferential departure routes. P1464D002 HELIOS 37 of 154

39 # Name KPA 1 KPA 2 KPA 3 KPA 4 KPA 5 KPA 6 KPA 7 Total 1 Amsterdam-Schiphol Brussels Heathrow Madrid (Barajas) Stansted Toronto Manchester Gatwick Zurich Dusseldorf Chicago (O'Hare) Geneva Copenhagen Frankfurt London City NB Highlights show best performance in class for a given KPA Table 7 Ranking table for the topped ranked airports. P1464D002 HELIOS 38 of 154

40 4 Normalised results 4.1 Determining the drivers When differences in the KPI scores of various airports are considered in their local geographical context, factors outside the airport s direct control may be identified. To account for these drivers of difference and to remove some of the subjectivity of selecting the peer group, a structured framework has been applied to understand them and account for the degree to which they can be controlled. This framework, described in Table 8 below, is then developed to re-normalise the basic results presented in chapter 3. While some systemic drivers will be common to all airports (for example the impact of disruptive weather) others, relating to corporate businesses processes being undertaken to manage noise (e.g. community engagement schemes) are inherently local. This latter driver is classified according to the level of activity undertaken by the airport itself to mitigate aircraft noise through operational means and is essentially the noise abatement procedures being benchmarked. These drivers are classified under the headings: inherent, structural, systemic and realised (ISSR) and are listed in a spectrum of drivers from strategic (at the top of the table) through to the tactical/operational level (bottom of the table). Category Description Impacts include: Inherent drivers Are mostly extraneous (beyond unilateral influence of the airport; these tend to be long term and strategic in nature). Regulatory/institutional maturity & community awareness/sensitivity Type of surrounding environment/land use planning (geographical positioning) Infrastructure layout; structure of terminals, buildings etc. (landside/airside layout sound deflection) and number of runways, layout & associated equipment Customer requirements type of Structural drivers Long term strategic implications more readily within the influence of the airport. airport/traffic type (business jets, CAT, etc.) Scale Intensity of operations (utilisation of infrastructure); capacity utilisation and resilience Operational complexity/concentration (airside ground and airspace) Systemic drivers Are within the day to day control of the airport s management to mitigate the impact of noise. They include actions such as the compilation of action plans, supporting community engagement activities. It is these metrics which are being benchmarked. Operational (procedures and practices; including hours of operation) Business processes/incentives e.g. financial incentives for airlines (fines and landing charges) Investigation of specific noise infringements NTK and noise management equipment capability Noise action plan/community engagement Realised Executional out-turn impacts of the above. These are focused on overall impact of noise mitigation and are not considered in this benchmarking exercise. Table 8 Example drivers of differences in procedure These drivers are usually expressed in terms of costs (excluded from this study) P1464D002 HELIOS 39 of 154

41 4.2 Establishing a fair comparison As this report is benchmarking airport performance against that of Heathrow the airports being considered must be assessed to determine how different they are relative to Heathrow. This allows the analysis to produce a ranking system reflective of individual airport performance against the backdrop of the drivers in its local environment - thereby ensuring that no bias is introduced into the analysis. This methodology also allows identification of those airports in the benchmarking set that are out-performing their peers relative to their local situation; i.e. they are performing better then would be expected for an airport of a given size. To analyse these differences they must first be quantified. For this purpose a weighting score is derived for each airport in the sample set according to the ISSR driver classification scheme. This weighting scheme is documented and sensitivity tested below. 4.3 Weighting the KPI scores When differences in the KPI scores of various airports are considered in their local geographical context, factors outside the direct control of the airport, but influencing its operation, may be identified. Using the classification scheme of Table 9, Table 10 summarises the severity of some of the key drivers of difference for each airport considered. The scores are derived by assigning a quantitative value for each airport against the broad description of the drivers as set out in Table 9, drawing on the qualitative sources listed in Annex D. The two tables below weight the drivers on the basis of their degree of difference to the local environmental situation at Heathrow. The larger the difference the higher the weighting score applied. Thus the airports with the highest score are those operating in the environments that are most dissimilar to Heathrow. P1464D002 HELIOS 40 of 154

42 Inherent drivers Description/ weighting score 1. Regulatory High stringency (0) (most similar to Heathrow) maturity/stringency Medium-high (1) Stringent (2) Low-medium stringency (3) Low stringency (4) 2. Geographical Urban/suburban (0) (most similar to Heathrow) positioning Coastal (4) City centre/urban (4) Suburban (4) Rural (4) 3. Number of 2 (0) (most similar to Heathrow) runways (score = number of runways at airport 2 ) 4. Type of airport Intercontinental Hub Airport (0) (most similar to Heathrow) (based on mixture of International Airport (1) air traffic) Metropolitan Airport (2) City Airport (3) Business Airport (4) Structural requirement drivers 5. Number of Air >400,000 ATMs p.a. (0) (most similar to Heathrow) Traffic Movements >300,000 ATMs p.a. (1) (ATMs) >200,000 ATMs p.a. (2) >100,000 ATMs p.a. (3) 6. Capacity operating level 7. Airspace complexity 8. Runway/surface layout complexity <100,000 ATMs p.a. (4) Very High (0) (most similar to Heathrow) High (1) Medium (2) Low (3) Very Low (4) High complexity- Metroplex (0) (most similar to Heathrow) Medium complexity (1) Low complexity (2) Parallel, dependant (0) (most similar to Heathrow) Single, high density (1) Dependant, intersecting (2) Parallel, independent (3) Table 9 Driver scoring difference between a given airport and Heathrow P1464D002 HELIOS 41 of 154

43 Inherent Structural I S S-I Regulatory maturity Geographical positioning Number of runways Heathrow Frankfurt JFK, NY Brussels Manchester Zurich CdG, Paris Beijing Capital Geneva Minn. St. Paul Amsterdam Schiphol Orly, Paris Los Angeles LaGuardia, NY Toronto Sydney Tokyo Int Stockholm Dusseldorf Gatwick Washington National San Francisco Stansted Hong Kong Munich Barcelona Oslo Madrid (Barajas) Singapore Prague Auckland Orlando London City Dubai Copenhagen Mixture of air traffic Number of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) Capacity operating level Airspace complexity Runway/surface layout complexity Total for inherent score Total for structural score Score (structural) Score (inherent) P1464D002 HELIOS 42 of 154

44 Regulatory maturity Geographical positioning Number of runways Chicago (O Hare) Atlanta Salzburg San Ana (John Wayne) Farnborough Table 10 Drivers of difference score table for inherent and structural drivers Mixture of air traffic Number of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) Capacity operating level Airspace complexity Runway/surface layout complexity Total for inherent score Total for structural score Score (inherent) Score (structural) P1464D002 HELIOS 43 of 154

45 Ordering Table 10 by total for inherent drivers and plotting the progression of the two sets of scores reveals an interesting correlation. In general the score for the structural drivers increases in line with the score for the inherent drivers; i.e. as the airports inherently become more different from Heathrow the structural drivers alter accordingly. However there are deviations from this general trend, as can be seen from both the graph of Figure 9 and the right hand column of Table 10. Specifically instances where the structural driver score exceeds that for the inherent drivers (highlighted yellow in Table 10) identifies airports that are inherently similar to Heathrow but are more different in structure then might be expected. It is these airports that are inherently similar to Heathrow, but only structurally different, whose scores will be weighted to ensure Heathrow is compared as closely as possible to them. Figure 9 Scores for inherent and structural drivers of difference across all the airports P1464D002 HELIOS 44 of 154

46 4.4 Sensitivity testing Figure 9 demonstrates that Brussels, Manchester, Zurich, Geneva, Dusseldorf, Barcelona, Prague, Auckland, Copenhagen and Salzburg airports must have their noise benchmarking scores positively weighted to ensure a fair benchmarking comparison is made between them and Heathrow. These airports correlate with the peaks of the red-line above the blue in Figure 9. A suitable scheme to increase the weighting of the scores of these airports was derived by multiplying the normalised scores by a linearly decreasing multiplier according to the relevance (inherent score) of the airports being benchmarked (i.e. the order that they appear in Table 11). A factor of 0.1 decreasing to 0.01 in steps of 0.01 was chosen to apply this qualitative factor of difference. Normalised score (score x weighting) Difference (number of ranking positions ascended) Name Basic score Weighting New Rank Brussels Manchester Zurich Geneva Dusseldorf Barcelona Prague Auckland Copenhagen Salzburg Table 11 Scores, weighting and ranking for weighted airports This weighting methodology impacts upon the relative ranking and scores of the whole set of benchmarked airports, to produce the final set of normalised results, as shown in Figure 10. Overall this weighting mechanism resulted in 32 places being exchanged between different airports (as either promotions or demotions). By comparison a weighting of 10 random airports in the sample set resulted in 47 places in the league table being exchanged; this similarity suggesting that the weighting scheme used is statically suitable. P1464D002 HELIOS 45 of 154

47 Figure 10 Influence of the weighting scheme on the scores and ranking of the airports P1464D002 HELIOS 46 of 154

48 The final normalised ranking table is shown in Table 12. Overall it places Heathrow third against the thirty nine other airports it has been benchmarked against. Of particular interest is both Brussels and Amsterdam airport, both of which rank higher then Heathrow. It is also perhaps worth noting the relatively strong performance of the Swiss airports (Zurich and Geneva) as well as that of the UK domestic comparator airports Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester. The operational noise performance of a selection of these airports is analysed in greater detail through a set of case studies. Airport Original Weighting Normalised Revised score applied score Rank Brussels Amsterdam (Schiphol) Heathrow Gatwick Madrid (Barajas) Stansted Toronto Zurich Manchester Dusseldorf Geneva Chicago (O'Hare) Copenhagen London City Sydney Frankfurt San Ana (John Wayne) Stockholm (Arlanda) Washington National Los Angeles Prague Minneapolis-St. Paul Salzburg Paris Orly Barcelona Munich Tokyo International Paris - Charles de Gaulle Oslo San Francisco Auckland Farnborough New York LaGuardia Airport Hong Kong Atlanta Singapore New York JFK Beijing Capital Orlando Dubai Table 12 Scores, weighting and ranking for all airports P1464D002 HELIOS 47 of 154

49 5 Case studies 5.1 General This benchmarking analysis is finalised by a set of case studies. Based on the results of the above findings, the following case studies of particularly relevant airport operations are included in this section: Brussels Airport an airport of particular interest given its similarity to Heathrow in terms of both its structural and inherent drivers; Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to understand how an airport with a highly complex runway layout can operate with noise sensitivity; Manchester Airport specifically providing a domestic comparison against Heathrow: in particular examining how the noise control and fining system is administered; Zurich Airport examining specifically how a ban on night flights is managed and the influence of stringent and mature regulator on infringement investigation and airspace change; London City Airport providing comparison with an airport using a stringent noise control scheme; Chicago Airport providing a comparison to a North American airport which will contrast to Heathrow both in how noise and flight operations are managed. Establishing these case studies yields an insight into best practice in the operational management of noise at an individual airport level. As such it should be noted that each case study tends to represent a regional solution to a specific problem. The following sections are included in each case study; a general introduction to airport and the local situation/noise sensitivities, a close assessment of airport performance (in line with the framework of Section 2.1) and a brief description of the infrastructure used to manage noise on an operational level that includes: Track keeping systems used to monitor aircraft position and noise; Stakeholder communication mechanisms (including any Noise abatement guidance provided to airport/airspace users); Fines associated with a noise infringement; Any novel approaches to reducing noise impact at an operational level (including involvement in research and development programmes); and; Any perceived benefits from the implementation of noise control measures. P1464D002 HELIOS 48 of 154

50 5.2 Case study 1: Brussels Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Similar to Heathrow in that Brussels airport operates in a highly stringent regulatory environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local (Flemish/Wallonian) and Federal legislation in accordance with European directives. 2) Geographical positioning Similarly to Heathrow Brussels airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt surrounding the major conurbation that it serves. 3) Number of runways Three runways are in operation (two in parallel and one cross-wind) according to a well-defined noise abatement alternation scheme. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) International airport operating approximately 225,500 air traffic movements each year close to its overall capacity level within a complex airspace used by aircraft operating into and out of other airfields. Arrivals sequence is facilitated by the use of P-RNAV arrival routes and an arrivals management system. Local environment and particular noise sensitivities Belgium is a federal state comprising three autonomous areas: the Flemish, the Brussels and the Walloon Region. The Federal Government is responsible for the general transport policy and for the operations at Brussels National Airport. The regions are responsible for environmental policy and each operates their own noise regulations. Due to a prevailing W-SW wind most of the take-off movements route over the city of Brussels 6. Legislation (the National Environment Permit) limits the number of night movements to 25000/year. Night flights are mostly performed by express freight/integrator services (they currently represent approximately 10% of the yearly movements). Since the beginning of 2000 Brussels airport has fined airlines that breach noise abatement limits, with the result that since then several political agreements between the Federal and the two Regional Governments have been brokered to establish a sustainable noise framework for the night-time period [24]. 6 The south-westerly wind at Brussels airport prevails for 90% of daytime hours (6 am till 11 pm) and for 97% of the night-time hours (11 pm till 6 am) P1464D002 HELIOS 49 of 154

51 Figure 11 Brussels airport layout [23] Figure 12 Local noise contours Brussels airport [23] P1464D002 HELIOS 50 of 154

52 5.2.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions Key to the noise management policy at Brussels airport is a set of strict aircraft movement operating restrictions, rigorously imposed by the airport and its regulators (at both a regional and national level). The QC) system is core to noise management. It is used to impose restrictions on the movements of particular aircraft at set times of day through a curfew system in addition to being used to account against noise budgets run over 12 month periods. Specifically airport curfews are in force for movements with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) > 34T: take-off or landing with QC > 8 is forbidden between 2200 and ; take-off or landing with QC > 12 is forbidden between 0500 and 0559; take-off with QC > 48 is forbidden between 0600 and 1959; landing with QC > 24 is forbidden between 0600 and 1959; take-off with QC > 24 is forbidden between 2000 and 2159; landing with QC > 12 is forbidden between 2000 and In relation to noise budgets At night (between 2300 and 0600) the single movement QC limit is 8 with an annual maximum of 300 landings between 2200 and 0459; In the early morning (between 0600 and 0700) the single QC movement limit is 12; In the evening take-offs between 2000 and 2159 for QC<26 aircraft is limited to 3% of total number of take offs per year; Note that there are no annual noise budgets with respect to QC value. QC is defined as 10 [(G-85)/10], where G equals: for take-off: half the sum of the certified fly-over and sideline noise levels in EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), of the aircraft at its MTOW; for landing: the certified approach noise level in EPNdB of the aircraft at its maximum landing weight, minus 9 EPNdB. EPNdB values are defined in the individual aircraft s noise certificate. Additionally Brussels airport has number of noise-related restrictions imposed on its distribution of aircraft movement slots: 16,000 night-time slots can be allocated annually (5,000 of which can be departures) to movements between (the 7 hour defined night period); 7 Note all timing in this report are local P1464D002 HELIOS 51 of 154

53 No night-time slots can be allocated on Saturday and Sunday mornings between and Saturday nights between Fleet monitoring In addition to the QC system; A ban is in place on aircraft only compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 2 noise restrictions; Take-off or landing of aircraft that are only marginally compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 3 noise restrictions are forbidden between 2200 and 0459 (although exceptions may be granted for diplomatic or emergency reasons). In practice this means that aircraft types as e.g. A300 and MD11 are still allowed, but that the (hushkitted) B727 is forbidden. Also all aircraft fleets are monitored through a noise and track keeping system with complaints investigated and aircraft operators notified of any noise infringement as detected. Arrivals restrictions Arrivals procedures are defined according to minimum heights over given waypoints on approach. While the AIP instructs pilots to use Noise abatement descend and approach procedures using continuous descent and reduced power / reduced drag techniques no systemic definition of a CDA is yet in use at the airport and as such the of compliance the CDA standard it is not reported. Instead low and late infringements (deviations from the glide path) are recorded. Notably Brussels airport suffers from frequent cross-wind conditions on the runways and as such noise abatement procedures are only expected to be flown when: the ILS is available; the runway is clear and dry and breaking action is not impeded; visibility exceeds 1900m; the cloud ceiling is higher than 500 ft above airfield elevation; the cross wind component lower than 15 kt (including gusts); the tail wind component lower than 5 kt (including gusts); no adverse weather conditions that may affect the approach (wind shear, thunderstorms, etc) are forecast; alternative runways are not successively requested by pilots for safety reasons; pilots do not report excessive wind at higher altitudes. Numerous other methods of noise mitigation have been pursued at an operational level. These have included attempting to concentrate the aircraft noise away from the general populous by routing arriving and departing air traffic along narrow corridors. A different scheme, which took the opposite approach by attempting to distribute the traffic across a wide area (and thereby share the noise load), has also been trialled (although found to be less successful). P1464D002 HELIOS 52 of 154

