AIRSPACE CHANGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT Proposed RNP AR approaches and STAR updates at Halifax Stanfield International Airport NAV CANADA 77 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5L6 October 2016 The information and diagrams contained in this report are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for navigation.
Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 1.0 Background... 4 2.0 Purpose... 4 3.0 Overview of Proposed Changes to Routes... 6 3.1 Runway 05 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR... 6 3.2 Runway 23 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR... 9 3.3 Runway 14 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR... 11 3.4 Runway 32 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR... 13 4.1 Overall Impact on Community Noise... 15 4.2 Reduced Emissions... 15 5.0 Community Outreach and Engagement... 17 5.1 Engagement with Airport... 17 5.2 Website... 17 5.3 Open House... 17 6.0 Survey Results and Other Feedback... 18 6.1 Methodology... 18 6.2 Survey Respondents... 19 6.3 Summary of input received... 19 6.4 Consideration of Main Mitigations Proposed by Residents... 20 7.0 Recommendation... 20 8.0 Communication... 21 9.0 Post Implementation Review... 21 2
Executive Summary Airspace Change Community Engagement Report CYHZ RNP AR Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and Area Navigation (RNAV) are part of a family of technologies that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) for safer and more efficient navigation. RNP is increasingly being used to provide safe and accurate arrival routes to busy airports; it is also a significant piece of the technology tool kit being utilized to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This study examines the proposal to implement new RNP Authorization Required (AR) procedures as well as update existing RNAV Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) to runways 05/23 and 14/32 at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, and reports on noise modelling and the community consultation undertaken as per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol. The consultation process, which ran from July 29, 2016 to September 12, 2016, included the provision of detailed information materials online, briefings to elected officials, hosting of a community open house event and use of a survey mechanism to enable the public to provide direct comment. In addition, some noise modelling was conducted to illustrate the potential noise impacts of changes. The consultation team s recommendation is to proceed with implementation of the proposed RNP AR procedures and updated RNAV STARs with a target implementation date in November 2016. 3
1.0 Purpose This study examines the proposal to implement new RNP AR procedures and update existing RNAV STAR procedures at Halifax Stanfield International Airport. It reports on the community consultation undertaken as per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol (2015). The report includes an overview of the proposed changes, expected environmental impacts (including emissions reductions), details public engagement activities and their results, and provides recommendations. 2.0 Background The airspace structure surrounding Halifax Stanfield International Airport the busiest airspace in Atlantic Canada was last revised over 15 years ago. Since then, traffic levels have grown significantly and new, advanced navigation technologies have emerged. Today, modern avionics are providing new opportunities to design routes that are no longer bound by ground-based navigational aids. These opportunities, enabled by Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), allow for the design of routes that are more precise, predictable, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. RNP and RNAV are part of a family of technologies that lever the capabilities of modern flight management systems and GNSS for safer and more efficient navigation. RNAV provides an efficient navigation tool that is used by many aircraft today. RNP, which brings a new level of precision and design flexibility, is increasingly being used to provide safe and accurate arrival routes to busy airports; they are, together, a significant piece of the technology tool kit being utilized to meet commitments made by the global aviation industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The deployment of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) technologies, of which RNP and RNAV are a part, has been encouraged by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO took steps in 2007 to require its member countries to develop formal plans for the deployment of PBN in their respective jurisdictions. NAV CANADA Performance-Based Navigation Operations Plan (2014) and the Transport Canada PBN State Plan identify the goal of achieving a total PBN environment in Canada with RNAV and/or RNP for all operations. RNP achieves benefits in part by allowing for flight path designs that reduce the track miles that an aircraft must fly to its destination while providing for a constant descent compared to an approach that requires level segments (which in turn require more thrust and burn more fuel). RNP AR has been used in Canada since 2004, primarily by WestJet using specific company approaches. New criteria recently published by Transport Canada as part of TP308 Criteria for the Design of Instrument Procedures enable RNP AR approach procedures to be designed for use by more airlines and by more types of aircraft. Halifax Stanfield International Airport is Atlantic Canada s busiest airport and the country s 8 th busiest airport by the number of annual passengers. Each year, the airport receives approximately 40,000 commercial arrivals. The airspace around CYHZ is busy and complex, with a mix of commercial, general aviation (smaller aircraft such as Cessnas), floatplane, helicopter and military operations across the region. Runway numbering at YHZ 4
