Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives. October 2010

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives. October 2010"

Henry Jennings
5 years ago
Views:

1 Massport Study Team Evaluation of CAC Noise Study Alternatives October 2010

2 Massport s Evaluation Team Aviation Planning Capital Programs Aviation Operations Environmental Permitting Consultation with FAA BOS ATCT

3 NOTE This is a preliminary review only. It is intended to provide Massport s comments on certain BLANS Overflight Noise Study proposals. This analysis is not intended to be a commitment by Massport to implement any of the proposed alternatives discussed. The implementation of any final recommendation(s) that may result from the BLANS Study and accepted by Massport for potential implementation will be subject to: FAA review and approval; requisite federal and state environmental and regulatory review and approval; eligibility for and availability of federal funding; Massport s capital budget process; and approval by the Massport Board.

4 MPA Evaluation Team Review 1. Single Engine Taxiing (Alternative G N) 2. Limit Reduced Thrust (G F) 3. Holding Pad(s) (G J) 4. Run up Enclosure (G I)

5 1. Single Engine Taxiing Overview FAA has expressed concerns related to single engine taxiing and runway incursions particularly related to pilot work load and reducing heads down time on active taxiways/runways Massport will not take any action that will contribute to runway incursions Massport supports the use of single engine taxiing when safe to do so, voluntary and under the control of the pilot in command To be consistent with safety concerns but meet above goal (and the Airfield Improvements Projects MEPA section 61 commitment) Massport has issued letters of support and conducted informal surveys of single engine taxiing at Boston Logan MIT Survey of Single Engine Taxiing at Boston Logan Taxi Procedures and Fuel Efficiency Report: A Survey of Airline Pilots at Boston Logan, March 2010 A Survey of Airline Pilots Regarding Fuel Conservation Procedures for Taxi operations, March 2010 MIT Survey confirms that airlines are utilizing single engine taxiing extensively at Logan.

7 Single Engine Taxiing (Cont.) Massport will send letters to airlines on the use of single engine taxiing when safely appropriate. New updated letters will be sent this fall. Letters will be targeted to chief pilots with requests that they be shared with line pilots. The MIT survey and JetBlue Case Study highlights that short taxi distances and inclement weather reduce the likelihood that single engine taxiing will be used by pilots. The survey also shows that single engine taxiing is more prevalent during the arrival phase of flight. As a result, Massport will tailor the message to the airline pilot community regarding the optimal use of single engine taxiing at Logan to reflect these operational realities. Massport will also continue to track the use of single engine taxiing through periodic surveying of the airlines. The periodic surveys will continue to the extent that the information provided contributes to the overall understanding of the use of this procedure. In the spirit of achieving the intent of the CAC proposal, Massport is supporting an ongoing NextGen type research being conducted at Boston Logan by the FAA s PARTNER/MIT initiative (Massport is an active member of PARTNER). This research involves optimizing taxiing strategies for the FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) to reduce ground delays, which in effect can reduce emissions and noise exposure levels. Boston Logan is hosting the research team this summer and Massport is looking forward to any tangible benefits that may result from this work. Massport will share the final report with the CAC and will continue to support ongoing assessment and application of this strategy. Massport will include the results of the MIT single engine taxiing survey in the 2009 EDR (fall of 2010).

Runway Status Lights at BOS An Additional Layer of Safety, focused on BOS hot spots Integrated into ASDE X, auto mated, direct visual queue to pilot Does

8 Runway Status Lights at BOS An Additional Layer of Safety, focused on BOS hot spots Integrated into ASDE X, auto mated, direct visual queue to pilot Does NOT replace existing safety procedures or physical design requirements Consistent with best practice of maximizing pilot heads up in the a/c movement area

Single Engine Taxiing Deploy Engine Furthest from Community Goal to benefit Bayswater, Constitution Beach & Court Road Neighborhoods Focus on

Start #1 first, single engine taxi on #1. On taxi in, after a 2 or 3 minute cool down and temperature stabilization, we shut down #2.

9 Single Engine Taxiing Deploy Engine Furthest from Community Goal to benefit Bayswater, Constitution Beach & Court Road Neighborhoods Focus on north end of airfield Based on airline procedures and engine manufacturer requirements, pilot favor a specific engine to shut off/keep on Start #1 first, single engine taxi on #1. On taxi in, after a 2 or 3 minute cool down and temperature stabilization, we shut down #2. [major BOS airline procedure] For safety pilots should not be undergoing an engine startup or shutdown procedure immediately before takeoff or after landing

10 2. Limiting Reverse Thrust Pending Further Review from Project Consultant Literature review Use at other airports FAA and Massport has expressed safety and efficiency concerns Reducing breaking capability Limiting use during dry field conditions Voluntary and at the discretion of the pilot in command Conflict with LAHSO operations? Increase runway occupancy time Massport views this alternative, from a safety and operational perspective, similar to the single engine taxiing alternative May express support to airlines subject to safety, air carrier procedures and pilot discretion

11 3. Hold Pad Alternatives SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates

12 Massport s Study Team Findings Study Team Conclusions Recommended for further analysis option #1 and/or #4 and feasibility of modifying taxiway layout at intersection of Romeo, Mike and November in lieu of Option 6. Not Recommended Options 5, 2 and 3. These options provide limited capability capacity to park aircraft. Option 3 needs extensive mitigation (move ASR 9, capped fill area) and requires runway crossings. SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates

13 Taxiway Modification to Achieve Intent of Hold Apron North of R15L/R33R Connect Twy Nov 1 to Twy Mike RE align Twy Romeo to allow aircraft to turn early to Mike/Nov Remove portion of Romeo north of re alignment Go to FAA Presentation Example Concept Only

4. Run up Enclosure (s) Study Team Conclusions Logan has severely constrained apron areas Weather/wind variability limits efficiency of GRE which is

14 4. Run up Enclosure (s) Study Team Conclusions Logan has severely constrained apron areas Weather/wind variability limits efficiency of GRE which is fixed by function Sites that may work only accommodate limited aircraft size and continue to involve crossing active runways SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates

end of airfield Shipping Channel and Conley Terminal/Industrial Park provide buffer for communities south of the airport Will need to be

15 Alternative to Run up Enclosure Proposed by Study Team Utilize R32 Turn around Apron Area as Preferred Location Preserves operational flexibility regardless of the wind direction Minimizes crossings at midfield of airport Achieves CAC intent by further removed from north end of airfield Shipping Channel and Conley Terminal/Industrial Park provide buffer for communities south of the airport Will need to be evaluated from a single event noise perspective and engine blast area Massport will evaluate earlier start time for run up Go to FAA Presentation

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction. MIT Lincoln Laboratory

MIT Lincoln Laboratory Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Hamsa Balakrishnan, R. John Hansman, Ian A. Waitz and Tom G. Reynolds! hamsa@mit.edu, rjhans@mit.edu, iaw@mit.edu,