Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
14
CHAPTER FOUR
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
This chapter presents results of the ACRP survey summariz- Airports typically communicate their noise abatement
ing responses to questions on methods to minimize and abate flight tracks and procedures to pilots in one of three ways:
aircraft noise, including noise abatement flight tracks, noise 37% use posters/hand-outs, 34% use Jeppesen inserts, and
abatement operational procedures, and ground noise control. 29% use pilot briefings. FAA Standards are used by 17%,
and 23% use other means to communicate flight procedures
including air traffic controller instructions, tower instructions,
NOISE ABATEMENT FLIGHT TRACKS airport websites, and the airport facility directory.
AND FLIGHT PROCEDURES
Twenty-two of the surveyed airports (63%) have noise abate- Survey respondents reported that a range of noise metrics
ment flight tracks. Half (50%) reported that noise abatement are used to evaluate noise abatement flight tracks and proce-
flight tracks were developed to address noise both inside and dures including DNL, CNEL, Maximum A-weighted Sound
outside DNL 65, and nearly 41% reported that the noise abate- Level (Lmax), Time Above, number of audible aircraft noise
events, Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Continuous Equiv-
ment tracks were developed primarily to address noise outside
alent Sound Level (Leq). Respondents also reported a wide
DNL 65. Further, all airports reported noise abatement flight
range of noise levels used to evaluate flight tracks among the
procedures reduced noise and complaints outside DNL 65;
various noise metrics. Some airports reported that no assess-
72% said noise abatement tracks were "very to moderately
ment was conducted. Responses to this question suggest that
effective" in reducing noise and 62% said it was "very to mod-
there is a need for better guidance in developing noise abate-
erately effective" in reducing community complaints.
ment flight tracks.
Figure 2 presents responses to the question, "Type of noise
The survey results suggest that airports do not have suffi-
abatement track" (note there can be multiple responses). The
cient information on the implementation costs of noise abate-
majority of these airports (63%) use jet departure noise abate- ment procedures, especially the costs to operators and the air
ment flight tracks, whereas 51% use jet arrival flight tracks. traffic system. Eight airports reported that airline fuel costs
More than 30% of the airports use propeller and helicopter are increased by implementing noise abatement flight proce-
arrival and departure flight tracks. dures. The airports also commented that total aircraft opera-
tors cost for implementation was between nothing and $750K
Thirty-four percent of respondents (12) reported that they annually. Specific responses included, "A bit extra time and
have received formal FAA approval for their noise abate- fuel" and "Minimal." FAA cost was reported as "Nothing" or
ment flight tracks; 11% reported they have received NEPA "Unknown."
approval. Airports report that air traffic controllers implement
the flight procedures as follows: 40% use vectoring, 29% spec- The challenges to implementing flight tracks are shown in
ify VOR radials with turns and distant measuring equipment Figure 4. The single greatest challenge that airports reported
altitude requirements, 20% use RNAV, 14% use a global posi- was communication with pilots (34%); other challenges to
tioning system, and 20% cited other procedures but without implementation included communication with ATC (29%),
air traffic control (ATC) assistance. communication with the community (29%), increased flight
time (26%), and increased fuel costs to airlines (20%).
Airports reported a similar use of operational noise abate-
ment procedures (i.e., cockpit procedures) designed to mini- Airports reported a variety of navigation procedures to
mize noise during different types of operations. As shown in implement noise abatement flight tracks: the most common is
Figure 3, more than half of respondents (54%) have some type radar vectoring (40%), followed by VORdistant measuring
of noise abatement departure procedure (NADP) or Interna- equipment (29%), RNAV (20%), and Global Positioning Sys-
tional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) procedure; many tem (14%); three airports reported that the procedures were
also have jet arrival procedures such as CDA (40%), propeller voluntary and had no ATC involvement.
departure procedures (43%), and propeller arrival procedures
(37%); more than one-third (34%) reported helicopter depar- Finally, respondents reported that both noise abatement
ture and arrival procedures. flight tracks (Figure 5) and procedures (Figure 6) are generally
OCR for page 14
15
FIGURE 2 Types of noise abatement flight tracks at surveyed airports.
FIGURE 3 Types of noise abatement procedures at surveyed airports.
