National Academies Press: OpenBook

Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 (2009)

Chapter: Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis

« Previous: Appendix A - Survey Instrument
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Results and Analysis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 92

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1. State in which you are located: Response Count Percent Alabama 0 0.0% Alaska 0 0.0% Arizona 1 2.9% Arkansas 0 0.0% California 7 20.6% Colorado 1 2.9% Connecticut 0 0.0% Delaware 0 0.0% District of Columbia 0 0.0% Florida 6 17.6% Georgia 0 0.0% Hawaii 0 0.0% Idaho 1 2.9% Illinois 0 0.0% Indiana 0 0.0% Iowa 0 0.0% Kansas 0 0.0% Kentucky 0 0.0% Louisiana 0 0.0% Maine 0 0.0% Maryland 0 0.0% Massachusetts 2 5.9% Michigan 1 2.9% Minnesota 1 2.9% Mississippi 0 0.0% Missouri 0 0.0% Montana 1 2.9% Nebraska 0 0.0% Nevada 2 5.9% New Hampshire 0 0.0% New Jersey 0 0.0% New Mexico 0 0.0% New York 3 8.8% North Carolina 1 2.9% North Dakota 0 0.0% Ohio 0 0.0% Oklahoma 0 0.0% Oregon 1 2.9% Pennsylvania 0 0.0% Rhode Island 0 0.0% South Carolina 0 0.0% South Dakota 0 0.0% Tennessee 1 2.9% Texas 2 5.9% Utah 0 0.0% Vermont 0 0.0% Virginia 2 5.9% Washington 0 0.0% West Virginia 0 0.0% Wisconsin 0 0.0% Wyoming 0 0.0% Other 1 2.9% Other Responses: New York and New Jersey 42 SUMMARY This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled Survey for Airport Noise Officers on Noise Issues Outside DNL 65. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 95 day period from Monday, April 28, 2008, to Thursday, July 31, 2008. Thirty-four completed responses were received to the survey during this time. APPENDIX B Survey Results and Analysis

43

44 Other Responses: Private Contractor, Public Benefit Corporation, Bi-State Authority.

45 Comment Responses: All noise concerns are treated with equal importance no matter where they are located. With no population inside the 2005 65 DNL contour, all noise concerns are outside DNL 65. Interagency Agreement with four airports. We have experienced significant reduction in incompatible land uses around the airport since the mid-1980s. Using 60 DNL for some land use planning since early 1990s. Some communities are affected with noise outside the DNL 65 when departure patterns are altered during runway closures for construction. We accept the FAA’s DNL 65 standard. It is our experience that the levels of annoyance over aircraft noise at our airport are minimal based on the complaints received.

46 (Check all that apply) Other Responses: Dedicated Noise Complaint Hotline 24/7 Noise budget Noise Monitoring Pilot training, Weekly coordination with ATCT RNAV departures, airport large land mass Detailed noise reports All programs at the airport are voluntary Airport Influence Area Use of “policy” contours Procedures at this airport are voluntary Noise Insulation Program

47 (Check all that apply) Public education and outreach All but buyouts included in city code Future workshops with all stakeholders Use of policy noise contours Place conditions on land use application Use of policy noise contours Public education, newsletters End-of-the-block sound insulation

48

49 Other response: Proactive planning.

50 Other Responses: E-mail, noise alerts Responses to complaints Local newspaper ads Noise disclosure notification NOMS (Noise and Operations Management System) will be operational in January 2009 E-mail listserv Education using flight tracking tools Noise reports. 24/7 Noise Complaint Line, Annual Report Noise Mitigation Program Model home Reports Meetings with local planners