54 Runway usage restrictions A stringent runway preference system is in force at Brussels airport depending on time of day and day of the week. This scheme is surmised in the figure and table below Figure 13 Diagram of runways at Brussels airport and common runway configurations P1464D002 HELIOS 53 of 154

55 Applicability of scheme Times over which scheme X is applicable 0500 to to to 0459 Mon 0500 to Tue Tue 0500 to Weds Weds 0500 to Thurs Thurs 0500 to Fri Friday 0500 to Sat Sat 0500 to Sunday * 4 Sun 0500 to Monday ** 5 * RWY 25R for traffic routing via ELSIK, NIK ELEN, DENUT, KOK and CIV. RWY 20 for traffic via LNO, SPI, SOPOK, PITES and ROUSY (waypoint designators) ** Arrival on RWY 25L at ATC Discretion only Table 13 The runway configuration scheme at Brussels airport Figure 14 Total arrival/departure at Brussels airport 2010 (2009 comparison in table) In addition to the quota count system the total amount of noise from all departure movements at night is limited by the runway in use. This mode of operation has only been adopted relatively recently and has followed many years of intense debate at a national level about the fairest way to distribute the aircraft noise burden across the residents surrounding the airport. Exceptions to the above runway preference scheme may occur when the wind components exceed the indicated values; in such cases a runway more into wind will be assigned. However, runway 07L/R will not be used for landing, except when no other suitable runway is available. This is because it is preferred, from a safety point of view, to have aircraft landing and take-off operations into the wind, although exceptions can be made to this general rule. P1464D002 HELIOS 54 of 154

56 Ground movements A number of noise abatement restrictions are imposed on aircraft surface operations: Use of reverse thrust is restricted except in emergency situations; Engine test/run-up is banned at night and restricted during the daytime ( ). Engine test runs and idle checks in the open air and without silencers must be restricted to the very minimum and require prior permission from the Airport Authority. Specifically they can only take place on the crossing of TWY F3, Y, W1 and W2. If this crossing is not available due to infrastructural reasons, holding platform P7 may be used instead. Engine run-up is not allowed at the holding position, except for run-up tests performed immediately before take-off as part of the take-off procedure; Restrictions are imposed on the number off aircraft that may taxi at any one time. Specifically a maximum four aircraft are authorized to taxi simultaneously to the holding position(s) of the runway(s)-in-use. Additionally, only three aircraft are allowed to await take-off clearance at the holding position at the same time. The demand for taxiing is optimised through the use of a CDM system (the second certified in Europe). Gate operations Fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) and pre-conditioned air (PCA) is provided at a number of stands and reduces the requirement for on-gate running of the aircraft s APU. Details of stand equipage with FEGP and PCA is published annually. The aircraft parking positions 140 to 172, 201 to 240 and 680 to 699 are equipped with 400Hz FEGP and pre-conditioned air (PCA). As soon as possible after arrival at one of these positions (5 minutes after docking maximum), the 400Hz FEGP must be connected and the APU switched off. Upon departure (15 min before estimated time of departure), the APU can be started and 400Hz FEGP can be disconnected. When 400Hz FEGP or PCA is not available, the APU may be used. When no PCA is available and an authorisation from the duty manager has been obtained, the use of the APU is allowed during periods of extreme high or low temperatures for aircraft docked for more than 1 hour at the aircraft parking position. Departures A steep 7% minimum climb gradient is defined on all standard instrument departures (SIDs) until 3200 ft (QNH) with subsequent cutback procedures defined in the local AIP. The SIDs in particular follows a narrow and curved flight path. Departures of heavy aircraft with a MTOW >200t must use runway 25R for departure Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology A noise reporting system is available online using a similar system to Heathrow s ANOMS platform. This system integrates: reported noise levels from 52 noise monitors (shown below; Red stations managed by the airport Blue stations managed by Brussels Institute for the Environment and Green stations managed P1464D002 HELIOS 55 of 154

57 by the Flemish Environment agency), positional information derived from a radar data surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure. Figure 15 Position of the noise monitors around Brussels airport Stakeholder communication mechanisms The airport has established an ISO compliant environmental management system; controlling and improving environmental performance in compliance with local regulatory drivers and continuous improvement. The airport is audited annually to ensure its environmental policy statement and environmental management programme is in compliance with international standards. As part of this work noise abatement procedural guidance is provided to the airlines operating from the airport. In addition the airport publishes an annual environmental management report [25], a monthly noise measurement report (for each monitoring station, delineating the proportion of the number of noise events of different db category levels [26]) and participates in consultations with local communities. Fines associated with noise infringement and noise surcharges No fines are levied for noise infringements at Brussels airport however an airport usage charge is in force, calculated according to the following formula Charge to aircraft operator = U x W x E x D where: U = Unit rate; 2.12 Euros; W = Weight factor (metric tonnes), with 20t<W<175T; E = Environment factor, where E depends on the category of the aircraft; D = Time of day weighting. P1464D002 HELIOS 56 of 154

58 Aircraft that do not have any noise certification documentation are automatically assigned to category F. The noise category of an aircraft depends on cumulative reductions and individual reductions at the three measurement points (fly over, side-line and approach noise) as defined in ICAO standards. The E-factor is determined as follows. The aircraft categorisation is determined according the criteria set out below. D= day/night factor depends on time of movement and QC value. Time used to determine if an aircraft movement is a day/night movement is weight on/off wheels. Aircraft category E-Factor From 04/2011 From 04/2013 From 04/2015 A B C D E F Table 14 Environmental category and weighting value Brussels airport Criteria to be met concurrently Cumulative EPNdB reduction (from ICAO Chapter 3 standard) of at least Individual EPNdB reduction (from ICAO Chapter 3 standard) in each noise measurement point of at least Category F E D C B A Less than 0 0 or more 5 or more 10 or more 15 or more 20 or more N/A Table 15 Criteria for classification into environmental category Brussels airport.local Time QC Movement [D] QC<12 Departure & Arrival QC 12 Departure (from 4/2013) 3.00 (from 4/2015) QC 12 Arrival Any QC Departure & Arrival 1.00 QC<12 Departure & Arrival QC 12 Departure (from 4/2013) 3.00 (from 4/2015) QC 12 Arrival 2.00 All Arrival All Departure 2.75 (from 4/2013) 3.00 (from 4/2015) Table 16 Determining the day/night factor [D] Brussels Airport Helicopters incur a minimum landing charge of however, Helicopter operations are restricted from using conventional approach or departure routes between P1464D002 HELIOS 57 of 154

59 Novel approaches to operational noise management Noise level limits are set down for given zones around Brussels airport; compliance with these limits is recorded through the collection of noise monitor recordings. This noise level limit region is located west of the airport.for the Brussels Region, three zones are determined each with their own limits: the limits are not set for individual noise monitors, but for zones; - Zone 2 : area located north-east situated in between the borders of the regional territory and the radius central point fixed by co-ordinates 50'54.2'N - 004'32.4'E with a radius length of 10,000 meters; - Zone 1 : area located north-east situated in between the borders of the regional territory the limits of zone 2 and the radius central point fixed by co-ordinates 50'54.2'N - 004'32.4'E with a radius length of 12,000 meters; - Zone 0 : a zone of the regional territory which is not covered by zones 1 and 2; within these zones, the limits are more stringent further away from the airport; separate limits exist for day and night. Noise limits are expressed in limits per individual movement (SEL) where: SEL= L aeq,t + 10 X log 10 (t) / 1sec Where L aeq,t is the local area equivalent level of acoustic pressure expressed in db(a). Each noise event itself is correlated to an overflight of an aeroplane that produces more then 70 db(a) measured in L aeq,t ; LEVT is defined as the SEL value calculated for the event under consideration. LSP aeroplane is defined the L aeq,t value specific to noise produced by a source of ambient noise, generated by aeroplanes and calculated for a defined period of observation. Zone LEVT in db(a) LSP aeroplane in db(a) Day Night Day Night Table 17 Noise limits for Brussels airport noise zones P1464D002 HELIOS 58 of 154

60 5.3 Case study 2: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Similar to Heathrow in that Schipol airport operates within a highly stringent regulatory environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local and national legislation in accordance with European directives. 2) Geographical positioning Similarly to Heathrow, Schipol airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt surrounding the major conurbation it serves. 3) Number of runways A major difference to Heathrow is the number of runways in operation (six) and very high degree of complexity in the layout of the airport surface. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) As a major intercontinental hub airport for long and short-haul flights operating close to capacity and serving approximately 386,000 air traffic movements within a complex airspace structure, Schipol is highly similar to Heathrow in this respect. A notable difference however is that Schipol does not operate within asystem of airports. The arrivals sequence is facilitated by ATC issuing vectors during periods of high traffic density. During quieter periods P-RNAV arrival routes facilitate the flow of arrivals. Local environment and particular noise sensitivities Schiphol airport has five main runways available for its operations (plus a sixth, shorter runway, runway 04/22, currently typically used for general aviation). The geographical layout of these runways is presented in below. Daily operations at Schiphol airport take place using the concept of alternating peak periods - periods in which either arriving or departing traffic is predominant. This concept is driven by the business model of the main carrier operating at the airport, KLM. Schiphol is KLM s hub airport and approximately 70% of KLM passengers are connecting rather than point-to-point. This explains why a model of inbound peaks, transfer and outbound peaks is so critical (i.e. many inbound flights connecting under minimum connect times to many outbound flights to maximise the number of destinations and frequencies that can be offered to a wide market).high reliability is needed to minimise missed connections. P1464D002 HELIOS 59 of 154

61 Figure 16 Schiphol runway layout Applying the alternating peak concept to runway use means that the airport alternates between periods of requirement for higher arrivals capacity or higher departures capacity. During these peak periods, a so-called 2+1 runway use concept is applied: during arrivals peaks two dedicated arrivals runways and one dedicated departures runway are in use, during departures peaks this situation is reversed. In transitions between peaks, a limited period of runway use is acceptable, where the additional runway can be used to process part of the remaining traffic flow of the previous peak, until that traffic flow can be handled by a single runway only. Schiphol airport operates within strict noise regulations. These regulations have been defined through the use of handhavingspunten - points around the airport for which a maximum annual noise quota is defined. The location and quotas of these points have been defined in such a way that more noise can be allowed in areas with low density of population and less noise allowed in densely populated areas. Two sets of points exist: one monitoring operations during the whole, 24- hour day, and one for night hours only ( ). P1464D002 HELIOS 60 of 154

62 Figure 17 Schiphol local noise contours Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions Although the total number of runways is high compared to other airports, there are a number of factors limiting runway use: Due to their relative position and orientation, simultaneous operations on combinations of runways can be dependent (limiting the available capacity) or even impossible. Examples are dependent operations on converging landing runways 06 and 36R, and incompatible landing runways 06 and 36C; Noise restrictions (which also affect the preferred runway use, as will be discussed below) prohibit or severely limit use of runways in certain directions. The most obvious example of this is runway 18R/36L, which can not be used for arrivals from and departures towards the south. Other examples are runway 06/24 (very limited use from/towards the northeast) and RWY 18L/36R (not used from/towards the north). In 2001 there was a maximum of 440,000 commercial air traffic movements; in 2002 this was extended to a maximum of 460,000. In 2003 these operating quota were replaced by another system with no specific limit on the annual number of movements but instead specifying a total noise volume (TVG) for L DEN and L Night and maximum noise levels in 35 enforcement points for L DEN and 25 points for L Night. Thus the amount of available airport capacity varies according to the amount of noise budget used by operations to date. This limited environmental capacity is enforced by noise budget restrictions effectively imposed by slot coordination measures. P1464D002 HELIOS 61 of 154

63 Schiphol has a limited number of slots during the night period and airlines are not allowed to operate between ( ) without a slot applicable to this period. Fleet monitoring Chapter 2 aircraft are banned and the use of marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft is restricted with no new operations being permitted and existing operations currently being phased out. No specific noise budget (i.e. airport slots) is currently defined for distribution between operators however it is anticipated that this may come into force in the future. Note that should Chapter 2 aircraft operate from Schiphol despite the ban then a noise surcharge is added to each aircraft movement. Arrivals restrictions The Amsterdam TMA - like Dutch airspace as a whole - is of limited dimensions (flight time from FIR boundary to TMA boundary is only in the order of 10 minutes) and covers some very complex routes: currently, for arrivals, there are three Initial Approach Fixes (IAF) at the TMA boundary, SUGOL in the west, ARTIP in the east and RIVER in the southwest, and arrival routes exist from all three IAFs to all relevant runway ends. The figure below shows tracks for all flights for a period of a number of hours. Arriving aircraft are highlighted in red and departures in blue. During the period covered by the figure, RWY 18R was used as primary arrivals runway, with RWY 18C as secondary arrivals runway. Departures runways were 24 and 18L. Figure 18 Schiphol Radar tracks of arrivals (red) and departures (blue) The figure clearly shows two important characteristics: P1464D002 HELIOS 62 of 154

64 the vectoring of aircraft (and hence dispersion of noise) is currently taking place to ensure efficient operations. It can also be seen that there is some flexibility in this vectoring: most arrivals coming through the RIVER IAF (to the southwest of the map) are vectored via the west side of the airport and merged with traffic coming through the SUGOL IAF (to the west of the map), whereas some flights from RIVER are vectored via the east side of the airport; the complex network of arrival and departure routes and the often acute angles at which these cross, leading to a requirement for clear vertical separation. The option to use holding stacks at the IAFs is available, but this procedure is currently avoided as much as possible. The complexity of operations in the TMA is further increased by flights to and from the airports of Rotterdam and Lelystad. In the specific Schiphol context, LVNL defines a CDA as a P-RNAV supporting noise reduction approach where both the vertical and lateral path has been defined as a fixed route. The vertical path is continuous (without horizontal flight) 8. This is a much more prescriptive and less flexible definition of a CDA than that promulgated by EUROCONTROL. In addition the AIP specifies that CDAs are flown in a low power/low drag configuration with delayed deployment of speed brakes, landing gear and flaps. Currently, CDAs are used during the night hours ( ) however options for extending their use have been analysed and are currently being trialled. The procedures used during this period have been specifically designed for the night time operations. The intention is to develop new RNAV CDA routes and procedures which can be used outside the night hours. Runway usage restrictions Runway use during the day is determined based on the three factors; runway infrastructure, traffic distribution and noise regulations, in combination with weather conditions (in particular wind conditions) and runway availability. A preferential runway system is in place with highest preference put towards operations on runways that lead to noise nuisance in the less densely populated areas. In practice this leads to preferred use of arrivals runways 06 ( Kaagbaan ) and 18R ( Polderbaan ). However, the order of preference is re-evaluated on a weekly basis to ensure all points stay within the quotas at each of the handhavingspunten for the operational year (1 November - 31 October). An example of the order of runway combinations for an arrivals peak period (two arrivals runways, one departures runway) according to the noise preferential runway use system is provided in Table 18. Similar orders of preference for possible runway combinations exist for departures peaks, off-peak periods and night time. The high preference for runways 06 and 18R can easily be recognised from this overview. Typically, combinations with preference 1, 2 or 3 account for close to 90% of arrivals peak times during the year. 8 Request for proposal for the current project, Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) Schiphol - Assignment second opinion, 26 June 2008 P1464D002 HELIOS 63 of 154

