UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Abatement Programs: A Case Study of Selected General Aviation/Reliever Airports
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
2004
By
James C. Nevis
MSc. Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland BA. Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio Abstract
Aircraft noise effects on its environs have been a subject of discussion since the
first aircraft jet took off into the skies some decades ago. To this end, airlines, aircraft and
engine manufacturers, airports, and Federal, state and local governments have made
substantial efforts to find ways to either reduce aircraft noise, or at best, make its impact
manageable and acceptable to the airport neighbors. Hence, substantial resources have
been devoted to the research and development of quieter aircraft engines, in addition to
establishment of programs for existing engines and to develop noise compatibility
projects. Also, to provide methods and formulae for predicting the annoyance effect of
aircraft noise on the airport communities and to adequately study the health and other
effects of aircraft noise on both humans and the environment. However, most of the these efforts were directed to major commercial airports with little or no consideration for reliever airports, as the latter was thought to be far away from major populated urban areas, with nothing but “cornfields and cows” as neighbors. As suburban sprawl continues to plague America, these airports that were once in the middle of nowhere are now experiencing the fast residential growth encroaching on them. Thus, the reliever airports are now becoming a source of major aircraft noise complaints. This thesis will examine aircraft noise abatement programs at reliever airports. It will use four reliever airports as a case study and to determine the effectiveness of the programs at each airport.
In addition, it will examine the overall impact, if any, of the noise abatement programs on the individual airport community.
This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Adjo Baah-Yeboah whose threat to divorce me if I didn’t finish the thesis by December 2004, compelled me to finish it and to my
children: Edem, Mawuli and Elorm. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my Thesis Committee members: Dr. Roger Barry, Committee Chair, Dr. David Edelman, and Mrs. Cheri
Rokow of Lunken Airport.
Also my thanks go to Dr. Michael Romanos, Dr. Carla Chifos, Dr. Johanna
Looye, Attorney Robert Manleey, Ms. Connie Dean, and the entire Working In
Neighborhoods Staff, especially the Director, Sister Barbara Bush and my boss, Mrs.
Myra Buggs.
Additional thanks go to Mr. Richard French, Van Nuys Airport, and the rest of the staff from the various airports that generously shared information about their airports with me. Without your assistance, I could not have completed this Thesis.
My deepest appreciation goes to my family, friends, and people from different agencies that offered their time and knowledge.
Last, but not the least, I want to take this opportunity to thank the following: Tika
Morrison, Michael Schorr for using your precious time to help with the typing, copying, etc., into the Wee Hours and Barry Behanu and his wife, Mimi for all their assistance.
Above all, my greatest thanks go to Almighty God for given me the wisdom, the courage, strength, and the perseverance to complete my Thesis.
Kofi Nevis
Table of Contents Page
1. Introduction 1 2. Problem Statement 2 3. Reason for Thesis 2 4. Literature Review 3 4.1. National Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 4.2. The National Airport System 4.2.1. Commercial Airports 4.2.2. Reliever Airports 4.2.3. General Aviation Airports 4.2.4. The Early Aircraft Noise Reduction Initiatives 4.2.5. Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy 4.2.6. Aircraft Noise Abatement Programs 5. Strategies for Aircraft Noise Abatement Implementation 7 5.1. Land Use Control 6. Authority Responsible for Aircraft Noise Control 9 6.1. The Federal Government 6.2. The Airport Authority 6.3. State/Local Governments 6.4. The Air Carriers 7. Aircraft Noise Compatibility Planning 14 7.1. Federal Government Aircraft Noise Regulations 7.1.1. F.A.R. Part 36 & 91 7.1.2. The FAR Part 150 Program 7.1.3. Air Traffic Control 8. Funding Aircraft Noise Abatement Projects 19 9. The Aircraft Noise Problem 19 10. What is Noise? 20 11. How Aircraft Noise is described 26 11.1. Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 12. Aircraft Noise Analysis Methodology 26 12.1. Noise Metric 12.2. Integrated Noise Model (INM) 12.3. Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) 13. Land Use and Noise Compatibility 32 14. Predicting Noise Compatibility 36 15. Reasons for Noise Compatibility Study 36 16. Aircraft Noise Effect on its Surroundings 37 16.1. Humans 16.2. Residential Property 16.3. Health Effects 17. Methodology 40 17.1. The Methodology consists of