The airport has a variety of approach procedures, including RNAV STAR procedures that provide a combination of GNSS-based guidance and air traffic control instructions to a point where the pilot can intercept the glide path emanating from the ground-based Instrument Landing System (ILS). The airport is also serviced by one WestJet RNP AR approach procedure for each of the four runways since 2008. There is a lot of variability in how arrival procedures are flown today. Vectored or visual approaches are common (these aircraft may not be on depicted routes). NAV CANADA is proposing new and additional RNP AR approaches in addition to updating RNAV STARs for runways 05/23 and 14/32. 5
3.0 Overview of Proposed Changes to Routes The proposed RNP AR approaches have been designed to mirror the downwind and final approach of existing flight paths with the base leg arc located within the existing distribution of traffic on the base leg. The new RNP AR segments will result in a reduction of track miles flown for many aircraft and will enable a reduced power constant descent arrival at a three (3) degree descent angle. It is important to note that approximately 22 per cent of aircraft operating to Halifax Stanfield International Airport today are equipped to fly RNP AR routes and utilization of the routes will be considerably less than that number for a variety of operational reasons. Equipage rates are expected to grow slowly but steadily over time through fleet renewal, reaching the 30-33 per cent range by 2020. 3.1 Runway 05 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 05 receives approximately 21 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. It is frequently used in conjunction with runways 14 and 32. Figure 1 shows a composite of the proposed RNP AR paths (in blue) to the Halifax Airport with a 24-hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on June 1, 2016 (in turquoise). While a broad distribution of traffic will continue, the new RNP AR approach will allow many equipped aircraft to turn sooner than they might have otherwise and will result in a smaller number of aircraft completing their turn over a wide region. The proposed approaches are located amongst existing traffic patterns and at comparable Figure 1: Sample traffic and proposed RNP AR route Light usage from this direction altitudes and reduce overflight of populated areas by virtue of the ability to turn towards the airport sooner on final approach 215 flights/year Approximately 215 flights/year are expected to be equipped to utilize the RNP AR approach from the east/northeast while the approach from the northwest is expected to be used sparsely as most of the traffic enters the region through a bedpost that is further south. 6
Figure 2 shows both the composite current standard arrivals in pink and the composite proposed standard arrivals in blue. The light green shaded area represents the approximate areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use (as can also be seen in the flight tracks in the previous figure). STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at Airspace Change Community Engagement Report CYHZ RNP AR Figure 2: Current and proposed RNAV STAR and airspace usage Figure 3: Single Event Contour for Runway 05 Current STAR New intercept for final approach various points depending on controller s instructions, sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Other areas will experience overflight, particularly when vectors are used to sequence traffic or pilots conduct visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach resulting in aircraft distribution over a wide region over the course of a typical day. The proposed redesign of STARs would bring the intercept for the final approach approximately 3.2 kilometres closer to the airport. Changes to the downwind leg from the northeast occur largely over unpopulated areas. The transition from the west better reflects current traffic flows and results in a small reduction in overflight of populated areas. 7
Noise Modelling Figure 3 shows a noise contour for the current standard arrival path from the west to Runway 05. Contours show maximum noise levels along the flight path. In this instance the model uses a 737-800 1 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 3: Single Event Noise Contour - Current STAR Figure 4 shows a single event contour for the proposed standard arrival. It is important to note that RNAV STARs are flown with greater variance and that this is a sample of one typical approach. The location of the noise footprint will vary based on the exact flight path flown as well as the aircraft type. Figure 4: Single Event Noise Contour - Proposed STAR 1 Many aircraft that are used at the airport are quieter than the 737-800. Turboprop aircraft, which are used frequently at the airport, are significantly quieter. 8
3.2 Runway 23 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 23 is the most used runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, receiving approximately 44 per cent of the arrivals on an annual basis. Figure 5: Sample traffic and proposed RNP route Figure 5 shows a composite of the proposed RNP AR paths for runway 23 arrivals (in blue) on a map of the Halifax region with a 24- hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on June 20, 2016 (in turquoise). The new RNP AR approach will reduce the amount of land overflown for those aircraft that are equipped, 2,100 flights/year 250 flights/year however a broad distribution of traffic will continue. The approach from the southwest follows a downwind path that is very similar to the current standard arrival, prior to completing a turn on to the base leg in an area that currently experiences a significant amount of traffic. The approach from the south on the eastern side of the airport largely overflies unpopulated areas. Figure 6 shows both the current standard arrivals in pink and the proposed standard arrivals in blue. The Figure 6: Current and proposed RNAV STAR and airspace usage light green shaded area represents the approximate areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at New intercept for which point pilots final approach follow the controller s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft 9