65 Order of preference Main arrivals RWY Secondary arrivals RWY Departures RWY R 36L 2 18R 18C R 18C 18L 4 36R 36C 36L R R R 22 18L Table 18 Example arrival peak runway preference order 9 for Schiphol airport These combinations are represented in graphical form as follows: Figure 19 Representation of noise preferential runway system at Schiphol Airport During daytime ( ) hours and after landing, the use of idle reverse thrust is advised on all runways except runway 04/22, safety permitting to achieve the highest possible runway capacity by runway occupancy times are reduced to a minimum. During nighttime ( ) however reverse thrust above idle is not be used on any runway, safety permitting. 9 P1464D002 HELIOS 64 of 154

66 Ground movements To reduce the noise impact of arrivals, aircraft equipped with 3 or 4 engines are advised to operate reduced engine taxi. Pilots are allowed to deviate from this restriction if the procedure is considered an unsafe operation or would hinder the normal operation of the aircraft. In addition Engine test running is only allowed on dedicated locations on the airport and reverse thrust above idle shall not be used (safety permitting) from Gate operations There are various APU operating restrictions in place at Schiphol airport. Specifically the use of APU and ground power units (GPU) is strictly controlled at all F and G aircraft stands and aircraft stands B16, B20, B24, B28, B32, B36 to reduce noise impact. At these stands (fixed) 400 Hz FEGP units are used while for cooling and heating purposes, pre-conditioned air units (PCA) is used. The APU should be shut down as soon as practicable following arrival (but not later than 5 minutes after parking brakes set) and not restarted until 10 minutes prior to departure in order to start the engines. At all other aircraft stands, aircraft are requested not to use APU and external power supplies, such as 400 Hz power units, GPU and PCA, should be used instead, where available. The only exceptions made to this general rule are when: it is necessary to use an APU to diagnose and/or rectify aircraft faults (for technical/maintenance reasons), however prior permission must be obtained from the Airside Operations office before this is put into practice; 400 Hz power units and/or PCA units are not operative or not available. Prior permission must be obtained from the Airside Operations office; and; the outside temperature is below -5 C or above +25 C (according to Météorologique aviation régulière (METAR)). Departures Continuous climb departure (CCDs) are implemented at Schipol airport, with climb power settings specified to be used after climbing past 1500ft. These CCDs are flown in accordance with closely defined noise sensitive departure routes with infringements accounted for though flight performance evaluation reports Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology A noise reporting and track keeping system is available online using a similar system to Heathrow s ANOMS platform. This system integrates reported noise levels from 35 noise monitors (shown in Figure 17), positional information derived from a radar data surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure. P1464D002 HELIOS 65 of 154

67 Stakeholder communication mechanisms The LVNL (Dutch ATC) website informs the community of the runway combination currently in use, in addition to providing historical runway use information 10 and noise abatement guidance provided to the airport/airspace users through the AIP. In addition the airport publishes an annual environmental management report, a monthly noise measurement report (for each monitoring station, delineating the proportion of the number of noise events of different db category levels [26]) and participates in consultations with local communities. Fines associated with noise infringement and noise surcharges No noise infringement fines are imposed by Schiphol airport, instead a landing and take-off surcharge is levied against operators of noisier aircraft. There are currently two noise charges in effect at the airport - one charged by the airport and the other by the government. The airport charges reflect the costs of handling the aircraft while the government charges relate to noise impact around the airport. Both charging regimes are incorporated into a single system with the revenue apportioned as appropriate. Landing charge depends upon: The aircraft weight; Noise certification; Time of arrival and departure; Type of flights (Commercial Air Transport point-to-point flights, cargo, local/instructional flights). The basic government charges, which accounts for the noise levy calculation, is set at as of 1 January with noise surcharges are added on top of this, specifically: Take-offs between 2300 and 0600 all charges are increased by 50%, and landings over the same period increased by 27%; Aircraft marginally compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 3 restrictions have landing and take-off charges increased by 60% over the basic rate; and; The basic rate is increased by 40% for noise category A aircraft and reduced by 20% by noise category C aircraft. The usage charge applicable depends to the amount of noise generated by a given aircraft movement, specifically the extent to which operators use the available noise capacity within Schiphol's noise contours. The basis of aircraft noise category banding is the EPNdB values per aircraft, defined by the ICAO certification values for Chapter 3 compliant aircraft. The EPNdB is calculated by subtracting the sum of the three Chapter 3 limit values (in accordance with ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1) from the product of the three EPNdB noise certification values. From this the following noise categories are defined: These airport charges and conditions are due to be revised after 1 November P1464D002 HELIOS 66 of 154

68 noise category MCC3: 0 EPNdB > -5 (marginally Compliant Chapter 3); noise category A: -5 EPNdB > -9 (relatively noisy aircraft); noise category B: -9 EPNdB > -18 (average noise producing aircraft); and; noise category C: EPNdB -18 (relatively-low-noise aircraft). For aircraft, which are not Chapter 3 certified, the following is applicable: Chapter 2 aircraft are noise category MCC3 (and are banned from operating); all helicopters are noise category B; and; all aircraft < 6 tonnes MTOW and all (turbo)prop aircraft 9 tonnes MTOW are noise category C. P1464D002 HELIOS 67 of 154

69 If the noise certification values of an aircraft are not available (or not provided by the operator) the charges according to noise will be based on a worst case configuration of that aircraft type shown in the table below. Noise category MCC 3 Noise category A Noise category B Noise category C Basic charge + 60% Basic charge + 40% Basic charge Basic charge 20% Airbus A300 Airbus A310 Airbus A319 Airbus A318 Airbus A321 Airbus A320 Airbus A /300/500/600 Airbus A330 Airbus A380 B707 B /500 B /700/800/900 B717 B727 B B /300 B /200/400 B B /300 B /300er B /200/300/SP Antonov all types BAe types not mentioned ATR42 BAe ATP BAC 1-11 Fokker 27 ATR72 BAe Jetstream DC-8 Lockheed all types BAe 146/AVRO RJ Bombardier Global series Express DC-9 MD-81/82/83/87/88 Bombardier 900 Canadair CL601/604 DC-10 Tristar all types Canadier CL600 Canadair RJ 100/200 Ilyushin all types Canadair RJ Dornier 700/ /JET/prop Tupolev all types Dash all types Embraer EMB-120 (Brasilia) Yak 42 Embraer 170/175/190/195 Embraer 135/145 Fokker 50 Fokker 70 Fokker 100 MD-90 MD-11 Saab all types Short 360 Gulfstream II/III Cessna 500 other types Hawker 700 (HS ) All other aircraft not mentioned in noise categories MCC3, A, B and C Falcon 200/900/2000/7x Hawker 800 (BAe ) IAI other types Learjet 31/35/36/45/55/60 All helicopters Alle aircraft < 6t MTOW Alle (turbo-)props < 9t MTOW Table 19 Conservative classification of noise categories, Schiphol airport P1464D002 HELIOS 68 of 154

70 5.4 Case study 3: Manchester Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Similar to Heathrow in that Manchester airport operates under the same specific national noise controls enshrined in National legislation as Heathrow. However as a non-designated airport under CAA act 1982 (only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are designated airports) noise amelioration is not the responsibility of the Government. Instead the noise regime is negotiated and agreed with the local planning authority and enshrined in a planning agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act ) Geographical positioning Similarly to Heathrow Manchester airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt surrounding the major conurbation that it serves. 3) Number of runways Two; when both are in operation; one is dependent on the other. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) As a metropolitan airport, Manchester operates both long and short-haul flights (serving approximately 150,000 movements each year) with a relatively simple aerodrome and airspace layout. While relatively dissimilar to Heathrow in terms of layout, surroundings and airport type it does however operate in a noise sensitive location and in accordance with the same regulations as used by Heathrow. Local environment and particular noise sensitivities Manchester Airport has two runways, Runway 1 (23R/05L) and the new Runway 2 (23L/05R) which became operational on 5 February A very stringent night noise policy is in place at Manchester with only Runway 1 operated between 2200 and The runways are typically operated in segregated mode (one used for take-offs the other for landings); predominantly in a westerly orientation (which takes place for 80% of all operations). Aircraft are flown in accordance with noise sensitive Standard Arrival Routes (STARS) and noise preferential departure routes (NPDR) until the release altitude is reached unless operational or safety considerations preclude this. The release altitude form the NPR depends on the departure route flown; for some routes this is as low as 3000ft while for others it is as high as 5000ft. Non-standard departures are also used as appropriate; these include instances where early turn instructions have been issued to aircraft to reduce larger jet noise. Early turns account for around 2% of all departures; these routings help to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on the communities in the immediate vicinity of the airport. P1464D002 HELIOS 69 of 154

71 Figure 20 Manchester airport noise contours (urban/sub-urban areas shown in pink) Figure 21 Manchester airport noise preferential departure routes P1464D002 HELIOS 70 of 154

72 5.4.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions A quota count system is in operation at Manchester airport to budget out the impact of aircraft noise. Certification noise levels (EPNLs), as defined in ICAO Annex 16, are used for determining the QC category. Takeoff QC value = (Takeoff + Sideline)/2 for chapter 3 compliant aircraft Takeoff QC value = ((Takeoff + Sideline)/2)+1.75 for chapter 2 compliant aircraft Certificated Noise Level (EPNdB) Quota Count Greater than Table 20 Quota count system at Manchester airport 12 The following specific limitations relating to the quota count system have been imposed: aircraft with a quota count of QC 8 or QC 16 must not take off or land between 11pm and 7am; aircraft with a quota count of QC 4 cannot be scheduled to take off between 11.30pm and 6am; during the night-time period ( ) specific quota count budgets are set; 8750 QC points for summer, 3900 QC points for winter within the seasonal movement limits of for Summer and 3895 for Winter (these figures are due for review in the Autumn of Summer 2011). The penalty scheme for infringements on the above restrictions is administered by a panel set up under the auspices of the Scheduling Committee which includes the airlines and the Airport authority. A variety of targets have been set with the aim of achieving continuous improvement through a system of rolling averages, specifically: number of aircraft marginally compliant with ICAO chapter 3 is no greater than in 2006; the average noise level of the noisiest 100 departures between 2300 and 0700 will stay below the level for 2001; the average noise level of the 100 noisiest departures between 2330 and 0600 will remain lower than the average recorded in 2001 (this average is recorded in the annual flight evaluation report); 12 Defined in accordance with the UK AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) P1464D002 HELIOS 71 of 154

73 the average noise level of the 10% of noisiest departures will remain lower than that recorded in 2001; and; an annual report on the average noise level of the top 100 noisiest departures between 2300 and Specific night-time movement targets have been set up to limit noise nuisance from night flights, specifically: Night-time movement limits do not exceed 7% of airport total; Between 2330 and 0559 (local) QC4 aircraft will not be scheduled to depart; Between 2300 and 0659 (local) QC16 and QC8 aircraft will not be allowed to arrive or depart, except in case of emergency or where exempt. Fleet monitoring Manchester airport operates a sky track award scheme to reward and publicise those airlines with good track keeping and overall environmentally efficient operations. Equally details of the top 100 noisiest arrivals are published quarterly (calculated for night-time arrivals and night-time departures); these too are used to incentivise airlines to improve performance. Arrivals restrictions P-RNAV supported CDAs / LPLD approaches are operated between to runway 23L with the airport monitoring compliance through the number of lows and lates recorded for ILS glidepath intercept (not descending below 2000ft). CDAs are implemented during the daytime when traffic conditions permit. Specifically while visual approaches to Runway 23R/23L are permitted outside the hours of operation between 2300 and 0600 Manchester airport has imposed the following additional limitations: Jet aircraft shall not join the final approach at a height of less than 1500 ft aal; Propeller driven aircraft with a maximum total weight authorised (MTWA) exceeds 5700 kg shall not join the final approach at a distance of less than 3NM from the landing threshold and at a height of no less than 1000 ft above aerodrome level (aa)l; and; ATC will seek to position visual approaches, by radar, to join the final approach at a distance of 7NM. After intercepting the glidepath all aircraft not fly below it. An aircraft approaching without assistance from the ILS or radar shall follow a descent path that will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path that would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath In addition to these specific procedures Manchester airport supported the development of the arrivals code of practice alongside Heathrow airport. P1464D002 HELIOS 72 of 154

74 Runway usage restrictions Figure 22 Schematic of approach and departure routes Manchester airport Manchester airport has specified its preferred runway direction as westerly, (that is, aircraft approaching to land from the east and taking off to the west: right to left in the above picture), to reduce the number of departing aircraft flying over the more densely -populated areas to the north and east of the airport. Manchester airport has particular noise sensitivities surrounding its use of the second runway. Consequently the airport continually reviews opportunities to use just runway one and impose specific restrictions around its use. Only one runway is used during the quieter period of the day ( , extending to if traffic allows) and during the night ( extending to Monday- Friday if traffic allows). In addition runway 2 is closed between 1030am and 1600 on Sunday. To minimise disturbance in areas adjacent to the airport, Manchester airport requests aircraft operators to avoid the use of reverse thrust on the runway after landing while consistent with safe operation of the aircraft, especially during the night-time period between 2300 and Ground movements Taxiing instructions are partly issued on basis of noise abatement, particularly at night. Specifically preferential taxiways are defined for jet aircraft and all large propeller-driven aircraft departing from Runway 05L; subject to operational restrictions and requirements. ATC approves idle ground engine runs after permission has been granted by the Airfield Duty Manager. Engine testing on the open airfield is only allowed for Chapter 2 aircraft between 0900 and 1700 with Chapter 3 (and propeller driven) aircraft tested between 0600 and Engine testing at night (i.e. between ) is restricted to 20 incidents a year, all of which must take place inside the engine test bay. All engine tests requiring power levels above idle must take place in the engine test bay. P1464D002 HELIOS 73 of 154

75 Gate operations A code of best practice has been developed for noise-sensitive ground movements including aircraft towing and restrictions on APU use where alternative fixed electrical ground power is available. Currently a framework is being developed to assess the feasibility of more consistent use of reduced-engine taxiing. Departures The departure movement strategy at Manchester aims to concentrate aircraft noise along the lowest possible number of noise abatement departure routes, away from densely populated areas. Further after take-off or go-around every jet aircraft must maintain a height of not less than 1000ft aal above at the point nearest to the relevant noise monitoring terminal with a rate of climb of at least 500ft per minute at power settings which ensure progressively decreasing noise levels at points on the ground under the flight path beyond the monitoring point. Performance indicators show that 95% of annual departure movements adhere to defined track-keeping routes. Repeat offender airlines who persistently fail to adhere to the track keeping requirements have fines imposed upon them ( 500 per daytime infringement, 750 per night-time infringement), however no such fines have been used to date. Continuous Climb Departures are currently being trialled, when traffic conditions permit, to understand their potential impact on noise and emission reductions. Noise Preferential Routes specified are flown by all departing aircraft except for: Aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed 5700 kg; Aircraft instructed by ATC to make early turns in order to expedite traffic flow, (such instructions may be issued during the period local time, to propeller aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed kg, including, for example, such aircraft types as BAe 146 [Avro RJ Series], Canadair Regional Jet, Embraer EMB-135/145); and; Instances instructed by ATC, including deviations required in the interests of safety Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology Manchester s Noise and track keeping system, MANTIS, is used to correlate noise complaints with overflights, provide a public portal to interrogate flight operations, as well as being used to produce data populating quarterly flight evaluation reports and the annual noise/track-keeping statistics. The public version of this system is supported by the use of an online drag and drop training game 13. Stakeholder communication mechanisms Specific and detailed noise abatement guidance is provided to the users of the airport and airspace. Annual noise monitoring reports use diagrams to illustrate the 13 P1464D002 HELIOS 74 of 154

76 trend in aircraft noise certification chapter number and the absolute reduction in the number of noisiest departures. Fines associated with noise infringement The airport charging system is based on airline adherence to CDA defined routes (through low/late infringements), aircraft type (chapter number), track keeping ability, recorded noise levels, time of arrival/departure, weight of aircraft and any engine ground runs that take place at night. Manchester Airport levies a surcharge against aircraft operators that persistently break the limits (equivalent to 5% or more departures in any one month) along the Preferred Noise Routes (PRN s), as prescribed by the Company and recorded and monitored by the Company s noise and tracking monitoring system. The surcharge levied is set out below: During the period hours and hours (local) 500 per failure; and; During the period hours and hours (local) 750 per failure. A further 150 is added for each decibel in excess of the noise limit. Prior to this surcharge being the levied the airport consults with the operator to establish steps that the operator can take to avoid further failures. Novel approaches to operational noise management MANTIS, Manchester airport s noise and track-keeping monitoring system provides a constant display of the noise levels recorded at each of the noise monitors, rather than just noise events correlated with aircraft movements. P1464D002 HELIOS 75 of 154

