Study Group Meetings

December 10, 1999

MEMORANDUM

TO: LFA/Bill Willkie, Project Manager

FROM: 150 Study Group/Dorn Crawford, for the Chair

SUBJECT: Noise Abatement Measures and Screening Criteria

The attached noise abatement measures are a consolidated listing of those adopted by the 150 Study Group at its December 7 meeting, including measures suggested in your October 15 presentation, and those put forward either as refinements or additions by the various committees based on their discussions in the interim. Also attached is a list of approved screening criteria, arrived at similarly.

The Study Group has striven to compile a listing of measures that aim to:

• reduce noise contours
• leverage technology
• make flight patterns more consistent, hence more predictable
• reduce exceptions to standard procedures
• keep information affecting airport operations accessible to the public
• respect operational needs and regulatory imperatives

Many, and indeed most, of the measures listed arose in multiple committee reports—an encouraging sign of common understanding, though not a necessary condition for incorporation here. In accordance with the Study Group's Charter, instead, the listing includes all those measures that found consensus in the Group at large.

Screening criteria should be taken in the context of implementing these aims. Measures listed, in turn, should be understood as elements for preliminary analysis, not as endorsed recommendations. Indeed, many are mutually exclusive alternatives, whose relative merits and demerits need to be laid out as explicitly as possible to support an informed choice. The addition of a modeling criterion for screening, for example, recognizes that noise reduction, like cost analysis, necessarily involves quantitative as well as qualitative assessment.

Both measures and criteria are listed in abbreviated, ‘bulletized’ form. Should any require elaboration beyond that provided at the Study Group meeting, please contact the Study Group chair, or me, without hesitation. We look forward to your consultation in moving this process forward.

NOISE ABATEMENT SCREENING CRITERIA, AS ADOPTED

Goals & objectives

Study goals
Study Group issues

Reduces noise exposure

Minimize incompatibilities
Assess using noise model

FAR Part 161

Impact on interstate commerce
Not discriminatory

Consistent with FAA objectives

Aviation safety
Airspace management

Feasible

Cost analysis
Monitorability

NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES, AS ADOPTED

Runway Use Programs

Alter preference for east runway

Limit runway preference to daytime only
Eliminate runway preference
Reverse runway preference

Raise tailwind threshold for reversing flow to 10 knots
No exceptions to contraflow, unless emergency

Flight track changes

Set uniform departure criteria for turning

Altitude
Distance
Navigation markers
Geographic features

Make west runway divergence 15°, not 20
Apply divergence to all NCP-directed departures on west runway

Approach procedures

Route all arriving traffic into IFR approach corridor - no cancellations
No VFR
Noise-optimal STARs
Higher holding and maneuver altitudes
Steeper ILS glide slope approaches
Two-stage approach procedures
Delayed flap and gear extension approaches
Reverse thrust restrictions/limitations

Departure procedures

Noise-optimal SIDs
Departure thrust cutbacks

Close-in abatement procedures
Distant abatement procedures

Reduced thrust departure
Begin all takeoffs at extreme end of runway

Use prospective overrun extension for takeoffs

Advanced navigation technology

Ground-based: markers, beacons, lasers, other
Airborne: GPS/FMS (current vs milspec), microwave, other

Airport facilities

"Hush houses"
Counter-frequency generators
Sound absorption media on or adjoining runways

artificial (e.g. walls, runway treatments)
natural (e.g. trees, other flora, earthen berms)

Displaced thresholds
High-speed exit taxiways
Facility relocation

Airport use restrictions

Conformance to NCP by all aircraft
Prohibit aircraft not meeting Federal noise standards
Capacity limitations (noise or operations)
Partial or complete curfews
Noise budget
Operational quotas
Fleet mix goals
Limits based on event metrics: Lmax, SEL, TA, C-weighted DB, etc

Airport regulations

Require NCP briefings for all ATCT personnel and pilots using SDF
Other flight training restrictions
Landing fees based on noise
Engine run-up restrictions

Measures to enhance, monitor, or enforce noise abatement

Show effect of full conformance to current NCP, compared to base case
Establish airport noise office (already adopted by Study Group)
Establish community noise forum (already adopted by Study Group)
Maintain and expand Web site, public information centers

Summary and complete NCP
ATCT/pilot briefing
Real-time information on runway conditions and use
Scheduled activities affecting runway use (maintenance, training, etc)
Current monitoring data

Noise monitoring

Continuous (fixed)
Responsive to demand (mobile)