51 11) Has FAA denied your airport's plans to mitigate or abate noise outside DNL 65? Response Count Percent Yes, because “Noise below DNL 65 is not significant.” 2 6.3% Yes, because “FAA does not fund actions outside DNL 65” (or it is such a low priority that it will never be funded). 10 31.3% Yes, because “The sponsor has not shown that there is a problem outside DNL 65.” 1 3.1% Yes, because “The local community has not enacted the local land use policies (including provision to protect areas outside DNL 65).” 0 0.0% Yes, because “At locations outside DNL 65, community noise is equal or greater to the aircraft noise.” 0 0.0% Yes, because “FAA has a national policy of not addressing noise from aircraft weighting less than 12,500 Online flight tracking.” 0 0.0% Yes, because “The lack of evidence/precedent indicating sound insulation of ‘floating’ homes would be effective.” 0 0.0% No 9 28.1% Other 10 31.3% Other Responses: No Part 150 program at this airport for FAA to approve or deny No Part 150 study conducted Decision on this airport in August Never presented to the FAA in any airport documents Part 150 pending action by FAA. The airport is in the process of conducting a Part 161 study. Unfair question Not applicable Does not apply No. This airport has only requested FAA to fund sound insulation to end-of-the-block, which does extend outside the 65 dB CNEL. They have agreed to use of general airport revenues for mitigation due to settlement of litigation proposed procedure opposed by local ATCT Comment Responses: Only FAA involvement is noise abatement flight track. We have not asked and do not intend to This airport does not have plans to support any mitigation outside DNL 65 We don’t formally pursue because it will be denied. Everything we are doing is not in conflic t w ith our FAA covenants or FAA regulations.

The DNL 65 is located within the airport boundary. We did not ask the FAA to fund mitigation, but were denied approach and departure procedures outside the DNL 65. This question should allow for multiple answers. Can you tell me why the burden should be placed on airports to mitigate outside the DNL 65 levels when local communities are not willing to mitigate along roads and railroads with equal or even higher levels. The policy is wrong for airports. Airport is conducting a Part 161 study to try to restrict aircraft from departing to the east over residences between midnight and 6:30 a.m., which disturbs areas outside current 65 dB CNEL. 12) Do you use noise abatement flight tracks for noise abatement? 52

53 14) Were your noise abatement tracks developed primarily to address noise outside DNL 65, primarily to address noise within DNL 65, or both? Response Count Percent Primarily to address noise outside DNL 65 8 38.1% Primarily to address noise within DNL 65 2 9.5% Both 11 52.4%

15) What noise metric(s) did you use to evaluate noise abatement flight tracks (Enter levels for all that apply)? Day–Night Average Sound Level, DNL Level Equivalent Level, L eq Level Sound Exposur e Level, SEL Level Maximum A-weighte d Level, L ma x Level Time Above, TA Level Number of Events Above (NA) Other: 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 55,60, 65 55, 60, 65 Number of events above 65 (NA) ** ** ** Flight tracks follow river corridors NAFTs were not designed around specific metrics, but compatible land uses. 50 No noise assessment was done. The intent was to avoid one subdivision with jet departures at the expense of other subdivisions in 1987. CNEL 65 65 dBA 95 dBA 70–75 dBA Varies; target levels for each type of aircraft selected Varies Yes Somewhat 65 65 85 90 Primary metric used Secondary metric used Number of flights within corridors; minimum altitude; time of use Perceived noise in decibels (PNDB) None; we used the 54

55 local geography. 60+ 65 and 60 85 CNEL x x x x x 15.7) Other: What noise metric(s) did you use to evaluate noise abatement flight tracks (enter levels for all that apply)? Other: Number of events above 65 (NA) Flight tracks follow river corridors NAFTs were not designed around specific metrics, but compatible land uses. No noise assessment was done. The intent was to avoid one subdivision with jet departures at the expense of other subdivisions in 1987. Number of flights within corridors; minimum altitude; time of use PNDB None; we used the local geography. CNEL

Other Responses: Special procedures information When traffic density is low Voluntary, no ATC Our program is voluntary. By request when available through airport ATC Local noise abatement departure procedures RNAV currently being designed Pilot education Voluntary compliance only 56