77 5.5 Case study 4: Zurich Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Similar to Heathrow in that Zurich airport operates in a highly stringent regulatory environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local and national legislation. 2) Geographical positioning Similarly to Heathrow, Zurich airport is positioned within the urban/suburban belt surrounding the major conurbation that it serves. 3) Number of runways Three runways are in operation, according to a defined alternation period, however all three are dependant. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) A metropolitan airport supporting both long and short-haul flights (around 128,912 movements each year) with a relatively simple layout of airport Zurich airport differs significantly from Heathrow although it does operate within a noise sensitive location and close to German airspace. P-RNAV routings are used to improve track-keeping performance of airlines when traffic conditions permit Local environment and particular noise sensitivities Zurich airport is the largest international airport in Switzerland. It operates about 260,000 arrivals and departures each year over three runways. The location of Zurich airport results in noise generated by arriving and departing aircraft being distributed across the German/Swiss border. In 2003 Germany imposed airspace restrictions affecting in-bound flights to Zurich arriving through German airspace due to noise concerns. This resulted in an increase of flights over the most populated areas of Zurich, including the prosperous suburbs, and hence an increase in political pressure to reduce noise impact. In response Swiss diplomats have sought concessions from their German counterparts on the local flight restrictions however negotiations are currently ongoing. As a result of these pressures Zurich airport operates a complex system of noise restrictions as part of its ISO accredited Environmental Management System (EMS). P1464D002 HELIOS 76 of 154

78 Figure 23 Zurich airport noise contours Figure 24 Zurich airport noise preferential arrival (green) and departure routes (red) P1464D002 HELIOS 77 of 154

79 5.5.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions Zurich airport is only accessible to aircraft with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 chapter 3 compliant noise certificate; chapter 2 compliant aircraft are prohibited from operating. Noise preferential arrival and departure routes are defined to minimise noise nuisance and infringements of these regulations are investigated by the airport and the national civil aviation regulator, FOCA. A runway alternation scheme is in place, with runway 34 typically used in the morning/early afternoon (to 1500) and runway 28 after that. Exceptions may occur however if aircraft are unable to land on runway 28 due to performance limitations; in this case traffic may be vectored onto runway 34. Particular runway restrictions are in place to ensure no aircraft arriving at or departing from Zurich enter German airspace; these operate between Monday-Friday and Saturday, Sunday and on German public holidays. These arrivals affect approaches to runways 14 and 16. At all times aircraft arriving or departing Zurich are prohibited from using a flight level (FL) lower that FL120 in German airspace. Hours of operation are tightly controlled with the eight-hour night-time period starting at 2200 and ending at Arrivals before 0600 are not generally allowed and movements after 2100 are tightly controlled. Specifically Zurich airport is required by local law to exercise restraint when granting authorization for takeoff and landing at night between 2100 and 0500 UTC. Consequently authorisations for night flight movements are not granted systematically to aircraft operators. A specific Zurich noise index (arithmetic average of chapter 3 aircraft certificated flyover and lateral certification levels) governs eligibility to operate in the night shoulder period between To depart between , the Zurich Noise index value must be less than 96 EPNL unless aircraft are flying nonstop distances greater than 5000 km; (in these cases the aircraft are permitted to depart if their noise index is less than 98 EPNL). Note that these noise restrictions also apply to Geneva airport. In non-scheduled night-time departures took place outside the quota amount due to the exceptional circumstances of the ash crisis. For Scheduled CAT (Commercial Air Traffic): On departure the pilot can only expect to receive a departure clearance if ready to start the engines at 2245 or earlier. Departures are not permitted between 2330 and Equally for aircraft on approach the pilot can only expect to receive a clearance for approach if the aircraft is over specific reporting points on the approach paths by 2215 at the latest. For non-scheduled CAT (Commercial Air Traffic): On departure a pilot can only expect to receive a departure clearance if ready to start a turbojet or turboprop engine (or, in the case of piston engine aircraft, if ready to taxi) by 2045 at the latest. Such aircraft on approach will only be granted permission to land if over specific reporting flights by For private traffic: On departure a pilot can only expect to receive a departure clearance if ready to start the engine by Aircraft on approach will only be granted permission to land if above specific reporting flights by P1464D002 HELIOS 78 of 154

80 Fleet monitoring No specific metrics are defined for monitoring the noise efficiency of particular aircraft fleets. However air carriers are investigated on a case by case basis on the basis of significant non-compliance with track keeping restrictions. Arrivals restrictions Specific early morning arrivals procedures specify the runway in use depending on the mode of operation i.e. Northerly, Westerly or Southern approaches. While no specific CDA procedures are in place at Zurich the AIP advises pilots to use LPLD procedures including delayed deployment of flaps, maintenance of the cruise configuration for as long as possible and a six degree steep approach for turboprops. Adherence to the ILS intercept point is monitored through an automatic noise and track keeping system and aircraft are instructed that an approach angle of not less than 3 degrees is to be maintained on finals. Airborne holding is typically not required at Zurich airport. This is mainly because the airport is relatively unconstrained in terms of capacity and partly through the smoothing of arrivals peaks by coordination with EUROCONTROL s Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU). Accurate departure and required time of arrival times at the airport are relayed directly through the Airport s CDM system to the CFMU in real-time through a series of Flight Update Messages (FUM). The airport benefits from this data exchange through more accurate control of operations at a tactical level and this provides a more predictable flow of arrivals and departures [27]. During periods of peak traffic aircraft are sequenced and vectored onto ILS final approach; at other times P-RNAV supported guidance routes are used. Runway usage restrictions Runway usage is primarily restricted by German airspace operating regulations and prevailing weather conditions. These two factors are generally the principal factor in determining the runway usage plan although key meteorological criteria are used evaluated to determine which runway to use in a given situation according to a runway prioritisation plan. Under this plan the operating restrictions stipulate that the priority runway for early morning departures is runway 28 with aircraft arriving on runway 14. The following table illustrates the runway configuration typically used during various modes of operations. P1464D002 HELIOS 79 of 154

81 Northerly approaches Westerly approaches Southern approaches Arrivals from the North, departures from West, South and East Arrivals from East, departures from North Arrivals from the South and departures to the North and West Arrival runways: Arrival runways: Arrival runways: 14 and 16 28* 34 Departure runways: Departure runways: Departure runways: 28*, 16 and and 34 32, 34 and 28* Time of operation: Time of operation: Time of operation: M-F M-F M-F Sat/Sun Sat/Sun Sat/Sun (and in the evening when (and in the daytime during westerly approaches are westerly wind conditions) not possible) *Note arrivals on runway 28 are usually limited to no more than 12 per day. including national holidays) Table 21 Zurich airport runway alternation concepts Ground movements Run-up engine tests at power settings above idle revolutions per minute (RPM), are controlled for noise abatement purposes. No run-ups are permitted between 2100 and 0500 while outside these hours both the duration and power setting for such run-ups are requested to be kept to a minimum. On the Apron, Taxiway and Runway all engine run-ups require permission from the Airport Authority. No run-ups are permitted between 2100*-0500* UTC. Outside these hours both duration and power setting for such run-ups shall be kept to a minimum. On the aprons of the maintenance base, run-ups of jet engines are only performed when using silencers. Run-ups of turbo-propeller or piston-driven aircraft engines are not permitted between 2100 and P1464D002 HELIOS 80 of 154

82 Gate operations The use of FEGP and PCA is encouraged where available to reduce the use of APUs where possible. The use of local stationary pneumatic and electrical service units is used where available on gates; with mobile units used as an alternative. Otherwise outside these restrictions the APU may only be used: to start engines, but no earlier than 5 minutes before off-block time; if maintenance work on the aircraft means that APU use is unavoidable (in all cases the service period shall be kept as short as possible); if stationary or mobile units are not available or are unserviceable for specific aircraft types (in this case APUs must not be started earlier than 60 minutes before off block time and kept in operation up to 20 minutes after on block time). Exceptions to this rule may only be permitted by the airport manager. Departures The local noise abatement procedures specify that, as far as possible, a rolling take-off is to be executed with engine power only increased after the aircraft enters the take-off runway. Continous climb departures are in operation at Zurich airport (in line with NADP 2 procedures). After lift-off aircraft are required to climb with the maximum possible climb gradient considering flight safety. For jet aircraft the climb shall be carried out as follows; maintain take-off power and flap settings climbing at V2 + 10Kts (as limited by body angle) until 2900ft. After 2900ft the thrust is reduced to climb power and the climb to 4500ft is continued at V Kts. Beyond 4500ft a normal speed and en-route climb configuration is adopted. Deviation from Standard Instrument Departure Routes (SID), as published in AIP Switzerland (and illustrated graphically below), are only permitted above altitudes above 5000'amsl between (although higher altitude restrictions are in place on some routes). Details of any unplanned deviations are published through a monthly noise bulletin newsletter; in 2010 there were 1636 deviations recorded of which 286 were investigated. In 280 of these cases a caution was issued to the operator; in 9 instances a discussion was held between the airport and the pilot and 1 case the breach of the SID routes was reported to the national regulator, FOCA. Exceptions to these track keeping restrictions may be allowed in low traffic conditions during the daytime to facilitate a shorter arrivals time and generate fuel savings. Automatic flight measuring equipment is used to monitor adherence to the procedure with infringements reported regularly to a flight operations evaluation committee. P1464D002 HELIOS 81 of 154

83 Figure 25 Zurich airport noise preferential routes Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology A noise reporting and track keeping system is available online using a similar system to Heathrow s ANOMS platform. This system integrates reported noise levels from 14 noise monitors, positional information derived from a radar data surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure. The system is also used to publish the monthly noise bulletin 14. Stakeholder communication mechanisms Detailed noise abatement guidance is provided to the airport s airline customers The noise bulletin provides a highly detailed numerical breakdown of flight movements and the noise preferential routes used, however this means of presentation does make it difficult to detect trends or underlying patterns. Statistics published in the noise bulletin include: The number of early and late landers; The maximum noise level recorded at the various noise monitors; Radar track plots by month and for typical average days for given modes of operation (e.g. easterly, westerly, etc.) ; Latest noise contours (land planning/use restrictions are, in part, dictated by the location and size of the noise contours); The noise related KPIs; Zurich aircraft noise index monitoring value; Average daytime aircraft noise levels; Number of flight path deviations; 14 Laerm bulletin, Zurich airport, P1464D002 HELIOS 82 of 154

84 Number of night flight movements. Fines associated with noise infringement A flat-rate fining scheme is in place against particular noise infringements detected at the dispersed network of noise monitors around the airport. In addition a noise surcharge is levied according to the classification of aircraft types as shown in the noise pollution index of Table 22. If a flight departs or arrives during the night-time (i.e. between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.), additional night noise charges are levied, as shown in Table 23 and Table 24. These charges are graduated in line with the lateness of the flight. P1464D002 HELIOS 83 of 154

85 Class Aircraft types I B-707 (100/300B/300C) DC-9 (40[JT8D-11]) B-720 (B) DC-9 (40 ADV[JT8D-11]) Charge B-727 (100/200[JT8D-11]) DC-9 (40/-50) 1000 CHF B-727 (200/ADV) Fokker F-28 (1-1600) ( 697) 15 B-737 (100/200) IL-62 (M) B-737 (200/ADV[JT8D-15/-17]) IL-76 (M/T/TD) B-747 (100/200) IL-86 B-747 SP SE-210 (10B/10R/11R/12) B-747 (300) TU-134 (A) BAC 1-11 (200/300/400/500/539) TU-154/A/B/B1/B2 DC-8 (50/61/62/63) GULFSTREAM II DC-9 (20/30) HS-125 (400/600 [RR Viper]) II B-727 (200/ADV[Hushkit]) MD (80/81/82/83) B-737 (200/ADV[Mixer]) DC-10 (30/30ER) Charge B-737 (200/ADV[Hushkit]) MD CHF B-747 (400) Tristar L-1011 (500) ( 418) DC-8 (70) Yak-42 DC-9 (10/20[Hushkit]) Gulfstream III III A-300 (B2/B4) Tristar L-1011 (100/200) A-300 (600) TU-154 M (Soloviev D-30) Charge A-310 (300) Fokker VFW CHF A-340 (200/300/500/600) Morane MS-760 ( 279) B767 (200/200ER/300/300ER) Piaggio PD-808 DC-9 (40 [Hushkit JT8D-11]) Yak-40 DC-10 (10/40) IV A-310 (200) Falcon 200 Mystere A-330 (200/300) Jeststar L-1329/II (TFE 731) Charge B-777 (200/200ER/300/300ER) Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond 1/BE CHF MD-87 Sabreliner NA-265 (65/80[TFE]) ( 140) IL-96 (M/300) Westwind (IAI-1124/1125/AJ25[TFE]) Falcon (20/50/900) V A-319 Embraer EMB-145/ER/170/190 A-320 (100/200) Fokker F70/F100 Charge A-321 TU-204 (100) N/A CHF Antontov AN-218 (200/300) TU-330 Freighter ( N/A) AVRO (RJ-70/85/100) Yak-242 B-717 (200/300) Canadair CL-600 (ALF 502)/CL-601 (GE-CF) B-737 ( ) Cessna C500/C525/C550/C560/C650/C750 B-757 (200/300) Corvette CN-601 (100) BEA BA-146 (100/200) Falcon (10/2000) Canadair RJ100ER (700) Gulfstream (IV/V) Dornier DO328 (300) HS-125 ( ) MD-90 Learjet LR (30/45/50/60) Note that no additional landing charge noise supplement is levied on propeller driven aircraft. Table 22 Noise surcharge by aircraft type Zurich airport 15 CHF/ Pound sterling c onversion rate as of 7/10/2011 with 1 CHF = P1464D002 HELIOS 84 of 154

86 Time of Classification/charge rates (CHF/ ) day V IV III II I (556) 400 (278) 200 (139) 100 (69) 50 (34) (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278) 200 (139) 100 (69) (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278) 200 (139) (4176) 3000 (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278) 0001-later 9000 (6263) 6000 (4176) 3000 (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556) Table 23 Night-time departures Zurich airport Time of day Charge rates (all classifications of aircraft) (CHF/ ) (34) (69) (139) (278) (556) (278) Table 24 Night-time arrivals Zurich airport P1464D002 HELIOS 85 of 154

87 5.6 Case study 5: London City Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Similar to Heathrow in that City airport operates under the same specific noise controls enshrined in national legislation as Heathrow. However as a nondesignated airport under CAA act 1982 (only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are designated airports) noise amelioration is not the responsibility of the Government. Instead the noise regime is negotiated and agreed with the local planning authority and enshrined in a planning agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act ) Geographical positioning Unlike Heathrow London City airport is positioned in the centre of urban London. 3) Number of runways A single runway is in operation with movements constrained by a lack of taxiway facilities and overall length of runway. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) An urban airport serving predominantly short-haul routes and business aviation (approximately 75,000 air traffic movements each year) London City is very different airport from Heathrow. However its location, in the heart of Docklands, places some very stringent requirements on the airport including the use of very steep approach and departure procedures. Local environment and particular noise sensitivities London City Airport is particularly constrained by its limited surroundings; principally high-rise commercial developments and densely populated urban areas. The Airport predominantly serves European short-haul destinations. The limited length of runway available at London City places constraints on the size of aircraft that can operate from the airport. Particularly steep arrivals are in place for obstacle avoidance reasons. The limited runway length also dictates that aircraft are frequently required, for safety reasons, to commence take-off roll by running engines up to full power and holding on the brakes prior to release. Similarly reverse thrust is usually deployed on landing. Airspace constraints from the other London airports mean that extended CDAs from top of descent are not currently employed and as such no CDA procedures are defined for altitudes above 3000ft. The 5.5 degree glide-slope intercept generally occurs at 1500ft. P1464D002 HELIOS 86 of 154