performance. Other areas will experience overflight, particularly when vectors are used to sequence traffic or pilots conduct visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach. The proposed redesign of STARs would bring the intercept for the final approach approximately 4.8 kilometres closer to the airport. Changes to the downwind leg from the northeast occur largely over unpopulated areas. The transition from the west better reflects current traffic flows and results in a small reduction in overflight of populated areas. The change would narrow the shaded operating region somewhat as a result of the final approach course fix relocating closer to the airport. Noise Modelling Figure 7: Single Event Contour for Runway 23 RNP AR Figure 7 shows a single event noise contour for the proposed RNP AR approach to runway 23. Contours show maximum noise levels along the flight path. In this instance the model represents a 737-800 aircraft, a type of aircraft seen frequently at the airport. Figure 8 shows a single event contour for the proposed RNAV STAR. It is important to note that RNAV STARs experience greater variance of flight path and that this is a sample of one typical approach. Noise levels for the STAR will vary greatly by aircraft type and how the STAR is flown. Figure 8: Single Event Contour Proposed STAR 10
3.3 Runway 14 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 14 is the least used runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, receiving approximately 13 per cent of arrivals on an annual basis. When in use, winds are typically blowing from the south, east or west. It can be used in conjunction with runways 23 and 05. Figure 9: Sample traffic and proposed RNP AR route 80 flights/year 180 flights/year Figure 9 shows a composite of the proposed RNP AR approach paths for runway 14 (in blue) on a map of the Halifax region with a 24-hour sample of arrival traffic as flown by aircraft on June 3, 2016 (in turquoise). The broad distribution of traffic will continue and the new RNP AR approach will reduce the amount of land overflown for those aircraft that are equipped and arriving from an appropriate bedpost. Most of the approaches overfly unpopulated areas, with the exception of the approach from the east, which goes over the municipality of East Hants. Given the low usage of this runway, the impact on noise exposure from aviation as a result of traffic to runway 14 is expected to be low. Figure 10 shows both the current composite standard arrivals in pink and the proposed composite standard arrivals in blue. The light green shaded area represents the approximate areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at Figure 10: Current and proposed RNAV STAR and airspace usage New intercept for final approach which point pilots follow the controller s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Other areas will experience overflight, particularly when vectors are used to sequence traffic or pilots conduct visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more direct route to the final approach. This means that aircraft can be distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the maps show typical traffic distribution 11
taking into account all types of approaches. Few changes occur over populated areas with the exception of the approach from the west, which will be sparsely used. In addition, the phase of flight that overflies communities will see the aircraft at altitudes above 5,000 feet. The proposed redesign of STARs would bring the intercept for the final approach approximately 3.2 kilometres closer to the airport. The change would narrow the shaded operating region somewhat as a result of the final approach course fix relocating closer to the airport. 12
3.4 Runway 32 Arrivals, Proposed RNP AR Flight Path and New STAR Runway 32 receives approximately 22 per cent of arrivals to Halifax Stanfield International Airport on an annual basis. When in use, wind is blowing from the east, northeast or north. It is normally used in conjunction with runways 05 and 23. Figure 11 shows a composite of the proposed RNP AR approach paths (in blue) on a map of the Halifax region with a 24-hour sample of arrival traffic as Airspace Change Community Engagement Report CYHZ RNP AR Figure 11: Sample traffic and proposed RNP AR route 1,030 flights/year Expected to be used only occasionally flown by aircraft on June 16, 2016 2 (in turquoise). Only the approach from the west is expected to see regular traffic when this runway is in use. The effect is that a small portion of the traffic transiting from the west will do so 3-5 kilometres north of where it transits today; this change brings the flight path very close to the location of the current private RNP approach. While the broad distribution of traffic will continue, the new RNP AR approach will allow many equipped aircraft to turn sooner and will reduce the amount of land overflown. Figure 12 shows both the current composite standard arrivals in pink and the proposed composite standard arrivals in blue. The Figure 12: Current and proposed RNAV STAR and airspace usage light green shaded area represents the approximate areas that experience overflight today when this runway is in use. STARs provide guidance to the end of the downwind leg, at which point pilots follow the controller s instructions to turn on to the base leg. Aircraft will turn on to the base leg at various points depending on sequencing needs, pilot operation and aircraft performance. Other areas will experience overflight, particularly when vectors are used to sequence traffic or pilots conduct visual approaches. In these instances, the pilot flies a more 2 Operations can vary from day to day. For illustrative purposes only. 13