PART TWO 1. Case Study –Selected Airports 42 Facts About the Airports 43 2. Analyze the Noise Abatement 43 2.1. Legislative 2.2. Community Participation 2.3. Funding 2.4. Role of the airport 3. Scottsdale Airport 44 3.1. About the airport 3.2. The Scottsdale Airport History 3.3. Jurisdiction and Responsibilities 3.3.1. Federal Government 3.3.2. State 3.3.3. Local Government 3.4. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 3.5. The Airport Proprietor 3.6. Other Area Airports 3.7. Noise Abatement Procedures at Scottsdale Airport 3.8. Existing Land Use in the Airport Area 3.9. The History of Noise Abatement at Scottsdale Airport 3.9.1. “Good Neighbor Pledge” 3.9.2. The Updated Noise Compatibility Program 3.9.3. Noise Abatement Component 3.10. The Impact of Noise Abatement Actions at Scottsdale Airport 3.11. Land Use Management Procedure 3.11.1. Program for Scottsdale Airport 3.12. Program Management Process 3.13. Costs and Funding 3.14. Economic impact of the Airport 4. Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 68 4.1. Flying Cloud Airport expansion plans and operational forecast 4.2. Flying Cloud Airport Operator 4.3. The History of the Airport 4.4. Noise abatement measures 4.5. The Noise Abatement Plan 4.5.1. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Committee 4.5.2. EIS Noise Mitigation Committee 4.5.3. Airport Advisory Commission 4.6. Rule I Noise abatement takeoff and approach procedures 4.6.1. Piston Engine Aircraft or Turbo Prop Aircraft. 4.6.2. Jet Aircraft 4.7. Rule II Traffic Pattern Procedures 4.8. Rule III Maintenance runups 4.9. Rule IV Helicopter training 4.10. Rule IV Nighttime restrictions 4.10.1. Noise complaint procedure 5. Van Nuys Airport – Van Nuys, California 85 5.1. History of the Airport 5.2. Economic impact 5.3. Noise Abatement Program at Van Nuys Airport 5.4. The noise management program 5.4.1. Noise abatement and curfew regulation 5.4.2. Quite Jet Departure Program 5.4.3. Early turn program 5.4.4. Helicopter route and altitude deviation program 5.4.5. Residential Soundproofing 5.5. Other noise abatement programs 5.5.1. Noise and complaint monitoring 5.5.2. Response to the community 5.5.3 Community Awareness 5.6. Van Nuys Airport Plan 6. Lunken Airport, Cincinnati, Ohio 98 6.1. History of the airport 6.2. Lunken’s Noise Compatibility Programs 6.3. Existing Noise Abatement Procedures 6.3.1. Arrivals 6.3.1.1. Aircraft from the northeast 6.3.1.2. From the south and the east 6.3.1.3. From the southwest 6.3.1.4. From the northwest 6.3.1.5. Departures 6.4. Other Measures 6.4.1. Maintenance Run-up Restrictions 6.4.2. Telephone Hotline 6.5. The airport’s economic impact 7. Findings and Recommendations 109 References
LIST OF TABLES Title of Table Page Table 1: Noise Zone Classifications 25 Table 2: Land Use Compatibility w/yearly Dates Day-Night Average 29 Table 3: Permissible Noise Exposure 31 Table 4: Suggested Land Use Compatibility Guidelines 33 Table 5: Aircraft Operations 71 Table 6: Aircraft Operations/Expansion Alternative 72 Table 7: 18 Year Aircraft Inventory History 88 Table 8: Van Nuys Airport Total Operation History 91 Table 9: Van Nuys Airport Economic Impact (millions) 92 Table 10: Annual Net General Fund Revenue Amounts 1995-2015 92 Table 11: Aircraft Category and Typical Aircraft Types 100 Table 12: Annual and Daily Aircraft Operations 100 Table 13: Aircraft Fleet Mix 101 Table 14: Economic Activity 108 Table 15: Economic Activity 108 Table 16: Non-Aviation Related Activities 108
LIST OF MAPS Title of Map Page Map 1: Aerial View of Scottsdale Airport 44 Map 2: Location Map of Scottsdale Airport 46 Map 3: Aerial View of Flying Cloud Airport 68 Map 4: Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission System 74 Map 5: Flying Cloud Airport-DNL Noise Contour 76 Map 6: Aerial View of Van Nuys Airport 85 Map 7: Layout Map 86 Map 8: Aerial View of Lunken Airport 98
LIST OF FIGURES Title of Figure Page Figure 1: Part 150 Process 18 Figure 2: Stage 2 Jet Footprints 21 Figure 3: Stage 3 Jet Footprints 22 Figure 4: Noise Levels Measured for Flyover 23 Figure 5: Noise Levels in Decibels 24 Figure 6: Land Use Noise Sensitivity Matrix 30 Figure 7: Flying Cloud Airport Total Operations 1991-2000 72
Part One
1. Introduction
Aircraft noise effect on communities near an airport has been a subject of major
discussion for years. Aircraft noise has always been considered a nuisance, yet it was not
until the advent of jet aircraft engine, in 1959, that many communities began to view it
with greater suspicion. In fact prior to the1960s, there was little concern about aircraft
noise except at commercial service airports. Thus, aircraft noise problem was treated
casually, if at all, in airport design manuals (Ashford & Wright, 1992, pg. 484).
