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 94
94 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations
Implementation Responsibilities and Constraints
The management of noise and its effects at an airport is the responsibility of several parties.
While the public may see the airport as a single entity, the airport manager is faced with the need
to coordinate activities across regulators, users, local governments, and neighbors to address the
issues of noise. Table 6-1 provides an overview of the responsibilities of the U.S. Congress, the
FAA, state and local governments, the airport operator, aircraft users and manufacturers, and air-
port neighbors in the management of a number of different topics that often arise in discussions
of how to control aircraft noise. Interestingly, the Airport has direct control only over the noise
produced by aircraft that are not in flight mode (i.e., during maintenance run-up activity), con-
struction of noise abatement facilities, and management of the use of land which it owns or oper-
ates. It may advise, request or negotiate for modifications in actions controlled by others. The
federal government sets policy regulating allowable noise levels, controls airspace and airport
operating patterns, and provides a major part of the funding for noise abatement actions con-
ducted by the airport. It also reviews and may approve or deny any proposed restrictions on
aircraft flight activity at an airport. Local governments control the use of land around the air-
port through zoning, subdivision control, and comprehensive planning actions. Aircraft opera-
tors/pilots have ultimate responsibility for all phases of the flight of the aircraft, but operate within
the environment set by air traffic control direction or rules; they are also responsible for their
selection of aircraft type and, implicitly, its noise level. Aircraft manufacturers are responsible for
producing aircraft that meet federally specified noise levels. Airport neighbors are responsible
for reviewing and commenting on airport environmental actions, as well as taking due diligence
in the acquisition of property; property owners may have additional responsibilities if property is
part of a mitigation program such as sound insulation or acquisition by the airport.
Information to Respond to Typical Public Concerns
About Noise
When dealing with the public, the airport manager will often be confronted with comments
about issues with which he has limited experience. Such issues include:
· The difference between cumulative and single-event noise levels and when each is useful;
· The thresholds of significant noise level and how it's used;
· The difference between noise impact (within 65 DNL contour) and noise effect (outside 65
DNL contour);
· The difference between compatible and incompatible land use;
· The differences between thresholds of evaluation for different FAA divisions;
· The precedence of federal and state standards and when they are applicable;
· The difference between noise measurements and computer modeling of noise levels, and why
one may be preferable to the other in given cases;
· Aircraft contribution to vibration and rattle;
· Sound insulation programs and how do they work;
· The difference between interior and exterior sound levels and the abatement of each; and
· Contour and impact area change over time and the differences between federal and local
response to change.
The following sections discuss each of these issues.
Cumulative versus Single Event Noise Levels
Observers frequently complain that cumulative noise measures such as DNL or CNEL or LEQ
do not adequately reflect the noise levels heard. When they compare the significant DNL level of