direct route to the final approach. This means that approaches can be distributed over a wide region; the shaded areas on the maps show typical traffic distribution taking in to account all types of approaches. No changes are planned for the final intercept to runway 32 and any changes to flight paths over populated areas are either on very lightly travelled routes or at higher altitudes where noise is not typically a concern. 14
4.0 Environment 4.1 Overall Impact on Community Noise The overall community noise impact of the proposed changes is expected to be low based on the following: Most of the RNP approaches are located amongst existing traffic patterns and reduce the total area overflown. With shorter transitions on to the final approach, these flight paths represent a reduction in population overflown and in some cases avoid overflight of entire communities that otherwise would observe the same flight on a conventional approach. For communities that are overflown by the proposed RNP AR flight path, some increase in the amount of daily traffic experienced can be expected. However, the overall utilization of RNP AR is expected to continue to be a relatively small proportion of overall traffic due to both equipage levels and the sequencing requirements of traffic. RNP AR provides aircraft with guidance for constant descent operations. The 3 degree descent gradient that RNP AR provides should result in reduced noise as compared to equivalent flights that require aircraft to fly a level segment before intercepting the final approach glide path. Constant descent has been shown to reduce single event noise by 1-5 db in portions of the flight path. 3 Minor adjustments to STAR routes. These are used more frequently than RNP AR approaches, and include some changes. However, they are also flown with more flexibility than an RNP AR approach and result in aircraft turning towards the airport over a larger area. The changes will see aircraft turning slightly closer to the airport. Since the traffic is in locations that experience overflight today, impacts are expected to be minimal. The most perceptible aircraft noise events in the Halifax region will continue to be related to departures; no changes are proposed for departure routings. It is important to note that all changes occur outside of the Halifax Stanfield International Airport s Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contours and, as such, have no effect on zoning restrictions. 4.2 Reduced Emissions The implementation of PBN in Canada is an objective of Canada s Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aviation (2012), due to its potential to reduce fuel burn and associated emissions from aircraft operations. The Action Plan was the Government of Canada s response to the International Civil Aviation Organization s (ICAO) Assembly Resolution A37-19, which encourages Member States to submit national plans detailing the measures they are taking to address aviation emissions. In addition to safety benefits for pilots and controllers resulting from improved predictability of operations during one of the busiest phases of flight, it is estimated that the earlier turns off of the downwind leg at Halifax Stanfield International Airport will reduce flying time by up to three minutes per flight. Over the course of a year, this is equivalent to approximately 400,000 million litres of fuel savings and a reduction of 1,000 metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions 4. That s the same as approximately 100,000 car trips from Halifax to Sydney, NS. 3 CAA ERCD, BAA, CDA Briefing Paper, Noise benefits associated with Continuous Descent Approach Procedures at London Heathrow. 32 DTLR (1999). And Noise from arriving aircraft: Final Report of the ANMAC Technical Working Group, Departments for Transport Local Government and the Regions, December 1999. 4 Estimate based on 2015 equipage rates and is expected to grow over time. Includes savings related to proposed RNAV STAR improvements. 15
16
5.0 Community Outreach and Engagement 5.1 Engagement with Airport NAV CANADA s design team worked with the airport s operations staff at the early stages of design to ensure their knowledge of the local community was taken into consideration. This was followed up with a meeting with airport operations and community relations staff to discuss the consultation strategy as per the industry s Airspace Change Communication and Consultation Protocol. The airport does not have a noise consultative committee and receives very few complaints related to aircraft noise. 5.2 Website All meeting materials were made available online at www.navcanada.ca/yhz on July 19, 2016. Consultation information included a description of the changes, including maps of existing air traffic, the proposed flight paths, noise information and access to a video explaining RNP AR technology. The page also provided notice regarding the date, time and location of an open house event and access to the feedback mechanism, consisting of a survey with open and close ended questions. Webpage analytics shows that this section of the website received more than 1,300 unique visitors. 