As time went by, however, not only was aircraft noise seen as being a hindrance to
the growth of the airline industry, but also, it was suspected as having adverse human
health and other negative impacts. In response, both public and private sectors have been
undertaking collaborative efforts on research and development of quieter aircraft engines.
Or at best, find ways to make the aircraft noise impact manageable and acceptable to the
airport neighbors. This is in addition to mandates that were already in place for quieting
existing aircraft engines, as well as, land use compatibility planning (Ashford & Wright,
1992 pg. 485). Historically much of the aircraft noise reduction efforts were geared toward commercial service airport with less attention given to reliever/general aviation airports. During the past two decades there has been a significant change in the role of reliever/general aviation airports as they are increasingly being used to help reduce air traffic congestion at commercial service airports. As a result of this new role, aircraft noise is becoming more of a problem for those leaving or working in the vicinity of reliever/general aviation airport as well.
1 2. Problem Statement
Most of today’s reliever/general aviation airports now owned and operated by
cities, municipal planning agencies or designated legislative body, used to be relatively
known small airfields owned and operated primarily by individual aviation enthusiast. In
the past few decades these airports that were once in the middle of nowhere, with mainly
grain fields as neighbors, have not only experienced growth in size and services, but also
are experiencing sprawling residential and other developments encroaching upon them.
Thus, some of the reliever airports are now a source of major aircraft noise complaint.
3. Reason for the thesis
Unlike commercial service airports, the problem of aircraft noise at reliever/general aviation airports has not been given as much attention over the years as those of commercial service airports. The reason for this is that commercial service airports generally operate larger aircraft and more frequent services than reliever airports that operate fewer and smaller aircraft with limited activities. As the role of reliever/general aviation airports in the national airport systems is increasingly expanding, coupled with sprawling of residential and other developments around them, so is the noise problem.
Lately noise reduction measures at reliever/general aviation airports are on the forefront of governments, cities, municipalities, citizens groups as well as planning agencies. The purpose of the study is to select some reliever/general aviation airports that
have been undertaking noise abatement programs, evaluate the programs so as to determine whether the programs are being effective. Issues the study seeks to address are:
The kinds of noise abatement programs being implemented at each airport and who
2 requested them and why, how long has the airport been implementing the programs and
whether the programs have been successful in achieving the intended purpose, whether
noise control programs have increased or compromised growth activities in the
communities surrounding the airport, the level of interaction between the airport and the
public in the decision process and whether involving the public in the decision making
process has been effective in creating understanding between stakeholders, and how are
the programs funded and whether funding sources dictates the direction of the programs.
4. Literature Review
4.1 National Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
About 40 percent of all commercial aviation and 50 percent of all general aviation
activities in the world, take place in the United States. To support this, elaborate
networks of airports have been developed. The main purpose of NPIAS is the
identification of those airports considered to be vital to national transportation, and hence,
qualify to receive federal assistance (grants) under the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP). The NPIAS consists of all commercial service airports, all reliever aviation
airports, and selected general aviation airports (USDOT, 1999 pg. 1.).
4.2 The national airport system
4.2.1. Commercial Service Airports
By definition, commercial service airports are public airports receiving scheduled passenger service and having 2,500 or more enplaned passengers annually.
There are 540 commercial service airports. Out of these, 413 have more than 10,000
enplanements and are classified as a primary airport (USDOT, 1999, pg. 2).
3 4.2.2. Reliever Airports
In many cases, general aviation pilots find it difficult and expensive to use
commercial service airports, especially large and medium hub airports. To alleviate this problem, the FAA has facilitated the development and operation of high capacity general aviation airports in some metropolitan areas. Often known as relievers, these specialized airports serve as an alternative to using congested hub airports. In addition, they provide general aviation access to the surrounding area. There are about 334 reliever airports with an average of 181 based aircraft (U.S.DOT pg. 5).
4.2.3. General Aviation Airports
Communities that do not receive scheduled commercial services may be included in the NPIAS as sites for general aviation airports if they account for at least 10 locally owned aircraft and are at least 20 miles from the nearest NPIAS airport. For these airports, the activity criterion may be somewhat relaxed, especially for those in remote locations. This includes aircraft noise mitigating circumstances. There are 2,472 general aviation airports in the NPIAS, most of which are located in rural areas and most often times these airports tend to be near the county seat (USDOT, 1999 pg. 5).
4.2.4. The Early Aircraft Noise Reduction Initiatives
During the last two decades, aircraft noise has been on the forefront in basically any community where there is a commercial or a reliever/general aviation airport. The problem is greater in metropolitan areas where reliever/general aviation airports are increasingly being utilized to ease air traffic congestion at major or medium commercial service airports. This is in addition to the competitive demands to develop residential and commercial properties around them.
