Birmingham Airport Airspace Change Proposal Deciding between Option 5 and Option 6 Ratified Version
1. Introduction Birmingham Airport Limited (BAL) launched the Runway 15 departures Airspace Change Consultation on Friday 11 th January 2013. The consultation covered three aspects of proposed departure procedures from Runway 15, namely; RNAV Standard Instrument Departure procedures (SIDs) for aircraft turning left to northerly routes Option 4 RNAV Standard Instrument Departure procedures (SIDs) for aircraft routing via southerly routes Option 5 Two conventional departure procedures (one for northerly routes, one for southerly routes) for non RNAV equipped aircraft During the consultation period, it was clear that whilst there was some support for the proposals, there was opposition from certain localities to various aspects of the proposals. In particular BAL was repeatedly asked to clarify the earliest point at which aircraft can make a turn on departure for southbound routes in an attempt to replicate, as closely as possible, the existing Hampton Turn. In direct response to this question, BAL commissioned further design work and developed a further option, namely Option 6, for southbound departures. Option 6 was launched for consultation on 12 th April 2013, giving an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on two options for southbound departures. The consultation period closed on 17 th May 2013 following an extension of 4 weeks to allow for the consideration of Option 6. Now that the consultation stage is complete, BAL is required to submit a formal Airspace Change Proposal to the Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG) of the CAA. As there were no alternative options consulted upon for the northbound SIDs, Option 4 for the RNAV SIDs and the two conventional departure procedures for non RNAV equipped aircraft will be submitted to the CAA. However, a decision is required as to which of Options 5 and 6 should be submitted for southbound departures.
2. Considerations for the decision making process The CAA s guidance document for Airspace Change Processes, CAP 725, requires that the following issues be considered in the decision-making process: operational and safety considerations, environmental impact and consultation responses. CAP 725 does not however indicate that any particular weighting or ranking should be applied to the various considerations. 3. Operational and safety considerations There is no measurable difference between the two options operationally and both options are safe and flyable. However, it is assumed that there will be less dispersal with Option 5, particularly for conventional departures, as a straight ahead is easier to fly accurately and consistently. It is also considered that departing straight ahead may allow for marginally quicker climb rates than achieved in departures involving lower level turns. 4. Noise Assessment The Government s overall policy on aviation noise is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. LAeq noise contours are the most commonly used method of portraying aircraft noise impact in the UK. The Government treats 57dB(A) LAeq 16 hour contour as the average level of daytime noise marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. (DfT Aviation Policy Framework 2013, p.57). In comparing the results of the LAeq noise modelling at any of the bandings (up to and including) 57dB (A) there is no change in the number of people 1 affected by noise between Options 5 and 6. However the LAeq noise contours do show that the village of Barston is worse affected by aircraft noise as it features in all contour scenarios. Balsall Street East does not come into the noise contour until 2022. There is no difference between the options for Hampton-in-Arden. CAP725 required that SEL footprints must also be produced when the proposed airspace includes changes to the distribution of flights at night below 7000 feet. SEL footprints are useful in portraying the impact of aircraft movements at night on sleep disturbance as research shows that residents tend to be woken by single one-off events. This research shows that for outdoor aircraft noise events below 90 db(a) SEL the average persons sleep is unlikely to be disturbed (CAP725, Appendix B, p.14). However CAP725 requires SEL footprints to calculated at both 90 db(a) and 80 db(a) SEL. 1 However, it should be noted that populations and households are given to the nearest 100.