5.3 Open House One open house event was held in the Halifax area. This provided the public with opportunities to learn about proposed changes in person, to ask questions directly to NAV CANADA personnel and provide input for consideration in the final flight path design. To ensure community awareness of the consultation effort, notices (sample in Appendix 1) were placed in community weeklies and popular daily newspapers with a combined distribution of over 250,000 readers per insertion. Notices included information on dates and locations for the community Open House and encouraged residents to visit the website. In addition, the effort garnered earned media in the Halifax Chronicle Herald. Some elected officials helped promote the consultation effort through their own social media channels. Notices of the Open Houses were published in the following media on the dates indicated. Publication Approximate circulation per Insertion Dates edition Valley Journal Advertiser 6,000 August 8, 15 and 29 Halifax Chronicle-Herald 100,000 August 20, 24 and 31 Bedford Sackville Observer 45,000 August 9, 16, and 30 Enfield Weekly Press 10,000 August 10, 17 and 31 Courrier de La Nouvelle-Écosse 2,000 August 12, 19 and September 2 Residents were invited to participate in the following public drop-in consultation event: August 24, 2016 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Sackville Heights Community Centre 45 Connolly Rd Middle Sackville, NS B4E 1S6 17
The Open House event was hosted in a gymnasium with a large, open space. NAV CANADA representatives were available throughout to explain proposed changes, discuss current and expected flight patterns and answer resident questions. Attendees were invited to provide their name on a sign-in sheet for tracking purposes. To better explain the proposed changes, large boards were printed containing information on NAV CANADA, RNP AR technology as well as maps showing current tracks and the proposed RNP AR flight paths. Other resources available during the open house included: a computer that allowed residents to locate their own residence on a Google Earth map with current flight tracks and proposed RNP AR and RNAV approaches overlaid in 3D. The event was attended by just over 20 residents. The format was well received. Some residents arrived somewhat apprehensive and seemed reassured by the information provided. A few were more strongly opposed and the team encouraged them to provide their feedback through the survey. Some took the opportunity to fill in paper copies of the survey while others indicated they would do so online. 6.0 Survey Results and Other Feedback 6.1 Methodology To garner consistent feedback, a survey containing a mix of closed- and open-ended questions was made available on the website and at the community event. For those who wished, copies of the online survey were available at the Open House. Surveys filled out by residents at the Open House and left behind with staff were entered into the survey tool and considered along with those entered online. 18
6.2 Survey Respondents Airspace Change Community Engagement Report CYHZ RNP AR A total of 46 individuals completed the survey. Figure 21 shows the approximate location* of respondents based on postal code information provided. Not all respondents provided identifiable location data. The house icon identifies the location of the consultation event, which was open to residents across the region. Figure 13: Approximate Location of Survey Respondents 18 respondents 6 respondents 6.3 Summary of Input Received The engagement effort related to new RNP AR procedures revealed some concerns by residents regarding flight paths. There were more respondents in locations that currently observe aircraft movements arriving from the east, which may be a reflection of traffic trends with most aircraft arriving from eastern, northeastern and southeastern locations. There were two locations that had small clusters of respondents: Enfield and Bedford. While there is no history of complaints to the airport or other bodies regarding aircraft noise at either of these locations, both areas indicated that existing aircraft noise was a concern and some were concerned that an RNP flight path at a similar location would exacerbate the issue. The Grand Lake area of Enfield experiences arrival traffic overhead when runway 23 is in use as well as departure traffic when runways 32 or 05 are in use. While the proposed RNP and STARs are in similar locations, the community would prefer they be relocated away from this area and suggested locating the flight path north of where it was being proposed. The second community, Bedford, is located on the final approach to runway 05 and would experience regular traffic when this runway is in use. Overall, the proposal would result in some minor benefits for parts of this community as a result of RNP-equipped 19
aircraft turning towards the final approach sooner as well as some aircraft joining the final approach closer to the airport. A strong majority of survey respondents (70%) indicated that they have concerns with existing aircraft noise. A total of 74 per cent of survey respondents indicated that they expected noise to increase if the proposal were implemented. Overall, feedback received indicated that residents preferred that flight paths be designed so as to avoid overflying populated areas where possible. Comments from the public are important inputs in considering airspace proposals; however, the volume of responses against the significant outreach effort and other metrics, such as website visits, indicates low levels of concern in the region related to aircraft noise. This may also be reflected in the very low quantity of complaints received annually by the airport authority. 