4 Over the years there has been considerable efforts to mitigate the aircraft noise problem. Much of the aircraft noise reduction programs in the past targeted major commercial service airports and the programs were aimed at reducing aircraft noise at its source. Thus, early aircraft noise reduction legislations mandated aircraft engine makers to develop quieter engines (U.S.DOT, 1999 pg. 16)
4.2.5. Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy
The first jet aircraft appeared in the skies in the late 1950s and with it came its ugly environmental consequences, especially noise pollution. Ever since that time, the commercial aviation industry has experienced an exponential growth from its “jet set” elite days of the 1960s, to its use as tourist and leisure craft of today. With that, the increased in number of flights in and out of airports has given rise to a greater aircraft intrusion on community life and consequently, to “noise exposure” (Smith, 1989, pg.1).
The National Industrial Pollution Control Council, in its sub-council report to the
Secretary of Commerce in February 1972, noted that since the 1960s there has been a significant growth in air traffic and a rise in population in communities near airports.
The same report asserted that as a result, there has been a substantial increase in community exposure to aircraft noise and corresponding escalation of citizen complaint due to the aircraft noise problem (National Industrial Pollution Control Council, 1972 pg.
9). The notion that aircraft noise can adversely effect humans as well as the environment, has always conjured a negative reaction on the future of the aviation industry, as it threatens not just the construction of new airports but also the expansion of the old ones.
Realizing that the growth of the aviation industry could be jeopardized if action was not taken to deal with the aircraft noise problem, the public and the private sectors took joint
5 initiatives aimed at addressing the problem. Among such efforts was Congress’s authorization of the FAA, to regulate aircraft design and equipment (DOT, 1976, pg. 1).
Since then the FAA has initiated several measures aimed at reducing overall aircraft noise effect on airport communities. That regulation which established noise standards for a new generation of turbojet aircraft designs was amended in 1973 requiring the same standard to all new aircraft of older design (DOT, 1976 pg. 1). Aircraft manufacturers following that mandate took efforts to quiet jet engines (DOT, 1976, pg. 1).
Also as part of the noise reduction initiatives, regulation was set in motion requiring compliance with noise standards by jet aircraft already in the fleet. Known as the retrofit rule, it required all jet aircraft already in use to retrofit their engines by the year 1999. The National Industrial Pollution Control Council in its report noted that for the noise reduction compliance to be effective federal funding and more citizens’ participation was required. The report also pointed out that several major new airports have been delayed or will never be built, partly due to community concern for aircraft noise problems (National Industrial Pollution Control Council, 1972 pg. 7).
4.2.6. Aircraft Noise Abatement Programs
Aircraft noise significantly affects several million people in the United States. A report by the FAA stated that aircraft noise is only a portion of general urban noise problem. According to the report, buses, trucks, motorcycles, automobiles, trains, construction activities and even rock music are all contributors of the urban noise dilemma (Federal Aviation Administration, 1985, pg. 8). However, for communities in the vicinity of airports and aircraft flight paths, aircraft noise is their major problem, as it interferes with or threatens their tranquil daily activities (FAA, 1985, pg. 1).
6 The same FAA report noted that noise from aircraft flyover and, in some cases,
ground activities such as aircraft engine run-offs, has for years been a source of major complaint to airport authorities and aircraft operators’ (FAA, 1985, pg. 11). The
Secretary of Transportation and the FAA jointly issued the first significant aviation noise policy on November 18, 1976 (FAA, 1977, pg. 2). The intent was to facilitate the reduction of aircraft noise and consequently, its adverse effect on those who are exposed to it. The actions included actual source noise reductions through aircraft retrofit/replacement; modifications in takeoff and landing procedures, as well as, development of airport noise control and land use compatibility plans.
The latter involves acquisition of land, purchase of development rights and change in land use from noise sensitive to noise tolerant. It includes acoustical treatment of critical noise sensitive uses or the prevention of new incompatibilities through planning, public education and locally adopted land use measures (FAA, 1977 pg.2).
5. Strategies for Aircraft Noise Abatement Implementation
The completion of an aircraft noise compatibility plan (strategies) may be achieved by implementing actions relating to controlling aircraft noise or correcting
/remedying incompatibilities. The federal government has unilateral policies to address the compatibility issues, but it is left to the discretion of the states to implement them.
Therefore applicability of the strategies is, to some extent, dependent upon the nature of legislation within the individual states (FA Advisory Circular 150/5050-6).
Each airport and its environs is a unique entity; hence, the need for adaptation to suit a particular situation. Commonly used aircraft noise abatement strategies include (a) airport development and operational controls, intended at containing the aircraft noise
7 within the impacted perimeters delineated by the compatibility plan, (b) development control which deals with the land use controls designed to protect the noise-impacted areas
from encroachment by noise sensitive uses, and (c) corrective or remedial actions such as
land acquisition aimed specifically to address noise sensitive issues within noise
impacted areas (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5050-6).