In comparing the results of the SEL footprints there is no difference at 90 db(a) between Options 6 and 5. However there is an increase in properties at 80 db(a) with Option 5. CAP725 provides no narrative to assess the impact at 80dB(A), (such as the 57dB(A) LAeq as the onset of community annoyance, or 90 db(a) SEL as the onset of sleep disturbance), therefore the SEL at 80dB(A) has not formed part of the decision making process. The following points from the DTLR Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives have also been considered; The design of departure procedures closer to an airport, where aircraft are lower and noise levels are higher, should generally be given greater weight over their design further afield in circumstances where a trade-off between the two cannot be avoided. However, the relative size of the populations affected in such cases should also be weighed in the balance, along with the differences in noise levels at points along the route. It is also desirable to design departure procedures so that they do not replicate the final approach tracks of landing aircraft (when the airport is operating on the opposite runway) where the final approach track passes over built-up areas, in order to provide periods of relief from aircraft noise for those living under the approach track. In the case of the proposed southbound SIDs for Runway 15 these points of guidance actually contradict each other. Therefore given that the wording should is stronger in its definition than desirable, Birmingham Airport has given greater weight to the first point in support of Option 5 over Option 6. In terms of track replication, Option 5 does fly straight ahead for longer but mostly over open countryside until it reaches Balsall Street East, at which point aircraft will be at a higher altitude and less noisy than at Barston (which Option 6 will directly overfly). It should also be noted that Balsall Street East does not come within the noise contours until 2022 (178,000 ATMs). Parts of Barston lie within today s 57dB(A) noise contour.
5. Feedback from the consultation Feedback from formal consultees (i.e. those on the defined stakeholder list) offered greater support for the original proposed route for southbound options i.e. Option 5. Where consultees made a second response specifically referenced to the options arising from the supplementary consultation, or where their single response referenced the options, then 5 consultees preferred the original proposal whilst 4 favoured Option 6 or a modification of it. However it should be noted that some stakeholders objected to both Options and many stakeholders did not state a preference, but instead provided comments. Comments and questions have been addressed within the post-consultation analysis report. However, the majority of individual community responses (i.e. those not on the defined stakeholder list) opposed Option 5, with the greatest number of responses coming from the Balsall Common area. This is not surprising since a misleading orchestrated campaign was identified within the area of Balsall Common. 6. Conclusion The differences between Options 5 and Option 6 environmentally are broadly marginal when compared with each other, or indeed when compared to what is flown by aircraft today. In summary, Option 5 has been selected as the preferred option for the following reasons; The greater support from the formal consultees Marginally better environmental outcome, as the area closest to the Airport, which has the potential to be directly overflown is the village of Barston. Option 5 offers marginally greater relief to Barston than Option 6.
Results of the LAeq Aircraft Noise Contours Appendix A Year 2010 (current With Arrivals and with Option 5/ Option 6 Departure Route situation) Contour Level Area (km 2 ) Population Households db (A) >57 13.1/ 13.0 17,800/ 17,800 7,500/ 7,500 >60 7.1/ 7.1 6,400/ 6,400 2,700/ 2,700 >63 3.9/ 3.9 1,300/ 1,300 600/ 600 >66 2.1/ 2.1 0/ 0 0/ 0 >69 1.3/ 1.3 0/ 0 0/ 0 >72 0.8/ 0.8 0/ 0 0/ 0 Year 2013 (implementation) With Arrivals and with Option 5/ Option 6 Departure Route Contour Level db Area (km 2 ) Population Households (A) >57 19.9/ 19.6 33,100/ 33,100 13,700/ 13,700 >60 11.2/ 11.2 14,600/ 14,600 6,000/ 6,000 >63 6.0/ 6.0 4,600/ 4,600 1,900/ 1,900 >66 3.3/ 3.3 600/ 600 300/ 300 >69 1.8/ 1.8 0/ 0 0/ 0 >72 1.1/ 1.1 0/ 0 0/ 0 Year 2022 (forecast year) With Arrivals and with Option 5/ Option 6 Departure Route Contour Level Area (km 2 ) Population Households db (A) >57 26.3/ 25.7 43,500/ 43,500 18,100/ 18,100 >60 14.8/ 14.7 21,200/ 21,200 8,700/ 8,700 >63 8.1/ 8.1 8,800/ 8,800 3,600/ 3,600 >66 4.4/ 4.4 2,100/ 2,100 900/ 900 >69 2.4/ 2.4 100/ 100 100/ 100 >72 1.4/ 1.4 0/ 0 0/ 0