57 18) Please explain the implementation process with FAA, focusing on implementation obstacles/challenges: We have a very strong relationship with our local air traffic control management. We worked with them, as well as with airline partners, to develop a number of procedures including SIDs (Part 150 recommendation) RNAV and RNP, and preferential routing (collaboration with ATC and local operators). The FAA does not participate nor care about noise issues. We are requesting their assistance from the highest levels. Procedures were established in the late 1960s by the FAA and reaffirmed in the early 1980s by the FAA. Approved measures in the FAR Part 150 update for 1999. FAA uses preferential runway use pattern between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. since 2000. Never able to gain cooperation at other times. Noise abatement routes are voluntary and followed by local air taxi operators. Not able to implement ATIS noise abatement message. FAA tower personnel worked out the details quickly and efficiently. NA Typical Part 150 with public meetings The Authority and the FAA ATM signed an Informal Letter of Agreement which states TPA’s Noise Abatement Program. Noise abatement procedures are published in a Letter to Airmen Notice and are renewed every two years. As the FAA’s mission is to operate the airport in a safe and efficient manner and with the adoption of ICAO’ s definition of a runway incursion; this presents new challenges to the Authority. The TPA FAA TRACON recently informed the Authority that they want the discretion to assign the noise sensitive parallel runway for turbojet arrivals regardless of noise impacts to residential communities. Our program is voluntary. We cannot implement process until Part 161 is completed and approved. Education. Management concurs, but line staff doesn’t. Whole system is voluntary for ATC/Instrument Flight Rules flights and Visual Flight Rules flights. Does not always work—~50% compliance. Our local noise abatement procedures were implemented over time with the use of a special X-FAA staff consultant and much input from the community/airport users/local FAA personnel. Existing noise abatement in place since 1980s. Currently undergoing noise abatement study as part of federal mitigation requirement for new runway Conducted studies (before Part 150 existed) and negotiated with the FAA to implement the procedures. FAA implemented for approved departure throughput; airport provided NEPA data for FAA determination; reduced population impacted inside the 65 from 4868 to 3800 Our flight tracks are voluntary and supported by safety issues. Our runway is in a box canyon and surrounded by mountains on three sides. Our flight track support head-to-head traffic patterns and supports safety. They also help with noise abatement outside of the 65 DNL. Ideas are developed and researched by the airport Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) and recommendations are made to FAA. Additional review in support of FAA’s consideration/implementation is conducted by MAC noise staff in consultation with the airport NOC.

FAA ATCT will encourage noise abatement when aircraft separation and safety is not an issue. We have encountered some challenges in implementing RNAV procedures for a number of various departures. This is done via MOA or other agreement documentation. Other Responses: Website, outreach with AOPA, NBAA, HAI, etc. Pilot brochures Airport Facility Directory Special Notices Section ATC directive Video presentation in terminal, website Website and assigned headings by FAA ATCT E-mail AFD, airfield signing, and tower instructions Airport website ATC instructions 58

59 Comment Responses: Would be more effective if we could get FAA support Very effective when weather permits Effective only for particular noise-sensitive communities at the expense of other communities. However, we have not collected data to support this position When adhered to by ATCT and turbojet pilots. Turns over water, late night and shoreline crossings altitude very effective. Other close in turns not as affective. Population under RNAV corridors more affected.

21) How effective are your noise abatement flight tracks at reducing complaints from noise-sensitive communities outside DNL 65? Comment Responses: See comments from Question #20 above Reduced complaints from particular noise-sensitive communities However, we have not collected data to support this position When complied by ATCT and jet pilots High altitude overflights still generate many complaints 60

61 22) What is the estimated cost to implement this measure? Cost to Airport Cost to Operators Cost to FAA Other Costs: (explain) Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined none do not know do not know do not know 200K annually 750K annually 0 0 Unknown amount of fuel cost 0 $300,000 $0 Unknown Unknown Staff time training NA NA NA NA $25 to $60K per year 0 0 Annual noise budget— $1,500,000+ unknown 175K Cost indicated is for annual system maintenance a bit extra time and fuel $50,000 for NEPA work $25,000 Staff time Minimal Minimal Just printing and communication costs NA NA NA

Other Responses: ATC workload, increased emissions Airspace congestion No challenges to implementing flight tracks Unknown Prevent runway incursion and traffic Voluntary is just hard to describe Four of 16 routes increase flight time The flight tracks are voluntary 62

63 24) Do you use Departure or Arrival Flight Procedures for noise abatement?