The FAA, in its Advisory Circular 150/5050-6, stated, “assuring aircraft noise is
confined to designated noise impact areas was a “must””. Yet it’s the most difficult
aspect of addressing airport environs compatibility. Without such an assurance the report
contended, airport compatibility planning would be seriously compromised. The report
further suggested, however, that safety and economic concerns, as well as operational efficiency could seriously complicate abatement efforts. All these warrant full examination when designing compatibility plan for an airport (FAA 150/5050-6).
Another issue of significant consideration is airport development, as this can considerably complicate the location of its future noise impacts. Such developments include for example: alignment and location of runways, terminal buildings, access roads and navigational facilities (FAA 150/5050-6). An airport land use compatibility plan is generally developed concurrently with the airport master plan. As such, there is always provision for the consideration of alternative developments that would confine aircraft noise within designated noise areas or within those areas where noise compatibility uses are attainable. Therefore, development decisions made when preparing the master plan generally take into account the overall land use process and how the compatibility phase will be implemented (FAA 150/5050-60).
Operational procedures, in all, generally determine how aircraft noise is
8 controlled. Keeping aircraft and its noise within a defined course helps to effectively control aircraft noise in areas determined to be sensitive. Yet, controlling operation of an
aircraft, on and around an airport, is a touchy issue, because it involves safety and
efficiency considerations as well (Fitzpatric, 2000, pg. 8).
5.1. Land Use Control
Many jurisdictions have used land use development and control as tools to protect
noise sensitive areas surrounding airports. Land use control can be used to prevent
encroachment on noise sensitive areas from incompatible developments. Various local
governments or airport authorities have used different types of land use measures.
The most common being zoning, easements and land purchases. Of this measure,
zoning is the most common and probably the more applicable land use control tool
available for controlling aircraft noise in communities near and around airports. Zoning
involves the exercise of the police powers of states and local governments, which
designate the uses permitted on each parcel of, land (Arendit, Greene, 1999, pg. 78). It
consists of a zoning ordinance that delineates the various use districts and includes a
zoning map based upon the land use element of the community’s comprehensive plan. In
practicality, the airport land use compatibility plan is part of the comprehensive plan
(Arendit, Greene, 1999, pg. 78).
6. Authority Responsibilities for Aircraft Noise Control
6.1 The Federal Government
Noise reduction programs at federal level, are aimed at reducing noise at the
source before it gets into the ambient environment. Generally, the federal government
does this through legislative process, but with cooperation from state/local governments,
9 airport authorities, aircraft operators and the citizens. To achieve its aim, the federal government, through FAA and USEPA, has adopted a series of legislation. In 1969, the
FAA adopted Part 36, probably the first national legislation to seriously consider aircraft noise as an issue (DOT, 1988, pg. 1). This regulation not only established aircraft noise certification standards for new design turbojet and transport category aircraft but it also initiated the setting of noise certification standards for turbojets, large transport category
airplanes, propeller-driven small airplanes or more specific airplane versions. Amended
in 1976, it allowed U.S. operations until January 1 of 1985, to quiet or retire the noisiest
Stage 1 aircraft (DOT, 1988, pg. 1).
Further amendment took place in 1977, defining three “stage” levels to categorize aircraft noise emissions and requiring aircraft certificates after March 1977 to meet the more demanding Stage 3 requirements. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 was then enacted setting December 31, 1999, as the deadline for eliminating or retrofitting Stage 2 aircraft operating within the boundaries of the U.S. which weighed more than 75,000 pounds (Fitzpatric, 2000, pg. 6).
Another federal regulation worth mentioning is FAR Part 91. It established the compliance schedule as well as stipulation that individual domestic and foreign operators of large civil subsonic turbojet aircraft must submit an annual report indicating compliance progress as of the end of that calendar year. Also, source emission control,
flight operation procedures and the management of the air traffic control system and
navigable airspace was required as part of the compliance (Fitzpatric, 2000, pg. 6).
In addition to source reduction initiatives, the federal government also provides
financial and technical assistance to airport authorities for noise reduction planning and
10 abatement projects. Also, the federal government works with the private sector in conducting research into noise abatement technology as well as developing compatible land use strategy (DOT, 1988, pg. 3). Three federal agencies share responsibilities for establishing federal policy for the nation’s aviation noise control and abatement. They are FAA, the EPA and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The FAA is charged with regulating aircraft noise emissions and flight procedures. The EPA is basically responsible for coordinating all Federal noise activities and policies. As regard to aviation noise, the EPA is required to make specific recommendations to the FAA regarding regulations protecting the health and safety of the public (DOT, 1976, pg. 10).
In accordance with its mandate to direct federal efforts to control noise, the EPA, in 1977, began establishing some tentative goals. Thus, in its publication, “Toward a
National Strategy for Noise Control”, the EPA outlined specific airport noise control measures that airport operators must follow (EPA, April, 977). And HUD is responsible for establishing guidelines for the use of federal housing redevelopment assistance in areas impacted by aircraft noise (Koenig & Tyler, Pg.1-1, 1982). Together, these agencies formulate guidelines that are the cornerstone of the nation’s aircraft noise abatement programs. Prior to these agencies, the DOT was the federal agency responsible for overseeing and formulating regulations for aircraft noise reduction.
