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 123
Noise Abatement (Airside) Techniques 123
for the weight of aircraft, a preferential program may result in the preferred runway's accep-
tance. Virtually all preferential use programs in the United States are voluntary and require the
concurrence of the pilot in charge of the aircraft to be fully implemented. In some cases the pilot
may wish to use another runway for safety purposes. When that happens, air traffic controllers
will attempt to find gaps in the traffic flow that will allow the off-preference operation to take
place, but the pilot may have to delay the operation to use the desired runway. Further, the most
preferential runway use pattern for noise abatement may not be the most efficient pattern for
operation of the airport. Consequently, preferential runway use programs may be limited to off-
peak or nighttime hours to achieve their greatest application.
Implemented by: FAA air traffic and airlines/operators. Airports may request the adoption of
specific program measures to achieve management goals.
Public reaction: When preferential runway use schemes are used to abate aircraft noise, they
must take into consideration the number of persons exposed to varying levels of noise under the
routes of flight. As in any case, those who are overflown will react negatively while those bene-
fited by the program by not being overflown will react positively. Consequently, the correlation
of noise exposure to population densities is an important consideration in the design of these
programs. Public education as to the conditions and benefits of the program are also critical to
their success.
Example of Technique for Public Information:
· Comparison of 2020 No Action and Alternative B1b Noise Exposure Pattern (165) 8-2
Flight Track Modifications to Fly Over Compatible Uses
Purpose: To reduce the population within noise-sensitive areas, development of specific arrival/
departure procedures may be utilized to direct aircraft while in flight. On approach or departure,
use of specific departure headings, waypoints, and FMS/GPS procedures can be very helpful in
keeping aircraft over the designated flight path. Flight track modification has been used to define
preferred departure routes and approach courses, to separate large and small aircraft for noise
abatement and to increase operational efficiency, and to specify courses for general aviation pro-
peller aircraft and helicopters to assure that they do not conflict with faster jet aircraft.
Limitations: Requires FAA approval in the United States of procedures, a process which can
be time consuming. Some aircraft may not be properly equipped with the correct navigational
instruments if the procedure uses FMS/GPS procedures. Aircraft using standard departure head-
ings ("Fly heading 090 for 2 NM") may be expected to deviate from the nominal flight path due
to wind and weather conditions. When tracks are preferred or advisory (as are some helicopter
routes), their use is not required.
Implemented by: FAA Air Traffic is responsible for the development and management of air-
craft track procedures within a controlled airspace environment. Operators are responsible
within uncontrolled airspace. Airports may recommend modifications to improve noise exposure
conditions.
Public reaction: When flight tracks are moved to overfly compatibly used lands such as farm-
land, industrial/commercial areas, transportation corridors or water, the public reaction is gen-
erally positive if the traffic has been moved from over residential areas. However, if the traffic is
moved from areas of dense residential population to areas of less dense residential population to
achieve fewer population impacts, or if new areas of residential use are exposed to overflights
beyond the compatibly used property, controversy generally will be an outcome, particularly if
those newly impacted persons have not been a part of the creative process to define the courses of
flight. This action has been the nexus of most airport noise litigation in the United States during
