Departure Noise Mitigation Review Dr Darren Rhodes Civil Aviation Authority 18 July 2018 1
Departure Noise Review: Terms of Reference Conduct a review of the existing policy objectives and desired outcomes from a departure noise management regime in order to establish the criteria against which any revised proposals can be assessed. If appropriate, additional or alternative outcomes will be added to the criteria. Carry out a systematic review of the current departure noise abatement and monitoring procedures to understand how they help achieve the required outcomes. Without prejudice to the review of current procedures, assess the change in infringement rates for an increase in stringency of the current noise limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The current policy of applying uniform noise limits across the three airports should also be reviewed. On the basis of findings from these investigations, assess the potential for operational changes to mitigate any significant increase in infringement rate for aircraft of similar types. Assess the possible impacts of operational changes in terms of noise, emissions and any other significant factors. The Technical Working Group should report their findings back to ANMAC 2
Departure Noise Controls Section 78(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 Noise limits at 6.5 km after start of take-off roll 94 dba daytime, 89 dba should hours, 87 dba night quota period Financial penalties levied against the limits Reach at least 1,000 ft by 6.5 km after start of take-off roll Maintain a climb gradient of not less than 4% to an altitude of not less than 4,000 feet. Progressively reduce noise beyond 6.5km point Track keeping requirements 3
Total infringements Noise limit infringements 250 200 Gatwick Heathrow Stansted 150 100 50 0 Year 4
Number of height infringements 1,000 ft height infringements 2007-2017 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gatwick Heathrow Heathrow < 900 ft Stansted 5
Height above aerodrome, feet Climb gradient 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 5% gradient from 1000 ft/6.5 km 5.5% gradient from Departure End of Runway 4% gradient from 1000 ft/6.5 km 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance from start of roll, km 6
Compliance rate Number of failures 4% climb gradient performance 2017 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage compliant Number of failures 7
Average LAmax, dba Height above aeromdrome, ft Progressively reducing noise beyond 6.5km 85 80 75 70 65 60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from start-of-roll, km A320 Lmax A380 Lmax A320 Height A380 Height 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 8
Controls conclusions (1) There are now relatively few noise infringements due largely to the gradual retirement and replacement of older aircraft types. The number of noise infringements at Heathrow historically has been higher than at Gatwick or Stansted due to the greater numbers of large aircraft serving long-haul destinations. There is limited scope for reductions in the noise limits at Heathrow until the retirement of the remaining Boeing 747-400 fleet. Half of the current fleet is expected to be withdrawn by 2021 and the remainder by 2024. A small reduction of 1 to 2 db in the daytime and shoulder limits might be feasible at Heathrow, without causing the overall number of infringements to increase above historic levels. 9
Controls conclusions (2) Other noise controls including minimum height and climb gradient requirements appear to be limiting noise further out, since average measured noise levels continue to reduce beyond 6.5 km from start of roll. The compliance rates with these additional controls are very high. However, continued community discontent with departure noise in general suggests that the existing controls may not be sufficient to meet the concerns of the community. Additional departure monitors located beyond 6.5 km from start of roll would help to verify that progressively reducing noise levels under the flight path are being achieved. New infringement limits or advisory levels could be applied at each monitor. 10
Broader aspects of the review International benchmarking of departure climb performance Changes in airline procedures over time The effects of alternative noise abatement departure procedures NADP 1 vs NADP 2 The effects of alternative take-off thrust settings Greater thrust reduction after take-off to reduce noise at 6.5km ( Deep cutback ) Full thrust take-off 11
Aircraft height above runway, feet Climb performance international comparisons 6000 5000 4000 BAW (LHR) BAW (LAX) 4% from 1000ft/6.5km 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance from start of roll, km 12
Aircraft height above runway, feet Climb performance international comparisons 6000 5000 4000 KAL (LHR) KAL (CDG) KAL (LAX) KAL (JFK) 4% from 1000ft/6.5km 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance from start of roll, km 13
Aircraft height above runway, feet Climb performance international comparisons 6000 5000 4000 AFR (CDG) AFR (JFK) AFR (LAX) 4% from 1000ft/6.5km 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance from start of roll, km 14
Aircraft height above runway, feet Climb performance international comparisons 6000 5000 4000 DLH (FRA) DLH (JFK) DLH (LAX) 4% from 1000ft/6.5km 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Distance from start of roll, km 15
Height above runway level, feet Changes in airline procedures over time 5000 4000 3000 QTR B777 (Summer 2013) QTR B777 (Summer 2014) VIR A330 (Summer 2013) VIR A330 (Summer 2014) 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 Distance from start of roll, km 16
Height above runway level, feet Changes in airline procedure over time 5000 4000 JFK (Summer 2000) JFK (Summer 2015) SIN (Summer 2000) SIN (Summer 2015) 3000 2000 1000 0 0 5 10 15 20 Distance from start of roll, km 17
Noise Level (dba) Noise level, dba Effect of aircraft speed on noise event level and duration 80 90 75 85 80 70 75 65 70 65 60-40 -20 0 20 40 Time, seconds NADP 1 NADP 2 60 Time, seconds LAmax: 84.5 dba SEL: 92.1 dba SEL: 90.4 dba 18
A380: NADP 1 vs NADP 2 65dB Lmax 75dB SEL 19
A380: Deep cutback 65dB Lmax 20
A380: Effect of full take-off power vs reduced 3,000nm range flight (Middle-east) 65dB Lmax 75dB SEL 21
A380: Effect of full take-off power vs reduced 5,500nm range flight (Far-east) 65dB Lmax 75dB SEL 22
Full vs reduced power: effect on NOx emissions Case study: Baseline procedure vs. alternative procedure NO x difference to 1,000 ft (percent) NO x difference to 3,000 ft (percent) CO 2 difference to cruise (percent) 1) R/T NADP 2 (1,000 ft) vs. R/T NADP 1 (1,500 ft) 3,000 NM stage length 2) R/T NADP 2 (1,000 ft) vs. R/T NADP 2 deep c/b (1,000 ft) 3,000 NM stage length 3) R/T NADP 2 (1,000 ft) vs. F/T NADP 2 (1,000 ft) 3,000 NM stage length 4) R/T NADP 2 (1,500 ft) vs. F/T NADP 2 (1,500 ft) >5,500 NM stage length None -11% +2% None +1% +2% +47% +49% -2% +5% +8% >-1% 23
Overall conclusions The study by the ANMAC Technical Working Group has identified that there is limited scope for reductions in the noise limits at Heathrow until the retirement of the remaining Boeing 747-400 fleet. A small reduction of 1 to 2 db in the daytime and shoulder limits might be feasible without causing the overall number of infringements to increase above historic levels. The analysis shows that there is no single NADP that will reduce departure noise in all locations; a change of NADP simply moves noise from one location to another. 24
Report Recommendation Although the current controls appear to be limiting noise further out and compliance rates are very high, continued community discontent with departure noise in general suggests that the existing controls may not be sufficient to meet the concerns of the community. Given the continued community expectation that departure noise should be minimised, additional departure monitors located beyond 6.5 km from start of roll would help to verify that progressively reducing noise levels under the flight path are being achieved. It is recommended that guidance be developed on the application of supplementary departure noise monitoring and associated levels. This could be taken forward through an industry-led group to develop an updated Departures Code of Practice. In the short term however, a voluntary arrangement at each airport may be appropriate. 25