That was why DOT in its Aviation Noise Abatement Policy statement noted that:
“Because of the increasing public concern about aircraft noise that accompanied
the introduction of turbojet powered aircraft into commercial service in the 1960s
and the constraints such concern posed for the continuing development of civil
aeronautics and the air transportation system of the United States, the federal
11 government in 1968 sought – and Congress granted- broad authority to regulate
aircraft for the purpose of noise abatement” (DOT, 1976, pg.10).
At that time, experts believed that 6-7 million Americans residing near airports were being exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise, defined by FAA as areas in which noise levels are Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 dB or higher. In contrast, however, a report by the FAA in the year 2000 states “the number of Americans exposed to significant noise levels had substantially dropped.” The same report claimed that even as aircraft noise has been drastically reduced, the national aviation system, including the airport component, where aircraft noise is most severe has grown significantly in the last decades (Federal Register, Vol. 65 No. 136, July 14, 2000, Pg.43802-3).
6.2. The Airport Authority
The main responsibility of the airport proprietor is planning/implementing actions designed to facilitate aircraft noise impact reduction on residential and other noise sensitive areas in the vicinity of airports. Such actions may involve optimal site location, improvements in airport design; noise abatement ground procedures and/or land acquisition; and to impose restrictions on airport use. Federal regulations require that the restrictions should not discriminate, compromise safety and management of the air navigation system or unduly interfere with commerce (DOT, 1976, pg. 8).
6.3. State/Local Governments
Land use control in noise-impacted areas around airports is a tool state and/or local governments can use to limit its citizens exposed to noise. The FAA encourages land use compatibility in the vicinity of airports. F.A.R. Part 150 has guidelines relating to land use compatibility based on different levels of noise exposure. Yet, the federal
12 government has not directed legal jurisdiction to regulate land use. This authority and
responsibility lies solely with the state and local governments. Property owners,
politicians, citizen groups and board of realtors resist further, local land use regulations.
A subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation, in its report to the U.S.
Congress in 1976, indicated that aircraft engine modifications, together with advanced aircraft engines and optimized noise abatement operational procedures, would not achieve meaningful elimination of aircraft noise. The committee further stated that land areas adjacent to airport boundaries would continue to be exposed to aircraft noise levels higher than desirable federal action levels. It further noted that source reduction alone would be inadequate in solving the aircraft noise problem (DOT, 1976 pg. 5). Effective land use planning remains an imperative factor in dealing with residual noise from
aircraft (Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation, 1976, pg.1). Hence, state or
local action is necessary to augment the noise reduction action taken by federal
government and the airline industry. The same committee concluded that the state and
local government, working with planning agencies, could draw up meaningful plans for
the achievement of a reasonable land use planning/development for the airport area. This
may include zoning and housing regulations limiting incompatible land use in the vicinity
of the airport (Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation, 1976, pg. 2).
Robert and Fairhall stated that while federal regulations are needed to control
aircraft noise, in the long term, local authorities could minimize noise nuisance by careful
planning. According to them, DOT published a circular in 1973 entitled “Planning and
Noise”, stressing the importance of controlling noise sensitive developments near airports
through enactment of proper land use legislation (1998, pg. 65).
13 6.4. The Air Carriers
The airline industry is usually responsible for retirement, replacement or retrofit of older jets that do not satisfy the federal noise reduction standards set by FAR Part 36.
They are also responsible for scheduling and flying aircraft in a manner that minimizes
the impact of noise on residential neighborhoods.
7. Aircraft Noise Compatibility Planning
According to Beranek, virtually every problem in noise control involves a system
composed of three basic elements: a source, a path, and a receiver. He believes that noise
control is complex. Therefore, for a solution to be designed, the dominant source of the
noise must be known, the characteristics of the significant transmission paths must be
understood, before a criterion for the level of noise considered permissible or desirable
can be made available (Land Use Compatibility Planning and Airports, pg. XI).
Mr. Beranek pointed out that during the last 25 years, aircraft noise has become
an issue at virtually all airports. He argued that today’s technology coupled with
sophisticated land use planning techniques have helped improve aircraft engine performance capability as well as limit or reduce aircraft noise exposure. Therefore to
him, a continuing research in achieving aircraft noise and land use compatibility must
now be focused at the airport specific level. Mr. Beranek contended that there are several
mechanisms available now to adequately address airport planning and the land use
compatibility issue than there were two decades ago. The most notable being Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Land Use
Compatibility and Airports).
14 7.1. Federal Government Aircraft Noise Regulations
7.1.1. F.A.R. Part 36 & 91
The FAA required that measures be taken to reduce aircraft noise at the source.