6.4 Consideration of Main Mitigations Proposed by Residents Avoid Overflying Communities NAV CANADA is sensitive to the fact that overflight of residential areas can be perceived as a nuisance for communities. As such, it makes efforts to balance the requirements for safe navigation, the interests of surrounding communities and the need to reduce the environmental impact of the industry. Unfortunately, due to the location of airports in relation to communities, flight path design criteria and safety requirements, it is not always possible to avoid overflying residential areas. Where possible, the company endeavors to design flight paths that overfly commercial or non-residential areas in a manner that respects Transport Canada-approved design criteria. The specific recommendation to relocate the flight path from the east to runway 23 that overflies the Grand Lake area of Enfield further north would bring the flight path over a less populated area. However, relocating the arrival flight path in this manner would have a negative impact on departure routings by requiring departing aircraft to level off at a low altitude and remain so until the aircraft was able to transition below the arrival flight path. This levelling would be likely to produce more noise over populated areas and generate additional greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that the proposed standard arrival route is in a similar location as the current flight path in relation to the community and is not expected to generate any material change (most flights use a standard approach). Since the area already experiences regular overflight and the flight path is in a similar location, the impacts are expected to be minimal. Residents are likely to be able to observe a small increase in overflight related to the implementation of RNP, though these will employ a quieter continuous descent approach as compared to a standard arrival. Aircraft at this phase of flight are expected to be between 3,000 and 4,000 feet for RNP equipped aircraft. 7.0 Recommendation RNP AR procedures have been flown at Halifax Stanfield International Airport since 2008 and have not been a source of noise complaints in the past. The use of RNP by WestJet at the airport has been successful in providing a shorter flight path and reducing emissions. The proposed RNP AR design ensures approaches to all runways, has some design benefits over the current procedure including 20
strategic use of non-residential areas, and will be able to be utilized by other suitably equipped and certified operators. It is recommended that the proposed RNP AR procedures for Halifax Stanfield International Airport be implemented as proposed. A target implementation date in November 2016 should be identified. Implementation will be subject to review as per section 9.0. 8.0 Communication As per the Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol, NAV CANADA will communicate the decision by posting this study on the NAV CANADA website at least three weeks prior to implementation. Pilot publications will be updated to reflect the new procedures as required. 9.0 Post Implementation Review An assessment of the change will be made by NAV CANADA and the Airport operator within 180 days following implementation of the new RNP AR arrival routes. This assessment will include noise monitoring to determine actual decibel levels in the affected area. The review will be shared with the Airport Authority and published on NAV CANADA s website. Noise monitoring will target the most used flight paths that overfly residential areas beyond final approach areas. It is also specifically recommended that monitoring in the Grand Lake area of Enfield be conducted. 21
APPENDIX 1 Below is a sample notice that was published in the Halifax Chronicle Herald. 22
APPENDIX 2 Summary of Survey Results The following section provides a summary of key survey findings: Respondents ranked the following flight path design considerations by order of importance, from most important to least important as follows: safety, community noise exposure, reducing fuel burn and GHGs, reducing delays, shortening flight times, increasing airspace capacity and air quality/pollution. 70 per cent of respondents indicated that existing aircraft noise was a concern to them. The most noted sources of these concerns were aircraft on approach (87%), aircraft on departure (69%) and night flights (62%). 74 per cent of respondents expect aircraft noise to increase at their location while 16 per cent expect it to decrease and 10 per cent expect it to remain the same. The reasons listed for this expectation were flight paths being closer to their residence (mentioned 19 times), aircraft will be at lower altitudes (11 times), increased traffic volumes (4 times), densification of flight paths (3 times). Three respondents also indicated that they felt that the change had already been implemented based on their observations. The final, open-ended question yielded a wide range of topics. Key ones included: o Suggestions for relocating the flight path away from Grand Lake, as previously described in this document. o Requests to keep the flight paths the same. o Indications that some residents expect reduced noise as a result of the proposed changes. o Both appreciation for the open consultation process and concerns with how input will be o recognized. Both interest in additional noise modelling information and that information was too detailed or unclear in some instances When asked how respondents had heard about the proposal, 19 indicated that they had heard about it from a neighbour, 18 from newspaper notices. Others heard about it though media coverage or their resident association. Respondents indicated that they gathered information to understand the proposal from a mix of the NAV CANADA website, from their neighbours, from media coverage and by attending the open house consultation. 23
APPENDIX 3 Open House Consultation 24