26) Were your noise abatement procedures developed primarily to address noise outside DNL 65, primarily to address noise within DNL 65, or both? 64

65 27) What noise metric(s) did you use to evaluate noise abatement procedures (enter levels for all that apply)? Day–Night Average Sound Level, DNL Level Equivalent Level, Leq Level Sound Exposure Level, SEL Level Maximum A- weighted Level, Lmax Leveleq Time Above, TA Level Other DNL ** ** ** ** ** Again! Were not designed around metrics but compatible land uses. DNL per 14 CFR 150 65 CNEL DNL Leq Lmax 65 dBA 95 dBA 70–75 dBA SENEL for jet departures. Target level varies according to type of jet. 65 PNDB 60+ NEF Contours CNEL 65 and 60 x x x x

29) Please explain: Letter of Agreement with control tower. Also, extensive operator outreach for voluntary measures. FAA would not participate. We prepared procedures for VFR climatologic conditions. Non-towered airport with no radar service. All voluntary. FAR Part 150 Update of 1999. Formal notice is published for pilots to maintain 2,000 ft altitude until 5 mile final, but this is voluntary. Voluntary Visual Flight Tracks Non-controlled airspace, voluntary procedure Letter to Airmen Notice that is a local signed agreement between the Authority and the FAA airport ATM and is renewed every two years. Informal as most procedures are voluntary. Formal as we have a partial curfew designed to prohibit departures of Stage II aircraft. Noise rules and FAA SOP Departures are given headings to direct aircraft over non-sensitive areas. Closure of east outboard and diagonals at night; depends primarily on inboards; arrivals on outboards. Procedures are voluntary. 66

67 All are formal except for the “no turns before shoreline” policy to eliminate early turns. If all departures followed a published DP then there would be no early turns. LAX ATC usually directs them to "turn at the VOR" or "turn at the shoreline" which is then up for interpretation. NADPs They are implemented if there weather conditions allow. Other Responses: ATC instructions in line with LOA Video distributed to flight schools Pilot Brochures, letters, phone calls Airport Facility Directory Special Notice FAA ATC as a part of their standard SOP Directed by ATCT Airfield signage ATC instructions

31) How effective are your noise abatement procedures at reducing noise over sensitive communities outside DNL 65? Comment Responses: Flight school pilots change so frequently that it is hard to keep everyone current on noise abatement procedures. They could be very effective with FAA support Very effective weather permitting When adhered to by ATC and jet pilots Late night, turns over water, minimum shoreline crossing altitudes are very effective in reducing noise. Close-in turns over populated areas less so and concentrate noise Some problems occur during construction when runways are closed. The majority of complaints (2–3 per year) are due to military operations. Although the communities don’t seem to think so. They relate to what is current and can't compare to what it's like without the procedures in place. 68

69 32) How effective are your noise abatement procedures at reducing complaints from noise-sensitive communities outside DNL 65? Comment Responses: We ask that pilots stay west of the complaining community. The community does not care if there are reasons that this is not always possible. See comments Question #32 above When adhered to by ATC and jet pilots

33) What is the estimated cost to implement this measure? Cost to Airport Cost to Operators Cost to FAA Other Costs (explain) Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined $13,500, part time noise position unknown but they spend time training pilots considerable $250,000/ year no idea nil nil nil Nil 200K 750K 0 $300,000 Staff time Training(unknown) unknown Extra taxiing distance and flight time 175K for system maintenance 0 0 Cost of placing signs on airfield. $25,000 Noise office staff to monitor procedures. ? ? Staff Time Minimal Minimal NA NA NA 70

71 Other Responses: ATC workload, emissions, shifting noise Airspace congestion None No costs Procedures are voluntary

35) Does your airport have procedures to minimize Ground Noise (i.e., from takeoff roll, reverse thrust, taxi, or engine run-ups)? 72

73 37) Were your ground noise procedures developed primarily to address noise outside DNL 65, primarily to address noise within DNL 65, or both?