88 Figure 26 Local noise contours London City airport Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions The airport is permitted to operate flights during the hours set out in Table 25. An 8.5 hour night is defined for London City airport. Condition Hours of operation Weekdays Saturdays Sundays Public holidays Closed Christmas day Table 25 London City hours of operation Only six aircraft movements are permitted between and hours, (with only two movements allowed between and 06.45). Aircraft are permitted to take off or land during the period of 30 minutes after the Airport closes to traffic where they have suffered unavoidable operational delays (however these flights are not allowed exceed 400 in any calendar year or 150 in any consecutive period of three months). Helicopters, light general aircraft (with a MTOW of less than P1464D002 HELIOS 87 of 154

89 5.67t) and single engine aircraft are prohibited from operating at London City Airport although business aviation and air taxi services may operate from the airport. These restrictions on the hours of flight operations refer to all aircraft movements, i.e. the take-off or landing of an aircraft at the Airport except those engaged in training or aircraft testing. City airport cannot be used for training or test flying except where this is essential for the safe operation of aircraft authorised to use the Airport. Aircraft are not permitted to use the Airport unless they operate within the following noise categories. The noise factors are used to calculate the number of aircraft movements allowed within a given reporting period. Cat. Noise reference level (PNdB) Noise factor Example aircraft types A BAe 146, Avro RJ85, Fokker 70, Dassault Falcon DA10/50/900B/900EX, DHC 6, Embraer 135*, Piper Navajo, Citation II & V and the Citation Bravo B ATR 42, Fokker 50, DHC-8 (100), DHC-8 (300), Dornier 328, Saab 340, Piper Navajo 31, Piper Seneca 34, Beech 90 & B200, Mitsubishi MU2. C Saab 2000, Shorts 360 D Dornier 228, DHC-7 E < *Provisional. Note that all aircraft categories are due for review in January 2012 Table 26 London City aircraft noise classification 16 Aircraft are only allowed to operate from London City if they are capable of completing an approach of 5.5 degrees or steeper - this compares with the conventional 3 degrees ILS angle of approach used at most other airports. All pilots must hold a Commercial or Air Transport Pilots Licence and have previously completed at least three approaches at 5.5 degrees or steeper. All aircraft types must be approved by the airport s operation and control department prior to their operation at London City. This approval is generated by the type first completing a trial flight into London city airport with its noise footprint actively monitored by the airports microphones. The results of this trial flight are discussed between the airport operator and the local authority and permission granted or denied to type depending on whether or not it meet the noise standards. A list of currently approved types is as follows. All these aircraft adhere to ICAO Annex 16 Volume I Chapter 3 noise standards. Airbus A318; BAe 146/Avro RJ; BAe 4100 Jetstream; ATR 42; ATR 72; DHC Dash 7; 16 Note these aircraft noise classifications are due to be reviewed in January P1464D002 HELIOS 88 of 154

90 Bombarider Q series/dhc Dash 8; Dornier Fairchild 228; Dornier Fairchild Do328; Dornier Fairchild Do328 Jet; Embraer 135; Embraer E170; Embraer E190; Fokker 50; Fokker 70; Saab 340; Saab 2000; Shorts Local planning law also places restrictions on the overall factored number of aircraft movements, as shown below. The airport is permitted to operate flights during the hours set out in the following table. Condition Limitation on movement numbers (noise factor count see Table 26) Saturdays 100 Sundays 200 Consecutive Saturdays and Sundays Not to exceed 280 movements New Year s Day (1 st January) 132 Good Friday 164 Easter Monday 198 Early May Day Holiday 248 Late May Day Holiday 230 Late August Holiday December 100 Any other bank holiday All other days 592 Up to a limit of 120,000 noise factor count per calendar year Table 27 Restrictions on number aircraft operated at London City The number of factored movements must not exceed 25% of the permitted number of movements in any one week or 120,000 per calendar year. In calculating the number of aircraft movements account is taken of the category of the aircraft and its noise factor. Fleet monitoring Aircraft new to the Airport are allocated a provisional category following a series of monitored trial flights at the Airport although this has to be approved by the local planning authority prior to any commercial operations of the type. All flights from the Airport are monitored and the category of each aircraft type is reviewed annually (between March and May) in the light of data from the noise monitors. Depending on the results of the review the category allocated to an aircraft may be changed. As shown above in Table 26 the aircraft categories are linked to Noise Factors which are used to calculate the number of flights against the permitted numbers. All aircraft operating at LCA are required to demonstrate their ability to operate within the five departure Noise Categories of Table 26. The Noise Reference Level used in Table 26 is the departure noise level as measured at the four Noise Categorisation Points (NCPs) at the runway ends at London City. It is expressed in PNdB and calculated using an established P1464D002 HELIOS 89 of 154

91 procedure described land planning legislative agreement between London City Council and the local authority (the London Borough of Newham). Plans are currently being established to monitor adherence of aircraft operators to the UK AIP procedures and restrictions on APU use and MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) activities taking place at London City; ranking operators in a Greenfly league table system Arrivals restrictions No circling above London City airport is allowed prior to landing; arriving aircraft are instead vectored to intercept the 5.5 degree decent calibrated ILS system by 2000ft. Aircraft that make approaches to the airport without assistance from the ILS are required to follow a descent path that does not result in the aircraft being at any time lower than the approach path that would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glide path. Runway usage restrictions The aerodrome itself is located adjacent to the Royal Albert Dock which places severe physical constraints on runway movements. Principal amongst these is the lack of a taxiway parallel to the main runway which results in the number of movements that can be accommodated on the runway being limited as aircraft are often required to backtrack. The runway is predominantly used in a westerly orientation due to the prevailing wind direction, however no specific preferential runway scheme is in use. Ground movements Ground movement activities are highly controlled, including strict noise limits attached to the ground running of engines and specific noise limits for all airport activities. Specifically: The ground running of aircraft engines at London City must not exceed the equivalent of 60 db LAeqT noise level as measured outside and at distance of 1 metre from any residential property in the area. The approved location for ground running is the eastern end of the apron extension. Each year the Airport reports the number, duration and power settings of each instance of ground running in the previous calendar year along with measurements and calculations to show whether the ground running noise limit has been exceeded. Where the limit has been exceeded the Airport is expected to suggest remedial measures and also from time to time suggest changes to the place where ground running is carried out. The ground running of engines for testing or maintenance purposes is only permitted during the opening hours of the Airport (on Bank Holidays, however, ground running for these purposes may not start until hours). No specific APU/PCA operating restrictions are currently in place at London City however this is due to be revised when a noise management scheme enters into effect. Gate operations Strict restrictions have been placed on the MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) activities that can take place on the apron and the stands during airport operating hours. MRO work is allowed at the airport outside these hours providing that the noise generated cannot be discerned outside the boundaries of the airport. P1464D002 HELIOS 90 of 154

92 Departures Noise abatement procedures for aircraft departing London/City and joining Controlled Airspace are included in the appropriate Standard Instrument Departure (SID) instructions in the UK AIP. Aircraft departing London City aircraft to climb straight ahead to a minimum of 1000 ft aal before turning on a given departure track unless otherwise instructed by ATC. No specific noise surcharge or infringement fine for departures is in operation at London City. However conformity with SIDs is assessed and particular incidences of track deviations are discussed with operators Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology The airport has implemented the NOMMS (Noise and Operations Monitoring and Management Scheme) supported by flight tracking software and inputs from the 7 noise monitors positioned around the airport; 3 at the Westerly end of the runway and 4 at the Easterly end. The airport noise monitors are used to establish the provisional noise category of new aircraft using the Airport, for the annual review of aircraft noise categories and to produce each year the 57 L Aeq 16hour noise contour The combined monitoring of noise and track-keeping is used to identify any deviations from the standard routes that should be followed by aircraft using the airport and to verify the noise contours. Stakeholder communication mechanisms Noise abatement guidance is currently provided to the airspace users at the airport through the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Monthly statistics demonstrating the total number of aircraft movements and passengers handled, and performance to date against specific restrictions and annual limits, are published each month on the airports website. The airport also maintains a record of the numbers and types of aircraft using the airport the Airport each day; a summary of these figures is published quarterly on the airport s statistics page along with an annual environmental performance report. Novel approaches to operational noise management The airport has cooperated closely with a number of noise reduction initiatives including the UK Government s ANASE (Attitudes to Aircraft Noise in the South East) study and the London Mayor s Sounder City noise abatement scheme. P1464D002 HELIOS 91 of 154

93 5.7 Case study 6: Chicago O Hare Airport General description of the local situation Notable differences to Heathrow 1) Regulatory maturity/stringency Distinct to Heathrow in that Chicago airport operates under US noise controls enshrined in national legislation administered by the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2) Geographical positioning Similarly to Heathrow, Chicago airport is positioned in the urban/sub-urban conurbations surrounding the main city centre. 3) Number of runways The current seven runway layout (to be extended to nine) provides the airport with multiple direction of operation options (similarly to Schipol). As a result a preferential runway use scheme has been defined and is carefully adhered to. 4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of air traffic movements) An intercontinental hub O Hare is the primary airport serving the Chicago area, for both international and domestic flights. A major hub for United and American it is the world s second busiest airport in terms of ATMs after Atlanta. Scheduled airline services dominate the traffic mix followed by air taxi, cargo and general aviation. The airport is operated by the City of Chicago Department of Aviation. Local environment and particular noise sensitivities Chicago O Hare is a large airport with multiple runways surrounded by numerous noise sensitive residential communities. As the main international hub for Chicago O Hare has connectivity to sixty different countries (Chicago Midway airport acts as the secondary airport for the area, mainly serving the low cost and domestic markets). Noise preferential routes are positioned to guide aircraft away from local communities as far as possible, however the orientation of some of the runways necessitates the over-flight of downtown Chicago. Night-time noise sensitivity is particularly acute and certain runways are designated on a rotating basis as the night-use runway. P1464D002 HELIOS 92 of 154

94 Figure 27 Chicago airport departures (track colour indicates degree of adherence) Classification of track Green Orange Red Table 28 Track deviation classification Degree of track deviation < 1NM 0.5 > x > 1 NM > 1 NM Operational Noise Abatement Procedures Operating restrictions The Fly Quiet program at O Hare is the primary noise-abatement programme in place at the airport run by the O Hare Noise compatibility commission (equivalent of consultative committee). This describes, in detail, the preferential runway and noise preferential routes programme in use. Specific noise abatement procedures are listed in the airport operations manual, including guidance on how to fly the NPRs, details of the local community noise monitors, reduced use of reverse thrust, limitations on descent heights and the position/procedures for use in the ground run-up enclosure. O'Hare has a voluntary nighttime ( ) noise abatement program in place, as described in the table below. There is no cap or quota restriction on the number of movements. Pref. Arrivals Departures First Departures runway Second runway 1 14R 27L 14R 2 32L 27L 32L 3 27R 27L 32L 4 22R 27L 22R 5 9R 9L 9R These procedures shall be implemented before 2200 and extended beyond 0700 Table 29 Chicago airport night-time runway preference P1464D002 HELIOS 93 of 154

95 Fleet monitoring Each individual aircraft movement is evaluated on its average deviation (in NM) from the noise preferential routes specified in the AIP. Each airline is then ranked according to the overall compliance of its flights to the noise preferential routes. Relative performance year to year and quarter to quarter is compared so that routinely under-performing airlines may be identified and corrective action taken. Overall airline performance is described in terms of both statistics by airline and visualisation of flight route adherence with awards presented to top performing operators. Arrivals restrictions Turbojet aircraft are vectored onto the ILS approach path above 4000ft. This restriction is more rigorously enforced during the night when the procedure is extended to include turbojet, turboproper and large commercial aircraft types flying IFR. For VFR traffic the restriction is lowered to 3500ft. Adherence to the CDA procedures in use at Chicago have been incorporated into the Fly Quiet noise control flight performance scheme. The airport has also been involved in trials of advanced CDA techniques by the FAA using performance-based navigation (PBN), arrivals management and selfseparation techniques (as used at other North American Airports including San Francisco, California and Louisville, Kentucky). Runway usage restrictions In order to distribute aircraft noise as fairly as possible a comprehensive preferential runway system has been put in place; as indicated above. These noise abatement procedures are used if the runways are clear and dry and crosswind conditions allow their use. Within the constraints of safety the use of reverse thrust is limited where possible through a voluntary scheme. Similarly during extended periods of holding pad delays unnecessary use of engines is discouraged. Ground movements Engine run-ups are required to take place in noise pens positioned near to the centre of the airport to reduce noise exposure to as low a level as possible outside the airside boundary. Exceptions are only made when the ground run-up enclosure is unavailable (in which case particular aprons are designated for runup) in all cases airside operational management must be contacted prior to run-up. Gate operations As part of the noise mitigation measures the airport has developed a sustainable airport manual in collaboration with other airports from across the US, stakeholders from pressure groups, industry partners, academia and government. This has included the promotion of environmentally efficient and noise reducing gate operations, including greater use of FEGP and PCA, efficient de-icing and maintenance procedures. Departures Aircraft are requested to climb to 3000ft as quickly and quietly as possible while flying the noise preferential routes. P1464D002 HELIOS 94 of 154

96 5.7.3 Enabling technology and procedures Supporting technology Comprehensive noise and track-keeping system is in use at Chicago O Hare utilising 31 permanent noise monitors, 13 portable noise monitors and an air traffic surveillance feed. Stakeholder communication mechanisms As the airport authority is an agency of the local government the airport manages noise impact through the Fly Quiet project which acts as both a noise control scheme monitoring the performance of various airlines relative to each other. Quarterly reports provide an update on relative airline track-keeping performance, a summary of the type of complaints, their location and number of ground run-ups (including location and aircraft type). Summary reports describing aircraft noise by type, runway use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft operations by hour and noise reports from portable noise monitors are also included. Additionally the results of a modelling study forecasting overall change in noise impact as a result of building new runways is also available. A particularly innovative visualisation of airport noise is provided by the average aircraft noise events. Figure 28 Chicago airport average day noise events Novel approaches to operational noise management Fly Quiet program provides pilots with a suite of night-time environmentally sensitive operating procedures (in place between 22:00-19:00) and monitoring compliance relative to that scheme. It is primarily designed to route aircraft away from local areas of particular noise sensitivity. P1464D002 HELIOS 95 of 154

97 5.8 Summary and lessons learnt From a summary assessment of the information gathered through examining the case study airports a few general trends can be discerned. It appears as though the case study airports are in general very good on: Implementing a variety of novel mechanisms to limit the number of aircraft operating from the airport over a given time interval (whether that monitoring period is a day, month, quarter or year). While many such mechanisms typically include a movement or quota count limit, a wide variety of methods exist to determine a given QC (quota count) value. These QC calculations are generally inconsistent with one another as they have been generated bottom up to control noise in a particular airport environment. A specific benchmarking analysis examining the various means used to determine a given QC value is potentially a subject for future investigation. In particular this would help HAL understand the severity of the system in place at Heathrow relative to other QC systems in use around the world. It should be noted, however, that such constraints are not controlled independently by Heathrow but are set by the DfT; Applying a surcharge to noisier aircraft, in general (although not exclusively) with reference to the ICAO noise standards; Applying runway alternation strategies to provide predictable periods of noise mitigation to the areas directly under the flight path that are most affected by noise; Limiting noise from airport surface operations such as reverse thrust, use of APU, reduced engine taxiing, operating aircraft engine tests within noise pens, etc. However while many specific noise abatement procedures have been implemented in this respect it is far from clear how compliance with these procedures is monitored, either by the airport or particular aircraft operators; Defining given climb out departure procedures along well defined SID routes and bringing various punitive measures into play if an aircraft operator is found to be persistently breaching these procedures. However, as with the definition of the QC system, the punitive measures exercised by different airports are highly disparate while some impose fines for track deviation others investigate on a case-by-case basis with the pilot in question; Imposing fines on correlated noise events that breach local noise limits using sophisticated track keeping and noise monitoring systems. While the level of these fines varies considerably, they are generally of the order of per infringement; Banning aircraft that are non-compliant with ICAO Chapter 3 noise restrictions and imposing special restrictions on aircraft marginally compliant with these standards ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Part 2 Chapter 3; Aircraft are marginally chapter 3 compliant if their noise certification value does not have cumulative margin of more than 5EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three reference noise measurement points as defined P1464D002 HELIOS 96 of 154