Flight track monitoring: retain, process ARTS data
Ongoing noise modeling


				Noise Abatement Measures and Screening Criteria Memo
BACK to Meetings Notes				December 10, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: LFA/Bill Willkie, Project Manager FROM: 150 Study Group/Dorn Crawford, for the Chair SUBJECT: Noise Abatement Measures and Screening Criteria The attached noise abatement measures are a consolidated listing of those adopted by the 150 Study Group at its December 7 meeting, including measures suggested in your October 15 presentation, and those put forward either as refinements or additions by the various committees based on their discussions in the interim. Also attached is a list of approved screening criteria, arrived at similarly. The Study Group has striven to compile a listing of measures that aim to: • reduce noise contours • leverage technology • make flight patterns more consistent, hence more predictable • reduce exceptions to standard procedures • keep information affecting airport operations accessible to the public • respect operational needs and regulatory imperatives Many, and indeed most, of the measures listed arose in multiple committee reports—an encouraging sign of common understanding, though not a necessary condition for incorporation here. In accordance with the Study Group's Charter, instead, the listing includes all those measures that found consensus in the Group at large. Screening criteria should be taken in the context of implementing these aims. Measures listed, in turn, should be understood as elements for preliminary analysis, not as endorsed recommendations. Indeed, many are mutually exclusive alternatives, whose relative merits and demerits need to be laid out as explicitly as possible to support an informed choice. The addition of a modeling criterion for screening, for example, recognizes that noise reduction, like cost analysis, necessarily involves quantitative as well as qualitative assessment. Both measures and criteria are listed in abbreviated, ‘bulletized’ form. Should any require elaboration beyond that provided at the Study Group meeting, please contact the Study Group chair, or me, without hesitation. We look forward to your consultation in moving this process forward. NOISE ABATEMENT SCREENING CRITERIA, AS ADOPTED Goals & objectives Study goals Study Group issues Reduces noise exposure Minimize incompatibilities Assess using noise model FAR Part 161 Impact on interstate commerce Not discriminatory Consistent with FAA objectives Aviation safety Airspace management Feasible Cost analysis Monitorability NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES, AS ADOPTED Runway Use Programs Alter preference for east runway Limit runway preference to daytime only Eliminate runway preference Reverse runway preference Raise tailwind threshold for reversing flow to 10 knots No exceptions to contraflow, unless emergency Flight track changes Set uniform departure criteria for turning Altitude Distance Navigation markers Geographic features Make west runway divergence 15°, not 20 Apply divergence to all NCP-directed departures on west runway Approach procedures Route all arriving traffic into IFR approach corridor - no cancellations No VFR Noise-optimal STARs Higher holding and maneuver altitudes Steeper ILS glide slope approaches Two-stage approach procedures Delayed flap and gear extension approaches Reverse thrust restrictions/limitations Departure procedures Noise-optimal SIDs Departure thrust cutbacks Close-in abatement procedures Distant abatement procedures Reduced thrust departure Begin all takeoffs at extreme end of runway Use prospective overrun extension for takeoffs Advanced navigation technology Ground-based: markers, beacons, lasers, other Airborne: GPS/FMS (current vs milspec), microwave, other Airport facilities "Hush houses" Counter-frequency generators Sound absorption media on or adjoining runways artificial (e.g. walls, runway treatments) natural (e.g. trees, other flora, earthen berms) Displaced thresholds High-speed exit taxiways Facility relocation Airport use restrictions Conformance to NCP by all aircraft Prohibit aircraft not meeting Federal noise standards Capacity limitations (noise or operations) Partial or complete curfews Noise budget Operational quotas Fleet mix goals Limits based on event metrics: Lmax, SEL, TA, C-weighted DB, etc Airport regulations Require NCP briefings for all ATCT personnel and pilots using SDF Other flight training restrictions Landing fees based on noise Engine run-up restrictions Measures to enhance, monitor, or enforce noise abatement Show effect of full conformance to current NCP, compared to base case Establish airport noise office (already adopted by Study Group) Establish community noise forum (already adopted by Study Group) Maintain and expand Web site, public information centers Summary and complete NCP ATCT/pilot briefing Real-time information on runway conditions and use Scheduled activities affecting runway use (maintenance, training, etc) Current monitoring data Noise monitoring Continuous (fixed) Responsive to demand (mobile) Flight track monitoring: retain, process ARTS data Ongoing noise modeling
				back to top