38) What noise metric(s) did you use to evaluate ground noise procedures (enter levels for all that apply)? Day–Night Average Sound Level, DNL Level Equivalent Level, Leq Level Sound Exposure Level, SEL Level Maximum A- weighted Level, Lmax Level Time Above, TA Level Other HMMH conducted GRE testing ** AGAIN! Compatible land uses, not metrics! DNL per 14 CFR 150 65 None None CNEL 65 dBA Lmax 65 dBA 70–75 dBA 85 90 Metric used 60 Part 150 Study Public complaints NA CNEL 65 74

75 40) Please Explain: Outreach with local operators. Airport policies and procedures. Also coordination with ATC. We meet with tenants and ask for tower assistance. Operators asked to limit auxilary power unit (APU) usage to 15 min. Maintenance run-ups must be cleared by airport operations. Operation directives to enforce run-up policy Airport Rules and Regulations set forth operational procedures governing GRE use, enforcement, and five levels of incentive or penalties for compliance. Voluntary APU Restrictions Engine run-ups must be performed at specific location only and only during certain times with certain power settings and no run-ups permitted between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. Noise curfew restrictions in place prohibit run-up or engine run between 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. daily Airport rules and regulation control ground-based operations. Requests for run-up operations are directed to Operations for permission prior to commencing run-up activity.

Ground run-ups allowed from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and in certain run-up areas as designated by Airport Operations. Operators may be asked if doing a maintenance run-up to stop or cutback power if noise complaints are coming in. Authority SOP that requires contact to the Operations Department prior to utilization of the GRE. A form is also filled out and faxed to the Authority. Maintenance hangars are located on the eastern side of the airfield just north of the GRE facility. Training on the use of GRE is conducted with new tenants. No nighttime run-ups for maintenance. Daytime run-ups only permitted at the blast fence. Written in pilot handouts and inserts and as advised by our Contract Tower. Part of Noise Rules. Designated run-up areas, towing of aircraft, limited use of APUs. Limited use of certain runways. Voluntary request on one engine taxiing. Blast fence is installed to protect the communities from noise. 1) Run-ups are prohibited during certain times of the day. It is listed in a Notice-to-Airman Noise Compatibility Procedure document. 2) We request that the public call and give us time and dates to monitor for compliance. Should non-compliance be evident, the specific airlines are contacted. 3) Airfield signs are to be posted this year concerning power taxiing and its limits Airport Rules and Regulations Airport Rules and Regulations include a recommendation for operators to minimize use of reverse thrust (not usually followed). Also includes a maintenance/engine run-up curfew between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily, and a two-in/out requirement for large jet aircraft operating at the Imperial Terminal. Airport Operations staff enforce these rules. Filed Rule and Letters of Agreement with Tenants 76

77 Other Responses: Maintenance personnel briefings Tower Electronic signage Letter of Instruction on GRE Usage; all Website None Airport operations personnel Website and tenant meetings Airport regulations Installed at the end of the runways Letter to Airman Airport operations staff communicate rule Noise abatement rules and regulations.

42) How effective are your ground noise procedures at reducing complaints from noise-sensitive communities outside DNL 65? Comment Responses: Irrelevant No run-up complaints in years Never had a ground noise complaint from outside CNEL 65 We rarely receive noise complaints re: run-up activity from outside the 65 NA 78

79 43) What is the estimated cost to implement this measure? Cost to Airport Cost to Operators Cost to FAA Other Costs (explain) $8 Million (GRE) relatively no cost on reverse thrust Undetermined Undetermined Very little Minimal no idea nil nil nil Administrative 1K initially unknown 0 0 Unknown fuel cost to taxi to run-up location and back 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GRE installation and training—$5 million 80% Maintenance, staff time, and equipment 0 0 0 $4,500,000 80% Minimal None None None NA $25,000 Ops staff to enforce—Not much activity. 0 0 Staff Time minimal minimal

44) Are there any drawbacks or challenges to implementing your ground noise procedures (check all that apply). Other Responses: Additional taxi time; fuel/emissions Private jet passenger education No drawback; everyone cooperates None Doesn’t seem to be any drawbacks Our procedures are only recommended. No Operations staff enforcing curfew, etc. 80