98 Equally the case studies reveal that, in general terms, airports may not be quite as competent in other areas of operational noise mitigation, in particular: While these often disparate systems do occasionally refer to international standards they are all highly diverse and are typically generated bottom up ; The potential of using gate holding to reduce airport surface queues and associated noise, as is presently used at Heathrow (only one case study airport had implemented an active CDM system for example); The possible noise saving that might be achieved by increasing stand equipage with FEGP and PCA; A lack of investigation associated with the benefits and drawbacks of either continuous climb departures (CCDs) or cutback procedures and how this might affect various communities under local flight paths; Addressing operational noise management within a fully integrated, accredited and ISO compliant environmental management system; and; Communicating the work being done at the airport to monitor and mitigate noise from aircraft operations through airline noise performance schemes (such as FlyGreen ). However no single airport operates all these mechanisms coherently or concurrently; perhaps is symptomatic of the fact that noise abatement schemes are not a one size fits all but tailored to mitigate noise in a given area. Bearing this in mind, it is recommended that HAL assess the net benefits and feasibility of pursuing the individual noise abatement mechanisms in use at other airports within the context of its own operations. This will help the Airport to understand any barriers to, or potential repercussions from, their implementation. P1464D002 HELIOS 97 of 154

99 6 Summary conclusions and recommendations 6.1 High level conclusions From the above analysis it is possible to draw two high level conclusions: Heathrow is a relatively mature airport in the procedures it uses to manage noise at an operational level. The majority of the processes identified at other airports are either currently in operation at Heathrow or otherwise in-train (reference section 3.4). This relative maturity is partly due to the stringent regulatory context Heathrow operates within, being subject to close environmental scrutiny by local, national and international pressure groups (reference section 4.1); From the gap analysis (reference section 3.5.1) and observation of best practice elsewhere (reference section 3.2) a number of points for improvement have been noted. These identified opportunities mainly focus on improving communication and reporting procedures, particularly in relation to operational restrictions imposed by Heathrow and the fines associated with breaking such restrictions. These recommendations apply to both the communications issued to operational business partners (airlines, ATC, etc.) and stakeholders in the local community. 6.2 Specific recommendations Specifically the results of this benchmarking exercise indicate that if Heathrow wishes to move towards being best in class the airport should examine the possibility of: Exploring the potential to attach fines to non-compliance by airlines with the arrivals code of practice (which is currently voluntary) by examining how similar schemes are administered by other airports and how compatible introducing such a performance scheme would be with the local legislative framework (in particular the CAA act of 2006 [Recommendation 1]); Publish a clearer breakdown of how the noise fines relate to the infringements incurred (Recommendation 2); Implement a Fly Quiet programme (Recommendation 3); Revise noise infringement charges by examining penalty levels and fining methodologies in use around the world (Recommendation 4); Investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to administer airspace changes around the world (particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports (Recommendation 5) 18 ; In addition to the Fly Green scheme, construct a framework set of league tables to benchmark airline performance against the noise abatement procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP) (Recommendation 6); 18 Note that other countries may have less formal procedures to administer airspace changes depending on the traffic density and complexity in a given volume airspace. P1464D002 HELIOS 98 of 154

100 Reassess the optimal climb out procedure (continuous climb departures (CCD) or cutback) for Heathrow, moving to implement definitive guidance in the AIP and benchmark airline performance against an appropriate metric. This work will need to take due consideration the ICAO standard Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2 and the various limitations surrounding the use of these procedures (Recommendation 7); Implement fines for non-adherence to noise abatement departure routes (Recommendation 8); Assess the stringency of flight movement controls in place during the nighttime period relative to other major airports (Recommendation 9.1 and 9.2); It was noted in the course of the benchmarking study that Heathrow experiences more noise infringements than other airports of a comparable size. It is therefore recommended that, in addition to work already being done and by building on existing initiatives (such as the development of departures best practice guidelines), HAL continue to explore various means of reducing noise infringements. It is noted that the departure noise limits themselves are set by the Department for Transport(Recommendation 9.3); and; Implementing more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) from top of descent, and without an extended period of level flight, supported by innovative technologies and procedures such as precision area navigation (P- RNAV), required navigation performance navigation area navigation (RNP- RNAV), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) segmented approaches, point-merge and arrivals management/metering systems. It is recognised that this should be a long-term aim and that implementation should proceed in stages, not initially including the removal of the stacks (Recommendation 9.4 and 9.5). From a compilation of a selection of supportive case studies it is possible to draw a final recommendation (Recommendation 10), which HAL may wish to consider: Investigating in greater detail various quota count (QC) systems used around the world to limit the noise impact by amount of traffic and aircraft type paying particular attention to the means of determining QC value noting that the DfT is responsible for defining the QC limits and values in use at UK airports. Investigating further how compliance with specific noise abatement restrictions on the airport surface may be improved (such as the use of reverse thrust, reduced use of auxiliary power unit (APU) and stand equipage with fixed electrical ground power (FEGP)). Reviewing the course of action followed by various airports against aircraft operators for persistent breaches of noise preferential routes and poor track keeping including any fines levied, as appropriate. How novel procedures such as continuous climb departures, steeper approaches (particularly for turboprops), early cutback procedures, collaborative decision making (CDM) and local specific noise limits by aircraft type might reduce noise. The feasibility and potential benefits specific to Heathrow of implementing such operational changes will also require investigation. Research into this comparator set has also provided a list of notable best practices that, although not directly related to the points of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (and so not actively benchmarked against), remain highly relevant. This includes the implementation of P1464D002 HELIOS 99 of 154

101 more noise stringent controls, closer monitoring of aircraft performance and more effective communication with the general public (Recommendation 11). 6.3 A note on communication mechanisms Although strictly out-of-scope of this benchmarking exercise, some lessons have also been learnt concerning how to communicate operational noise issues effectively with the public, including the use of: Diagrams to illustrate the trend in aircraft noise certification chapter number and the absolute reduction in the number of noisiest departures (as used at Manchester); A suitable annual performance metric to report track deviations by type; A pictorial representation of the number of loud aircraft noise events alongside noise contours and summary of noise measurements for every monitoring period (minimum, maximum & mean average) and every monitoring station (as used at Chicago); A metric describing FEGP stand equipage (i.e. the % of stands equipped), as provided in the annual environmental report by Geneva airport; Coloured radar plots according to their compliance with track keeping restrictions (as used at San Francisco); A web-based video to illustrate current and future aircraft operations covering impact on noise hot spots (as used at Oslo); Social media to engage with community and perform surveys, (currently used by Toronto); A pictorial illustration of noise budget (as used at Arlanda). 6.4 An important caveat It must be remembered, that the above recommendations are drawn only from the noise perspective; they do not consider the potential impact their implementation could have on other important factors such as capacity, connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented. Before they are developed further a full feasibility study examining the possible mechanisms and ramifications of their implementation at Heathrow should be executed. P1464D002 HELIOS 100 of 154

102 A Abbreviations and acronyms Acronym ACOP ACARE AIP APU ATC CAA CCD CDA CDM DCOP DEN DfT EMS EPNdB FCOA FEU FEGP FLOPC HAL HACC ICAO IFR ISSR KPA KPI NADP NAAP NAP NATS NM MRO Expansion Arrivals Code Of Practice Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation in Europe Aeronautical Information Publication Auxiliary Power Unit Air Traffic Control Civil Aviation Authority Continuous Climb Departures (ICAO NADP2 procedures) Continuous Descent Arrivals Collaborative Decision Making Departures Code Of Practice Day-Evening-Night Department for Transport (UK Government) Environmental Management System Effective Perceived Noise in decibels Federal Office of Civil Aviation (Swiss Aviation Regulator) Flight Evaluation Unit Fixed Electrical Ground Power Flight Operations Performance Committee Heathrow Airport Limited Heathrow Airport Consultative Comittee International Civil Aviation Organisation (UN oversight body) Instrument Flight Rules Inherent, Structural, Systemic and Realised (Drivers) Key Performance Area Key Performance Indicator Noise Abatement Departure Procedures Noise Abatement Arrival Procedures Noise Abatement Procedures National Air Traffic Services Nautical Miles Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul P1464D002 HELIOS 101 of 154

103 OSI PCA P-RNAV QC RNP VFR VOR Operational Safety Improvements Pre-conditioned Air Precision Area Navigation Quota Count Required Navigational Performance Visual Flight Rules Very High Frequency Omni directional radio range P1464D002 HELIOS 102 of 154

104 B Report references 1 Heathrow Airport, Environmental Noise Directive, Draft Noise Action Plan (for public consultation), June ICAO PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations, Fifth Edition (Doc 8168) 3 Supplements to the UK AIP QC, SUP: 006/2011, UK CAA, 24 March Airport Noise and Emission regulation database, Boeing Commercial Aviation Group, La Nea M. Conner, Seattle 5 Zurich Airport Noise Bulletin, June 2011, 6 Zurich Airport Noise Mitigation fund, January 2011, 7 Decreasing the Impact of NoisE Study of Optimisation procedures for Decreasing the Impact of NoisE, 8 UK study Attitudes to Noise from Aircraft Sources in England (ANASE), UK CAA 9 US airport noise law, 10 Survey and review of noise abatement procedure research, development and implementation results, Approved by the Secretary General and published under his authority, Preliminary edition, 2007, ICAO, 11 Performance assessment for airport noise charge policies and airline network adjustment response, Chaug-Ing Hsu, Pei-Hui Lin, Department of Transportation Technology and Management, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan, ROC, 12 Noise abatement and mitigation strategies, R. Girvin, Journal of Air Transport Management 15 (2009), Zurich Airport Noise Bulletin, Page 8, 14 Airport Noise Management System, Chicago O Hare, Chicago Department of Aviation, June 2011, 15 JetStar fined 150k for a late arrival at airport, Australian News Daily, 16 Boeing Noise and Emissions Airport database update sheets 17 San Francisco Noise Abatement office, Fly Quiet programme, 18 Chicago Department of Aviation, Fly Quiet programme, 19 Zurich Monthly Noise Report, Zurich Airport, Unique, 20 London City Noise Action plan (page 24), 21 Review of the Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports: Effects of take-off weight and operating procedures on noise displace, JB Ollerhead, DP Rhodes, DJ Monkman, R&D Report 9841, 22 Airspace change proposal, Environmental Assessment of an airspace change, Draft CAP 725, Part B, April Noise Contours, Brussels Airport, 24 Attempt at night noise criteria for Brussels Airport, 25 Noise Measurement Report, July 2011, Brussels Airport, 26 Environmental Annual Report, 2010, Brussels Airport, 27 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM), P1464D002 HELIOS 103 of 154

105 C Heathrow noise action plan - operational noise performance indicators NAP Ref. # Action [1] Performance indicator Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Phase out marginally Chapter 3 compliant (Chapter 3 high) aircraft at Heathrow Phase out marginally Chapter 3 compliant (Chapter 3 high) aircraft at Heathrow Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 equivalent in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 High in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 Minus in FEU report Publish annual noise contours (55 Lden) Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 equivalent in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 High in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 in FEU report Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 Minus in FEU report Publish annual noise contours (55 Lden) Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 High in FEU report Publish annual noise contours (55 Lden) For all new aircraft types entering scheduled operation undertake comparative noise studies relative to older equivalent aircraft types to show improvements Publication of reports (A380 in 2010) Together with partners in Sustainable aviation develop a best practice guide for departures by end of 2012 to optimise operational performance of departing aircraft with regard to noise, (balanced with emissions) Publication of DCOP Work with airline customers to agree the introduction of a noise control scheme to penalise operators that breach noise controls Work with DfT, NATS and CAA to identify and assess the changes necessary to end the Cranford Agreement and allow the introduction of alternation on easterlies. Publicise key dates and changes Publication of noise control scheme Publication of a schedule for these work to inform local residents about timescales P1464D002 HELIOS 104 of 154

106 NAP Ref. # Action Performance indicator Continue to promote adherence with our voluntary agreement on reverse thrust through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT departure noise limits Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT departure noise limits Review the fining levels set for breaches of the departure noise limits in 2010 and at least every three years Review the fining levels set for breaches of the departure noise limits in 2010 and at least every three years Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Arrival Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Arrival Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Publication of a schedule for these work to inform local residents about timescales % CDA achievement published in annual FEU report % meeting joining point criteria published in annual FEU report Number of noise infringements Amount of fine money raised Number of noise infringements Amount of fine money raised Monitor relevant statistics - noise infringements - and publish figures in the FEU report Monitor relevant statistics - track keeping - and publish figures in the FEU report Monitor relevant statistics ft - and publish figures in the FEU report Monitor relevant statistics - CDA - and publish figures in the FEU report Monitor relevant statistics - Joining point - and publish figures in the FEU report P1464D002 HELIOS 105 of 154

107 NAP Ref. # Action Performance indicator Work with partners in sustainable aviation to develop and promote low noise fight procedures through evaluation of future operational methods and implementation of best practice, for example: evaluating the feasibility of implementing steeper approaches. We will report on these biannually through our contribution to the Sustainable Aviation Report Evaluate steeper approaches Work with airline customers and NATS to identify trial and evaluate costs and benefits of future operational methods which may have the potential to enhance noise management opportunities. For example trials of P-RNAV arrivals and departures. Continue to administer DfT night restrictions regime and take steps as required to ensure the number of operations at night is within the limits prescribed Results reported in Sustainable Aviation report and FEU annual report Publish in FEU annual report and seasonally at HACC We will continue to engage with our aviation partners through FLOPC and other communication opportunities to seek to improve adherence to the AIP noise abatement procedures In order to manage ground noise continue to work with airline customers and ground handling agents to ensure engine maintenance activity is conducted within the terms of the appropriate operational safety instructions (OSI) In order to manage ground noise continue to work with airline customers and ground handling agents to ensure aircraft turnaround activity is conducted within the terms of the operational Safety Instructions In conjunction with partners in Sustainable Aviation continue to lobby for and seek to support continual improvements in technology and operations towards the ACARE goal of 50% reduction in perceived external noise by 2020 based on new aircraft of 2020 relative to equivalent new aircraft in Protect quiet areas in any airspace change process that impacts Heathrow where it does not conflict with the governments' stated policy of not adding to the burden of more densely populated areas. In conjunction with airline customers and NATS investigate improvements to the stand utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in order to reduce ground noise Publish in FEU quarterly report Number, location and duration of engine runs published in FEU quarterly report Number of APU compliance checks and number not compliant Publish in sustainable aviation biannual report Publish a report on optimisation opportunities for taxiing P1464D002 HELIOS 106 of 154

108 NAP Ref. # Action Performance indicator In conjunction with airline customers and NATS investigate improvements to the stand utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in order to reduce ground noise Continue to promote adherence to the airline voluntary agreement regarding the operation of cargo flights and early morning arrivals during the night period Continue to administer engine ground running restrictions to ensure the number of minutes of high power engine testing limits are not exceeded. Publish a report on optimisation opportunities for stand utilisation Publish details of number of aircraft, and the details of those aircraft in FEU annual report Monitor engine running statistics and publish figures in annual FEU report P1464D002 HELIOS 107 of 154

109 D Benchmarking references Relevant benchmarking KPA Ref. No. Airport 1.1 Hong-Kong N/A 1.1 Gatwick N/A 1.1 Gatwick N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A 1.1 Geneva N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Annual flight movements by flight type (charter, scheduled, cargo, etc). HK CAA 1 Colour historic radar tracks Also Chicago, Geneva, according to height Zurich 1 By type, average movements per day and modal split and go-arounds Flight evaluation report 1 Number of flight arriving or departing of a given aircraft According to ICAO noise noise classification classification 1 Total number of aircraft of a given noise classification (chapter number). Annual % change in flight movements by flight path ('occupancy of landing and take-off routes') Aircraft certified with respect to international standards. Noisiest aircraft (chapters 1 and 2) are banned 1 Presented in diagrammatic form. 1 2 Annual % changes in flight movements by runway 1 2 Annual flight movements by runway Zurich N/A Annual flight movements for IFR and VFR air traffic 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 108 of 154