This can be done through certification, modification of aircraft engines, or replacement of
aircraft. It requires also that newer model aircraft be made quieter than the older models.
F.A.R Part 36 deals with aircraft certification and has three stages of certification. With stage 3 being the most rigorous and applied to aircraft certification since November 5,
1975. Stage 2 applied to aircraft certified between December 1, 1969 and November 5,
1975. State1 applied to all previously certified aircrafts. F.A.R. Part 91, Subpart 1, known as the “Fleet Noise Rule”, mandated a compliance schedule under which Stage 1 aircraft to be retired or refitted with hush kits or quieter engines by January 1, 1998.
F.A.R Part 161 – This legislation deals with airport noise and access restrictions.
The F.A.R. Part 161 sets in motion requirements for notice and approval of local restrictions on aircraft noise levels and airport access. Part 161 came into being as a response to Airport Noise Capacity Act of 1990. It applied to local airport restrictions that would have the effect of limiting operations by Stage 2 or 3 aircraft. These included direct limits on maximum noise levels; nighttime curfews and specific fees intended to encourage changes in airport operations to lessen noise. It is interesting to note that any airport operator that implement noise and access restrictions “in violation of F.A.R. Part
161” is subjected to termination of eligibility for airport grant funds and authority to impose and collect passenger facility charges.
15
7.1.2. The FAR Part 150 Program
The FAR Part 150 implements portions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979. This regulation, otherwise known as FAR Part 150, specifically
establishes a single system for the measurement of aircraft noise, a single system for
determining the exposure of individuals to aircraft noise, and a standardized aircraft noise
compatibility planning programs (FAA Circular N0. AC 150/5020-1, 1983 pg. 1). The
FAR Part 150 is the primary regulation for guiding airport operators and the aviation
industry for sustaining aircraft noise compatibility in and around airports.
Since its establishment, the FAR Part 150 Program has laid forth procedures for
comprehensive noise compatibility for airports. The Part 150 compatibility planning
process involves the evaluation of both airport operational-oriented measures, as well as
remedial and preventive land use planning strategies ((Wiley, 1996, pg. 137). The Part
150 allows airport operators to voluntarily submit noise exposure maps and noise
compatibility programs to the FAA for review and approval. A noise compatibility
program details the measures that an airport operator has taken or intends to take in order
to reduce existing incompatible land uses as well as the prevention of additional land uses within the area covered by noise exposure maps (Wiley, 1996, pg. 138).
In the FAR Part 150 Study, the airport operator indicates in details the measures that it has taken or intends to take for the reduction of existing incompatible land uses and the prevention of additional incompatible land uses within the area covered by noise exposure maps. Also, the Part 150 calls for strong local participation when preparing an airport compatibility study. The Part 150 stipulates the submission of Noise Exposure
16 Maps (NEP) and Noise Compatibility Programs (NCPs) yet it is left to the discretion of local airport operators because it is a voluntary requirement. However, any airport operator wishing to obtain federal funding for its airport noise mitigation project must submit a Part 150 Study (FAA, Docket No. 28148, pg. 1). The airport operator may choose to submit noise exposure maps without preparing and submitting a noise compatibility program (FAA, Dock No. 28149, 1998, pg. 4).
The FAA believes that the FAR Part 150 process is a balanced approach for mitigating the noise effects of aircraft on its neighbors, while at the same time protecting and/or increasing accessibility and capacity and maintaining the efficiency of the nation’s aviation system. The FAR Part 150 has been credited for revolutionizing airport planning processes because it encourages compatibility between the airport and its neighborhood communities, while at the same time, maintaining efficiency of the aviation system, as well as fostering economic viability of airport communities (Kundu, 1994, pg. 2).
As aforementioned, the Part 150 regulations are voluntary and airport operators are not obliged to participate. Yet, an approved Part 150, sets the stage to qualifying for Federal grants for possible noise abatement projects. It also serves as a prerequisite for analysis and evaluation of the impacts of any projected constraints upon an airport’s operations
(Noise Compatibility Planning Toolkit, April 2000).
17
18 7.1.3. Air Traffic Control
Strictly speaking, the FAA is responsible for the control of navigable airspace and
the operation of air traffic control systems at the nation’s airports. Airport operators have
no direct control over airspace management and air traffic control. They can, however,
suggest or propose changes in operational procedures. The airport operators have limited enforcement powers. Consequently, any proposed changes in flight operational procedure intended for noise abatement purposes, is subject to review by the FAA.
8. Funding Aircraft Noise Abatement Projects
The FAR Part 150 program established in the early 1980s provides funding for
airport noise compatibility planning to make airport neighborhoods more compatible with
aircraft noise. For an airport to be eligible for an Airport Improvement Program (AIP), like a residential sound insulation for example, a noise study must be performed. Upon
completion and the approval of the study, an airport may apply for AIP funding to carry
out the approved noise attenuation measures. The federal funding for sound insulation
projects for example, is 80%, with the remaining 20% the responsibility of other agency
and/ or the local municipality. Other sources include Passenger Facility Charges and
General Airport Revenue Bonds, landing fees, taxes, rent, etc. (FAA, 2000, pg. 12).