81

46) What type of zoning do you or the land use governments surrounding the airport use outside DNL 65? (Enter levels for all that apply.) Prohibit development of residential land uses—Identify Level Permit development of residential land uses with sound insulation—Identify Level Other None 68 dBA (based on 1990 contours) 65 dBA (based on 1990 contours) to 60 LDN 65 CNEL none Airport Business surrounds ALB prohibiting non- compatible uses Noise Overlay District adopted-in effect Current 60 DNL similar to composite 65 DNL Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, based on Caltrans Division of Aeronautics guidelines No prohibited land uses 60 DNL 55 DNL 65 DNL nonresidential sound insulation required 65 dBA Airport District Zoning Policy contours Disclosure. Building restrictions vary by local. Yes, since 1986 Control the land within the airport to insure compatible uses Airport Influence Area 65 DNL or higher 60–64.9 DNL disclosure required for homes >65 DNL until 1 mile outside the 60 DNL contour Use of policy contour None Discouraged >65 DNL 65 DNL SLR up to 35 db 82

83 Airport requires easement We require easements out to our 65 LDN. Based on Land Use Compatibility Zones designated in plan Only for non-compatible uses with airport approval State, county, and city requirement But only prior to the ruling Nevada court ruling on Sisalak 5 miles around airports We have required them if property owners’ accepts mitigation Some jurisdictions only For homes requesting soundproofing Recent court case said not warranted In areas that we have purchased and sold back to the public All homes from between 60 and 65 DNL contours. Encouraged; not required Any use within 65 DNL

Airport requires easement State of California requires within airport influence area Residential use only to composite 55 DNL State law Must be recorded at county Some jurisdictions only This is done at the county level. On a case-by-case basis for new development All homes outside the 65 DNL contour to a distance 1 mile out Encouraged; not required Disclosure is required within 60 DNL 84

85 Other Responses: Currently studying this topic Residents should not be forced inside Pre-existing to airport 55 DNL+ received NLR Proposed only for less than 2 dozen homes

Other Responses: NA No sound insulation funded We have considered We do not insulate outside DNL 65 86

87 51) What is the estimated cost to implement this measure? Cost to Airport Cost to Operators Cost to FAA Cost to Homeowner Other Costs (explain) Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Will be evaluating as part of 2006 150 study $150,000/ year NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 unknown $0 $0 $0 $0 City provided using penalty payments from DIA $3.1 million nil 80% nil (avigation easement) In-house construction management NA NA NA NA Haven’t implemented yet. 20% or about $10K per dwelling 80% or about $30K per dwelling NA $15,000 130,000,000 NA NA NA NA

52) How effective are your, or the land use governing body(ies), land use policies communicated to homeowners and realtors (check all that apply)? Other Responses: We work with land-use authorities County and city planning department Through the complaint process Planning departments advise petitioners Active with development permitting process Through public meetings Disclosures Resolution requiring notification 88

89 53) How effective are your, or the land use governing body(ies), land use policies at preventing non- compatible development in communities outside DNL 65? Comment Responses: Effective inside 65 DNL but not outside 65 DNL only implemented w/in 80 Lmax Unique position in Planning to review all new development Re-zoning petitions are the biggest challenges. Authority is working to improve coordination thru mutually acceptable catchment areas for notification of the Aviation Authority. Usually allowed with mitigation/easements

54) What is the estimated cost to implement this land use measure? Cost to Airport Cost to Homeowners Cost to Realtors Other Costs (explain) Minimal Undetermined Undetermined Minimal nil nil Nil Administrative 0 0 0 0 $250,000 $0 Unknown Unknown 0 0 0 In-house construction, legal and staff time City and County Planners & Zoning Agencies NA NA NA NA Minimal NA 0 0 0 $15,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA 90

91 Comment Responses: None Not all realtors or homeowners are cooperative even though they can be sued for non-compliance. No drawbacks Voluntary compliance—No oversight Developers seeking P&D rezoning in our airport district zones for in-fill development Recommendations not always heeded Sometimes the local officials do not contact the airport on critical land development. Pressure from developers to abandon policy contour