110 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 1.1 Chicago N/A 1.1 Chicago N/A 1.1 Hong-Kong N/A 1.1 Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Flight operations by hour of the day Average number of operations per day and per night by type Reduced night-time movements. Average number of flights operating each hour reported on a quarterly basis. Continue to administer DfT night restrictions regime and take steps as required to ensure the number of operations at night is within the limits prescribed Continue to administer DfT night restrictions regime and take steps as required to ensure the number of operations at night is within the limits prescribed Provides details on the number of arrivals and departures by hour of the day, total operations by hour and operations by runway. 1 In both absolute values and percentages 1 Noise and track keeping system used to record the number of night-time flights 1 Publish in FEU annual report and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP Publish in FEU annual report and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP 1.1 Heathrow Continue to administer DfT night restrictions regime and take steps as required to ensure the number of operations at night is within the limits prescribed Publish in FEU annual report and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 109 of 154

111 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Heathrow Continue to promote adherence to the airline voluntary agreement regarding the operation of cargo flights and early morning arrivals during the night period Publish details of number of aircraft, and the details of those aircraft in FEU annual report NAP AIP 1.1 Zurich N/A Number of night flights 1.1 SFO N/A Woodside VOR 1.1 Chicago N/A 1.1 Chicago N/A 1.1 Geneva N/A Runway usage in absolute and percentage terms Overall ranking of airlines by the most-used departure runway according to the resultant deviation of flights Percentage of flights operated in night period 22:00-06:00 1 Late night Woodside VOR crossing altitude; flight number and altitude for each aircraft that uses the Woodside VOR on approach to SFO International Airport between 22:30-06:30 1 Shown for given percentage of arrivals and departures diagrammatically 1 Green <0.5 miles, amber miles and red >1 mile. 1 Runway usage (% of flights, number of VFR and IFR flights), annual total number of movements Chicago N/A Runway usage (% of flights, number of VFR and IFR flights), annual total number of movements Average daily runway use and percentage of use for each runway and for arrivals/departures. 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 110 of 154

112 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Chicago N/A Monthly runway use Absolute figures and percentage in diagrammatic form Chicago N/A Number of aircraft noise events of 85dB or greater and 65 db or greater Diagrammatic form alongside noise contours Chicago N/A Summary of noise measurements for every day of monitoring period (max, min, mean and mode); hourly noise level site report for each day (Aircraft LEQ, aircraft events; dba noise levels and frequency) Chicago N/A Summary of noise measurements for every day of monitoring period (max, min, mean and mode); hourly noise level site report for each day (Aircraft LEQ, aircraft events; dba noise levels and frequency) Hong-Kong N/A 1.2 Chicago N/A Noise levels recorded by day and aircraft noise events 1 Current measurement (monthly average) Compared to previous years and a 12 month rolling average Farnborough N/A Noise levels recorded by day and aircraft noise events Quarterly report 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 111 of 154

113 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Heathrow Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor, and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Monitor relevant statistics - noise infringements - and publish figures in the FEU report NAP AIP 1.2 Chicago N/A 1.2 Chicago N/A 1.2 SFO N/A 1.3 Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Geneva N/A Top 25 loudest noise events over reporting period. 1 Average daytime and nighttime recorded sound level for each monitor 1 Single event maximum noise level limits at each noise monitoring site. 1 2 Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT departure Number of noise noise limits infringements NAP AIP Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT departure noise limits Amount of fine money raised NAP AIP Work with airline customers to agree the introduction of a noise control scheme to penalise operators that Publication of noise control breach noise controls scheme NAP AIP Review the fining levels set for breaches of the departure noise limits in 2010 and at least every three years Number of noise infringements NAP AIP Number of infringements in monthly report Reduced noise procedures 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 112 of 154

114 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Gatwick N/A Details of all aircraft movements causing infringements of noise monitoring stations Heathrow Protect quiet areas in any airspace change process that impacts Heathrow where it does not conflict with the governments' stated policy of not adding to the burden of more densely populated areas. NAP AIP 1.4 Chicago N/A Summary noise measurements/contours from each monitor located around airport Current quarter compared to previous four quarters. Red numbers indicate an increase in noise; green a reduction Heathrow N/A 2.1 Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Modelling of changes in noise contours with new runway build programme NAP AIP Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report this on an annual basis in order to track progress towards a quieter fleet Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and report to track progress towards a quieter fleet Noise related landing charges to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible and review on an annual basis Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4, Chapter 3 High, Chapter 3, Chapter 3 minus (and equivalents) in FEU report NAP AIP Publish annual noise contours (55 Lden) NAP AIP Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4, Chapter 3 High, Chapter 3 and Chapter 3 minus (and equivalent) in FEU report NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 113 of 154

115 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref SFO N/A Fleet noise quality; Assigns a higher rating or grade to airlines operating quieter, new generation aircraft, while airlines operating older, louder technology aircraft would rate lower. Evaluates noise contribution of each airline's fleet as operated Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Chicago N/A Phase out marginally Chapter 3 compliant (Chapter 3 high) aircraft at Heathrow For all new aircraft types entering scheduled operation undertake comparative noise studies relative to older equivalent aircraft types to show improvements In conjunction with partners in Sustainable Aviation continue to lobby for and seek to support continual improvements in technology and operations towards the ACARE goal of 50% reduction in perceived external noise by 2020 based on new aircraft of 2020 Fly quiet awards; flight paths, overall level and timing of operation and ground runs. Publish annual percentages of Chapter 3 High in FEU report NAP AIP Publication of reports (A380 in 2010) NAP AIP Publish in sustainable aviation bi-annual report NAP AIP Quarterly report; monitoring designated noise-abatement flight routes and procedures to reduce impact of aircraft noise at night using Airport Noise Management System (ANMS) 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 114 of 154

116 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 2.3 SFO N/A 3.1 Heathrow Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Quietest airline award; Currently, the Fly Quiet The overall goal of the Fly Program consists of five Quiet Program is to influence elements: - The overall airlines to operate as quietly noise quality of each as possible in the San airline s fleet operating at Francisco Bay Area. A SFO (fleet); - An evaluation successful Fly Quiet Program of single overflight noise is expected to reduce both level exceedances (noise single event and total noise monitoring); levels around the airport. 1 Work with airline customers and NATS to identify trial and evaluate costs and benefits of future operational methods which may have the potential to enhance noise management opportunities. For example trials of P-RNAV arrivals and departures. Results reported in Sustainable Aviation report and FEU annual report NAP AIP 3.1 Heathrow Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. % CDA achievement published in annual FEU report NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 115 of 154

117 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 3.1 Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Continue to promote adherence to the arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in particular the achievement of CDAs through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and other communication events. Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Arrival Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP % CDA achievement published in annual FEU report NAP AIP % meeting joining point criteria published in annual FEU report NAP AIP % meeting joining point criteria published in annual FEU report NAP AIP Monitor relevant statistics - (e.g. CDA compliance, Joining point - and publish figures in the FEU report NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 116 of 154

118 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Gatwick N/A Adherence of flights to CDAs and noise abatement arrival/departure routes Gatwick N/A ILS Joining point criteria 3.1 Gatwick N/A 3.2 Heathrow Heathrow Between 23:30 and 06:00, aircraft must not join the ILS below 3,000 feet or closer than ten nautical miles (nm). Indicator shows adherence to this joining point criteria adherence. 1 Monthly achievement of CDAs Day, night, core-night and shoulder 1 We will continue to engage with our aviation partners through FLOPC and other communication opportunities to seek to improve adherence to the AIP noise abatement Publish in FEU quarterly procedures report NAP AIP Work with partners in sustainable aviation to develop and promote low noise fight procedures through evaluation of future operational methods and implementation of best practice, for example: evaluating the feasibility of implementing steeper approaches. Evaluate steeper approaches NAP AIP Atlanta, SFO, Heathrow, Schiphol, Chicago, Geneva N/A Public Flight track software N/A P1464D002 HELIOS 117 of 154

119 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Zurich N/A Monthly flight movements (IFR and VFR) by runways Zurich N/A Time of arrivals/departures by flight paths (and percentage change on previous year) Zurich N/A Daily flight movements for IFR and VFR traffic by runway Monthly report Chicago N/A % Adherence to noise preferential route in % terms by runway SFO N/A 3.2 Zurich N/A 3.2 Geneva N/A Rating of A/C approaches to two specific runways Adherence to flight routes; Following attributes are reported: - Total number of 'registered deviations' - Proportion investigated - Number of cautions issued - Number of discussions with pilots - Number of cases reported to regulator (FOCA) 3.2 Hong-Kong N/A Flight route adherence Over-bay approaches; green, over-communities; poor 1 Significant deviation from these paths are investigated and a caution issued 1 Flight route deviation parameters monitored 1 Using noise-abatement departure procedures, approaches over water when possible and using CDA for arrivals from the North-East 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 118 of 154

120 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Heathrow Work with DfT, NATS and CAA to identify and assess the changes necessary to end the Cranford Agreement and allow the introduction of alternation on easterlies. Publicise key dates and changes Publication of a schedule of work to inform local residents about timescales NAP AIP 4.1 SFO N/A 4.1 Gatwick N/A 4.1 Gatwick N/A 4.1 Chicago N/A 4.1 Gatwick N/A Night-time preferential runway use. Logging of flight runway usage. Displayed in table, graphs and map diagram in directors monthly report. Compliance with preferential runway use programme. Description notes that the runway alternation scheme cannot be used all the time due to prevailing wind direction. Pilot discretion exercised. Over-water departure procedures. 1 2 Night-time flights; arrivals and departures in the night quota period; limits, usage and exempt aircraft movements 1 Night-time flights; quota count Movements by quota count category and by season. 1 FAA summarises details of why particular night-time operations occurred 1 Number of aircraft types against quota Geneva N/A Number of night flights (relative to total) and their timing (by category) Non-commercial flights are banned from 22: P1464D002 HELIOS 119 of 154

121 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 5.1 Heathrow Heathrow SFO N/A Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Continue to promote adherence with our voluntary agreement on reverse thrust through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation and Publication of a schedule for other communication these work to inform local events. residents about timescales NAP AIP In order to manage ground noise continue to work with airline customers and ground handling agents to ensure engine maintenance activity is conducted within the terms of the appropriate operational safety instructions (OSI) Ground-run up monitoring (infringement count/procedure) Number, location and duration of engine runs published in FEU quarterly report NAP AIP As part of the aircraft operations and noise monitoring system upgrade, a ground run up monitoring system was installed at SFO. This system gives the Airport the tools to remotely monitor aircraft run up activity via motion detection cameras and noise monitoring Heathrow Continue to administer engine ground running restrictions to ensure the number of minutes of high power engine testing limits are not exceeded. Monitor engine running statistics and publish figures in annual FEU report NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 120 of 154

122 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 5.2 Chicago N/A Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ground-run up monitoring (infringement count/procedure) Total number of ground runups from current quarter by aircraft type and also by airline and location (including use of noise pen) in absolute and percentage (utilisation) terms. This is compared with the equivalent data for the previous quarter SFO N/A Engine run-up restrictions infringement count and follow-up procedure Heathrow Heathrow Heathrow In conjunction with airline customers and NATS investigate improvements to the stand utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in order to reduce ground noise In conjunction with airline customers and NATS investigate improvements to the stand utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in order to reduce ground noise In order to manage ground noise continue to work with airline customers and ground handling agents to ensure aircraft turnaround activity is conducted within the terms of the operational Safety Instructions Publish a report on optimisation opportunities for stand utilisation NAP AIP Publish a report on optimisation opportunities for taxiing NAP AIP Number of APU compliance checks and number not compliant NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 121 of 154

123 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Geneva N/A FEGP stand equipage Annual report Gatwick N/A Use of fixed electric ground power Provide FEGP to any new stand and limited amount of ground power units on stand SFO N/A APU Infringement count Prohibited during night-time hours Heathrow Together with partners in sustainable aviation develop a best practice guide for departures by end of 2012 to optimise operational performance of departing aircraft with regard to noise, (balanced with emissions) Publication of DCOP NAP AIP 7.2 SFO N/A 7.2 Heathrow Aircraft departing 28L and 28R operate under this (predominantly VFR) shoreline departure procedure Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Keep aircraft away from residential communities located to the northwest of SFO by keeping east of Highway 101. Aircraft east of Highway 101 are judged good. Departures west of 101 are scored marginal or poor depending on their location. 1 Monitor relevant statistics - track keeping - and publish figures in the FEU report. NAP AIP P1464D002 HELIOS 122 of 154

124 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Gatwick N/A Track-keeping performance Deviations by year; overall on-track performance of all aircraft; on-track performance by aircraft type SFO N/A Gap departure quality Conformity with noise abatement departure procedure Heathrow Implement the operational Noise Policy set out by the DfT by continuing to promote, monitor and seek to improve and report on adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP Monitor relevant statistics ft - and publish figures in the FEU report NAP AIP 1.1 Hong-Kong N/A Annual flight movements by flight type (charter, scheduled, cargo, etc). HK CAA Hong-Kong N/A Reduced night-time movements. Average number of flights operating each hour reported on a quarterly basis. Noise and track keeping system used to record the number of night-time flights Hong-Kong N/A Noise levels recorded by day and aircraft noise events 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 123 of 154

125 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Hong-Kong N/A Flight route adherence Using noise-abatement departure procedures, approaches over water when possible and using CDA for arrivals from the North-East John F. Kennedy N/A No night time period defined and no quota attached John Wayne N/A Extensive GA and business jet traffic; as such no noise quota system has been developed or imposed Fines for infringing airlines or denied usage of airport of owner and operator Munich N/A Curfew with limited number of take offs/landings in a given period Orlando N/A 7 Hour night defined in AIP Orlando N/A No limit on number of night flights; chapter 2 ban in place. P1464D002 HELIOS 124 of 154

126 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Paris Charles de Gaulle N/A 7 Hour night defined in AIP Ban during core night Paris Charles de Gaulle N/A restriction of nosiest at other times of 7 hour night 1 Paris Charles de Gaulle N/A No quota system Paris Charles de Gaulle N/A No arrivals procedure published however limits on landing times of early/late arrivals Schiphol N/A Strict - slot restrictions on night movements Noise quota system Schiphol N/A Noise quota restricted for part of the night for the most noisy aircraft (marginally chapter 3 compliant) Total noise volume now used for quota system; 25 points max for Lnight. Limited number of slots Schiphol N/A No reporting (annual or monthly on noise levels or disturbance). Details also contained in Schiphol annual report (including traffic figures) Interactive reports presented via 'NOMOS' online 1 2 P1464D002 HELIOS 125 of 154

127 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Schiphol N/A Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 CDA procedures used between , avoiding 300ft OFL San Francisco N/A Woodside VOR Late night Woodside VOR crossing altitude; flight number and altitude for each aircraft that uses the Woodside VOR on approach to SFO International Airport between 22:30-06: San Francisco N/A Single event maximum noise level limits at each noise monitoring site San Francisco N/A 2.3 San Francisco N/A Fleet noise quality; Assigns a higher rating or grade to airlines operating quieter, new generation aircraft, while airlines operating older, louder technology aircraft would rate lower. Quietest airline award; Currently, the Fly Quiet Program consists of five elements: - The overall noise quality of each airline s fleet operating at SFO (fleet); - An evaluation of single overflight noise level exceedances (noise monitoring); - A measure Evaluates noise contribution of each airline's fleet as operated 1 The overall goal of the Fly Quiet Program is to influence airlines to operate as quietly as possible in the San Francisco Bay Area. A successful Fly Quiet Program is expected to reduce both single event and total noise levels around the airport San Francisco N/A Rating of A/C approaches to two specific runways Over-bay approaches; green, over-communities; poor 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 126 of 154

128 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref San Francisco N/A 5.2 San Francisco N/A Night-time preferential runway use. Logging of flight runway useage. Displayed in table, graphs and map diagram in directors monthly report. Ground-run up monitoring (infringement count/procedure) Compliance with preferential runway use programme. Description notes that the runway alternation scheme cannot be used all the time due to prevailing wind direction. Pilot discretion exercised. Over-water departure procedures used during periods of lighter traffic 1 2 As part of the aircraft operations and noise monitoring system upgrade, a ground run up monitoring system was installed at SFO. This system gives the Airport the tools to remotely monitor aircraft run up activity via motion detection cameras and noise monitors San Francisco N/A Engine run-up restrictions infringement count and follow-up procedure San Francisco N/A APU Infringement count Prohibited during night-time hours Singapore N/A Chapter 2 aircraft ban San Francisco N/A Gap departure quality Conformity with noise abatement departure procedure. 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 127 of 154

129 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 7.2 San Francisco N/A Singapore N/A Sydney N/A Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Aircraft departing 28L and 28R operate under this (predominantly VFR) shoreline departure procedure Keep aircraft away from residential communities located to the northwest of SFO by keeping east of Highway 101. Aircraft east of Highway 101 are judged good. Departures west of 101 are scored marginal or poor depending on their location. 1 No night time period defined and no quota attached; although preferential noise abatement SIDs for use during are defined is curfew restricting aircraft movements (weekday) Sydney N/A Ban on night movement of noisiest aircraft and high penalties Sydney N/A No quota system Sydney N/A Arrivals flight paths developed and implemented to spread noise over communities according to a prescribed schedule. Specifically climb procedures apply when using particular runways and penalties are imposed for violating flight corridors Zurich N/A Number of flight arriving or departing of a given aircraft noise classification According to ICAO noise classification 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 128 of 154

130 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Zurich N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A 1.1 Zurich N/A Annual % change in flight movements by flight path ('occupancy of landing and take-off routes') Diagrammatic form 1 2 Annual % changes in flight movements by runway 1 2 Annual flight movements by runway 1 Annual flight movements for IFR and VFR air traffic Zurich N/A Number of night flights Percentage of flights operated in night period 22:00-06: Zurich N/A Monthly flight movements (IFR and VFR) by runways Zurich N/A Time of arrivals/departures by flight paths (and percentage change on previous year) Zurich N/A Daily flight movements for IFR and VFR traffic by runway Monthly report 1 2 P1464D002 HELIOS 129 of 154

131 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Zurich N/A 1.2 Zurich N/A 2.3 London Stansted N/A 1.1. London Stansted N/A 1.1 London Stansted N/A Adherence to flight routes; Following attributes are reported: - Total number of 'registered deviations' - Proportion investigated - Number of cautions issued - Number of discussions with pilots Average daytime and nighttime recorded sound level Significant deviation from these paths are investigated and a caution issued Number of cases reported to regulator (FOCA) 1 for each monitor 1 CDA compliance (regular reporting out of date) Web tracking system in place. Fining airlines that fly off track and 'green fly' ranking system Noise preferential routes published (along with track density) for departures (adherence is not). CDA procedures reported on by time of day according to airline 1 2 No arrival routes specified (so no track keeping compliance) however track density plots published 1 2 Strategic noise maps - informing airspace design Manchester N/A 1.1 Manchester N/A Manchester airport NTK (MANTIS) system used to fine infringing airlines. Noise report sets out legislative context at a national and European level. Location of noise monitors and noise limits defined/ position of new monitors described. Drag and drop' game used to familiarise people with local environment 1 2 Urban areas defined by DEFRA and noise contours used to define population level exposed to aircraft noise as well as overall size of contours. 1 2 P1464D002 HELIOS 130 of 154

132 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Manchester N/A Skytrack awards for good track keeping; off track fined 750; preferred runways used; noise limits depend on Time of day - departure and arrival noise surcharge; type surcharge (marginal chapter 3) Interesting diagram depicting downward trend in aircraft noise certification chapters. Absolute reduction in number of noisiest departures London City N/A 2.2 London City N/A 2.3 London City N/A 3.1 Paris Orly N/A London City Airport Consultative committee with comprehensive list of noise mitigation measures. 1 2 Restrictions on hours of operation and aircraft types 1 2 Action plan describing operational measures and relationship with noise complains 1 Procedures for domestic air traffic operations Oslo N/A Point merge in operation NTK system reports to CAA Oslo N/A Point merge in operation; safety 'hot spots' highlighted in a separate video to noise impact video. New airspace noise abatement procedures. No extended NTK website Toronto N/A 1.1 Toronto N/A STARs Minimal use by GA and training flights 1 2 Jet flight path movements colour coded by height Toronto N/A Operating restrictions during periods of night time Noise contours published 1 2 P1464D002 HELIOS 131 of 154

133 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref Washington National N/A More to do for airport to independently verify compliance through noise monitoring, not just by checking on aircraft type Washington National N/A Difficult for FAA/airport to state if power setting procedures are being complied with. Violation can only be enforced if radar tracks are fused with ATC communication recordings and trust settings Washington National New York LaGuardia Tokyo International (HND/RJTT - Haneda) Tokyo International (HND/RJTT - N/A N/A N/A Limited opportunities for aircraft to comply with NADPs/NAAPs. Report to the house of representatives on airport noise; 1 2 Noise abatement procedures in operation. 1 Strict restrictions/limitations on night movements. Construction of additional runway suspended due to noise concern Haneda) N/A Noise pens 1 New NADP for Lufthansa Cargo GNSS-assisted Currently in night-time testing 1.1 Frankfurt N/A 'segmented approach' period 1 2 MLS, LPLD, airport Fixed and mobile noise 1.1 Frankfurt N/A charging, monitoring stations Frankfurt N/A Close monitoring of all flights operating within airport noise abatement area. Noise charges, noise quota, minimum noise approach and departure routes and fleet monitoring all in place 1 P1464D002 HELIOS 132 of 154

134 Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport 1.1 Los Angeles N/A 1.1 Los Angeles N/A 1.1 Los Angeles N/A Minneapolis - St. Paul Minneapolis - St. Paul Heathrow NAP Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2 N/A N/A Noise contour maps and reports produced on a quarterly basis. Over ocean flights used with restrictions on maintenance and helicopter operations Lochard flight tracking system in place used for monitoring compliance. Noise monitors placed in community 1 2 California state airport noise standards quarterly report 1 2 Lochard flight monitoring complete with current noise levels Noise reduction programme 1 Interactive maps/reports, monthly reports, runway closure, newsletter and flight tracker Run by the metropolitan airports commission 1 2 Select dates and time periods. Annual noise contour report 1 2 San Ana (John Wayne) N/A Local flight monitor installed Airport statistics, noise report 1 2 San Ana (John Wayne) N/A General Aviation noise abatement procedures in place Noise Quest - aviation noise information and ressources Prague N/A Restricted night operations, Engine test, reverse thrust and power supply restrictions Prague N/A Preferential runway system Landing charges 1 Regulations applied to departures and arrivals. 1.1 Prague N/A Wheel tug development supported Noise monitoring system and land use planning restrictions. 'Protected' contour 1 2 P1464D002 HELIOS 133 of 154

135 E KPI Capabilities table KPI Ref Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5 Night time restrictions - design of procedure - definition of night time hours Night time restrictions - design of procedure - stringency of controls Night time restrictions - success rate - quota count targets 5 hours or not defined (e.g ) No restriction on number of night movements and chapter 2 noise ban Infringements - QC or number of movements exceeded (with explanation provided) exceeded by >15% of target (or no QC system). 6 hours (e.g ) Restriction on overall number of movements Infringements - QC or number of movements exceeded (with explanation provided). Limit exceeded by 10-15% of target 7 hours (e.g ) Ban on core-night movements of noisiest aircraft, i.e. chapter 3 marginally compliant, equivalent to AIP QC; no take off of 8 or 16 and no landing of 16 Infringements - QC or number of movements exceeded (with explanation provided). Limit exceeded by 5-10% of target 8 hours (e.g ) Ban on night movements of the noisy aircraft (Equivalent to LHR AIP QC; no take off of 4,8 or 16 and no landing of 8 or 16) 9 hours (e.g ) Ban on night movements Infringements - QC or number of movements exceeded (with explanation provided). Limit exceeded by 0-5% of target No infringements Night time restrictions - design of procedure - cargo and early morning arrivals No voluntary code developed Promotion of voluntary or enforced code Success rate published Details of specific infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines Noise abatement proceduresdepartures - implementation and success rate Promotion of departures AIP Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines P1464D002 HELIOS 134 of 154

136 KPI Ref Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5 Number of noise infringements - success rate Confidential Published - >10 per quarter Published per quarter Level of fine - success rate Confidential > 1k pa. > 2k pa. > 5k pa. Published per quarter Published - 0 per quarter > 5k pa. and complete breakdown of infringement/associat ed costs Noise control scheme - implementation and success rate No noise control scheme published Noise control scheme published Strive to improve adherence to the noise control scheme Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines Level of fine - definition Protecting quiet areas - lobbying for airspace change Fleet monitoring - chapter profile Noise monitoring - publish noise contours Fining system not present (or not published) No action No action (no profiling of operated fleet against Chapter number) No action (no noise contours published) Fining system in place but out of date Identification of quiet areas to be protected and information published Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4 aircraft Noise contours published every 5 years Fining system updated in last 5 years Regulatory authority engaged in process Publish annual percentages of Chapter 4, Chapter 3 High, Chapter 3, Chapter 3 minus (and equivalents) in FEU report Noise contours published every 2 years Fining system updated in last 3 Information passed on to regulatory authorities and government/local authorities consulted/lobbied. Publish annual percentages of all Chapter classes Annual noise contours published Fining system updated every year Consensus opinion presented to government Details of number of movements of aircraft in all chapters with year-on-year trends identified and extrapolations applied Annual Noise contours published, updated annually and accessible in interactive electronic and.pdf based report P1464D002 HELIOS 135 of 154

137 KPI Ref Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5 Noise related landing charges - revenue generated - success rate Proportion of nosier aircraft types - success rates Aircraft type noise reduction - success rates Confidential/nonexistent No published breakdown of operated aircraft fleet No comparative study performed < 101 fine per movement Publication of nosier aircraft flight movements (i.e. by chapter number) Change in fleet mixture cited but no detailed evaluation of noise impact < 200 fine per movement Publication of all aircraft movements by airline Manufacturer's data sheets used to formulate a high level comparison < 500 fine per movement Targets for the reduction of nosier aircraft types published. Performance against those targets recorded Assessment of noise footprint of new types. Detailed comparison made with older types using operationally recorded data correlated with aircraft movements. > 500 per movement and complete breakdown of infringements and associated revenue In addition to targets airlines are further incentivised by ranking their environmental performance against competitors and fining accordingly In addition to a detailed assessment a forecast of improvement in overall noise footprint is made Quieter aircraft - lobbying for implementation No action Low level promotion of initiatives Promotion of ACARE/green flight initiatives to commercial partners and airline customers Actively working with government, industry and academia broadly through joint ventures to drive forward funding to support R&D initiatives (e.g. sustainable aviation) Funding and incentivising other to fund specific research initiatives that support the overall goal P-RNAV - implementation Not present Simulations Safety case constructed with associated evidence (e.g. flight trials) All relevant parties engaged in implementation plans Innovate operational method implemented P1464D002 HELIOS 136 of 154

138 KPI Ref. Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level CDA - design of procedure Not present Start from bottom of stack High percentage of level flight Vectoring Start from bottom of stack High percentage of level flight RNAV/RNP Route Start from bottom of stack No level flight RNAV/RNP route Start from top of descent No level flight RNAV/RNP route CDA - level of compliance 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% % Joining point - design of procedure No ILS or not used Use of ILS in VMC and IFR conditions Not descending below 2000ft before being established on ILS Not descending below 2500ft before being established on ILS Not descending below 3000ft before being established on ILS (approximately 10NM from touchdown) Joining point - level of compliance 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% % Noise abatement procedures - arrivals - implementation and success rate Promotion of departures AIP Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP (i.e. track keeping) Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP (discuss operational and technical enhancements) Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines Noise abatement procedures airline adherence to AIP implementation and success rate (i.e. performance framework for airlines) No guidance material published Development of guidance material Promotion of guidance material ANSP engaged in process and preliminary feasibility study completed Performance targets published; poorly performing airlines highlighted and incentives introduced P1464D002 HELIOS 137 of 154

139 KPI Ref Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5 Noise abatement procedures - arrivals - implementation Knowledge of novel operational procedures (e.g. steeper approaches) Feasibility study initiated (e.g. steeper approaches; 3.25%) Safety case constructed with associated evidence (e.g. flight trials) Implementation plan in execution with all relevant parties engaged (e.g. steep approaches) Novel approach methods implemented Introduction of new runway alternation plan - implementation plan No impact assessment performed High level impact assessment performed Detailed impact assessment performed and consultation of all relevant parties (including local authorities and residents) Detailed impact assessment performed and consultation of all relevant parties (including local authorities and residents) Implementation plan of new runway alternation procedure (timetabled to take less then 1 year) Adherence to reverse thrust policy - success rate Promotion of departures AIP Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP; understand drivers for non-compliance and work with airline customers to reduce causes Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines Noise abatement procedures - engine testing/ground run - implementation No monitoring (no public report) Planned introduction of reporting Instances, duration and location of engine running logged and publically reported Infringements noted and investigated Targets set and reported against P1464D002 HELIOS 138 of 154

140 KPI Ref. Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level Noise abatement procedures - engine testing/ground run - success rate Promotion of departures AIP Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP; understand drivers for non-compliance and work with airline customers to reduce causes Details of specific infringements (and explanations) published Fines for infringing airlines Noise abatement procedures - gate turnaround - success rate Noise abatement procedures - ground operations - success rate No programme of active improvement for stand turnaround noise management No programme of active improvement for taxiing procedures Programme investigating stand turn around efficiency implemented (e.g use of preconditioned air and fixed electrical power) Programme investigating ground movement efficiency implemented Initiative implemented and achieving a reduction in stand noise Initiative implemented and achieving a reduction in an ground movement in efficiency Details of specific infringements (and explanations) published 50% of aircraft taxiing time available for half engine taxiing is operated on half engines Minimal noise turnaround. Commission independent report to identify remaining gaps in performance Achieve highly efficient taxiing procedures (80% half engine taxiing). Commission independent report to identify remaining gaps in performance Noise abatement procedures - engine testing/ground run - implementation No monitoring (no public report) Planned introduction of reporting Instances, duration and location of engine running logged and publically reported Infringements noted and investigated Targets set and reported against P1464D002 HELIOS 139 of 154

141 KPI Ref. Heathrow NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level Noise abatement proceduresdepartures - implementation and success rate (CCD/cutback) Noise abatement proceduresdepartures - implementation and success rate (CCD/cutback) Promotion of departures best practice guidelines Promotion of departures AIP track keeping Monitoring and reporting on adherence to best practice guidelines Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP track keeping Strive to improve adherence to the departures; understand drivers for non-compliance and work with airline customers to reduce causes Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP; understand drivers for non-compliance and work with airline customers to reduce causes track keeping Details of specific infringements (and explanations) on best practice guidelines Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published track keeping Investigation of airlines not complying with best practice Fines for infringing airlines track keeping Noise abatement proceduresdepartures - implementation and success rate Promotion of departures AIP ft rule Monitoring and reporting on adherence to departures AIP ft rule Strive to improve adherence to the departures AIP; understand drivers for non-compliance and work with airline customers to reduce causes ft rule Details of specific Infringements (and explanations) published ft rule Fines for infringing airlines ft rule P1464D002 HELIOS 140 of 154

142 F Airport KPI scores F.1 Operating restrictions P1464D002 HELIOS 141 of 154

143 P1464D002 HELIOS 142 of 154

144 P1464D002 HELIOS 143 of 154

145 P1464D002 HELIOS 144 of 154

146 F.2 Fleet monitoring P1464D002 HELIOS 145 of 154

147 P1464D002 HELIOS 146 of 154

148 F.3 Arrivals P1464D002 HELIOS 147 of 154

149 P1464D002 HELIOS 148 of 154

150 P1464D002 HELIOS 149 of 154

151 F.4 Runway operations P1464D002 HELIOS 150 of 154

152 F.5 P1464D002 Ground movements HELIOS 151 of 154

153 P1464D002 HELIOS 152 of 154

154 F.6 Gate operations P1464D002 HELIOS 153 of 154