58) Do you have any information that you believe would be helpful to this study? If so, please indicate below. I’d be happy to provide additional information. I am not sure what is meant by a “case study” but the Port has worked on many projects to address noise outside the 65 DNL contours including pursuing RNAV, building a GRE (due to state requirements) and establishing helicopter training patterns at HIO. On file with HMMH. All components of our program are based on issues outside the 65 CNEL. This facility was among the very first U.S. airports to implement ANCLUC–Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility in 1979 and have completed 2 FAR Part 150 Study Updates. The airport has a fully cooperative relationship with the local jurisdictions for land use in the 65 DNL. Outside of the 65 DNL, the local jurisdictions do not prohibit noise sensitive land uses. The airport must impose noise disclosure on its own and must convince school district to sound insulate new schools outside of but close to 65 DNL. With a population exceeding 20,000 and over 10,000 dwelling units inside the SDIA CNEL 65, we estimate it will take 30+ years to mitigate through residential insulation. Before FAA authorizes money to be spent to mitigate aircraft noise issues beyond CNEL 65, perhaps someone should consider whether we need to re-evaluate first generation sound insulated homes and decide whether money is better spent on those closest to the source and most susceptible to injury. Some sort of participation by the FAA would be helpful outside the 65. In general, we believe the industry is opposed to mitigation beyond the 65 db DNL. Mitigating beyond the 65 db DNL would significantly increase the numbers of homes eligible for sound insulation. Consequently, this will increase the financial burden on the FAA and airport operators (local share of grants). The majority of airports (medium and small hub) do not have adequate funding or resources to complete existing noise programs within the 65 db DNL contour. Airports that successfully completed 65 db DNL mitigation programs will be required to initiate new noise programs and this would take away the limited federal funding from those airports not yet finished with their existing 65 db DNL mitigation program s. Background and other noise sources (roadways) can greatly influence noise levels in a neighborhood. Beyond the 65 db DNL, it is not a given that aircraft generated noise will remain the prime noise issue. This community has a unique program in the U.S. Full-time Airport Noise Coordinator although the city doesn’t own/operate an airport. Airports are seriously handicapped in dealing with ATCT staff if their noise abatement programs are not formal. They have told us (Authority) that they can do anything they want at this facility because we have an informal program. The airport and the local jurisdictions use policy contours not acoustic contours, adopted by ordinance, to govern land use. Areas in acoustic 60–65 within policy 65. Also facility has 18,500 acres. 65 DNL nearly on airport property. Local cities regulate areas beyond airport based on policy contours. Just Part 150 info on the number of homes/residents in the 60 to 65 DNL area and recommendations that were not adopted by the FAA in 2001. Currently undergoing Noise Study. Most issues outside of 65. Use of alternative metrics; community extensive role. Very difficult on consensus due to shifting of noise. A lot of our noise complaints occur during flight changes due to runway closures. Also, aircraft approaching the runway s w ill follow ILS procedures until they get visual contact of the runway and 92

93 drop their elevation by 2000 feet over the community. We are working with the ATCT to try to eliminate this procedure. Currently we have no formal program for addressing noise outside of the 65 DNL. We are trying to keep the lines of communications open. We do offer the following on a limited basis: 1) Open the Noise Model Home to general public for noise mitigation ideas. 2) Will be putting together a “Tips on” flyer handout for hiring contractors and home mitigation. 3) The local municipality is considering a community-wide property reassessment. We are in current discussions for the potential for “Grandfathering” homes in the 60–64 DNL from being reassessed or freeze them at the current value for 10–20 years. That commitment may or may not be approved. Airport uses pre-ANCA noise contours; Actual 65 on airport property, which would invite residences at fence; local jurisdictions adopted policy contours and understand benefits to continued use until pressure from developers caused the cities to request new noise contours; updated contours in process now. The expert studies that were developed and presented in court as part of the litigation related to mitigation beyond the 65 DNL contour at MSP.

Next: Appendix C - Case Study: Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport »
Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 16: Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 explores alternative actions currently used by airports to address noise outside the DNL (Day–Night Average Noise Level) 65 contour.

An ACRP Impacts on Practice related to ACRP Synthesis 16 is available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!