9. The Aircraft Noise Problem
As stated before, aircraft noise is usually considered as unwanted sound that disrupts the daily activities of those living in the communities near airports. Aircraft noise has been accused of causing aggravation because it disturbs peace and tranquility. But studies have concluded that what constitutes noise depends on individual perception.
Therefore, what is regarded as being aircraft noise to some could just be another
19 “background” sound to others. Aircraft noise may have a tendency of lowering the quality of life for those who live with it (Wiley, 1996, pg. 138).
Aircraft noise can be a source of annoyance because it interrupts sleep, interferes with conversation, and deprives people the enjoyment of many recreational activities.
Many experts now recognize aircraft noise as a threat to public health. In fact, some studies have concluded that those who have been repeatedly exposed to high doses of aircraft noise levels may develop increased irritability, severe nervous tensions, and loss of ability to concentrate, and impaired aptitude to perform simple tasks. Children and older adults are more susceptible to the impact of aircraft noise (Kandu, 1994, pg. 4).
The level of the aircraft noise problem at any airport can be attributed to other factors, as there is not a single devised criterion that defines a “noisy” airport. Depending on which criteria used, the number of airports categorized as being noisy, noise sensitive, having a noise problem or are impacted by excessive noise may vary according to Air
Transportation Association and Airport Operators Council International (ATAAOCI).
For example, the ATAAOCI thinks that any airport receiving jet air carrier service is noise impacted. Regardless of the definitions, it is clear that noise problems exist at many airports irrespective of their size or operational activities.
10. What is Noise?
Defining noise is subjective as individual people have different tolerances or acceptances to sound. A loud television or radio may disturb one person but be barely bothersome to another. Most sounds we hear have sound levels of 30 to 100 decibels. The loudest sounds are 120 decibels and above. The FAA classifies jet noise in three categories: Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3. Of these, Stage 1 is considered the noisiest.
20 Below are examples of common sounds and their relationship to the levels produced by these three stages.
21
22
23
24 NOISE ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS
25 11. How Aircraft noise is described
Individual people react to aircraft noise differently. It is difficult to devise a
strategy that correctly depicts human reaction to aircraft noise exposure. As, it is
uncertain that when people react to aircraft noise, they are merely reacting to aircraft
noise, to the number of aircraft noise events or to the noise levels of the individual event
(FAA Circular No. 150/5050-1, pg. 5, 1983). Commonly used measure of noise is that
generated by a single event, expressed in dB and cumulative noise exposure, expressed in
Noise Exposure Forecast. Human response to single-event jet aircraft noise is measured
in terms of Effective Perceived Noise Level (FAA Circular No. 150/5050-1, pg. 7, 1983).
If noise events, such as aircraft flyovers, are infrequent, the peak noise level of the
individual events will be a critical determinant to that noise by the individual. On the
other hand, if the events are relatively continuous then the total noise dose or cumulative
noise exposure becomes a critical factor in people’s reaction to aircraft noise (FAA
Circular No. 150/5050-1, pg. 5, 1983).
11.1. Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
NEF measures the total aircraft related noise energy received at areas near an
airport during a typical 24-hour operational period. As the number of jet aircraft has
increased over the years, and their noise has become more of a nuisance, this procedure
has been used extensively for land use planning around airports (DOT, 1976, pg. 18).
12. Aircraft Noise Analysis Methodology
There are many tools available for analyzing aircraft noise. However only three are discussed in this paper because they are the most commonly used by commercial service airports. These are noise metric, integrated noise model, and noise maps. Others
26 such as Military Noise Maps and Helicopter Models are primarily “special purpose use”
models therefore were not discussed in this paper.
12.1. Noise Metric
The FAA stipulated that FAR Part 150 noise exposure maps should be based on the annual Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The noise metric developed under the guideline of the EPA utilizes extensive information regarding the physical description of noise as related to human acceptability in residential domains (DOT, 1976, pg.19).
12.2. Integrated Noise Model (INM)
INM is the most widely used model for computing noise level. Developed under the auspices of the FAA, the (INM), is so far, the only model approved by the FAA for a
FAR Part 150 Study (Kundu, 1994, pg. 12). It is generally used as a standard noise forecasting methodology to assure uniformity and compatibility of the Noise Exposure
Maps submitted under a FAR Part 150 study. INM calculates distribution of aircraft noise pattern using the following information: (a) Number of aircraft operated during the period being evaluated. (b) Types of aircraft flown during the time of day when the aircrafts are aloft, how the aircrafts are flown. (c) Frequency of runway use for landing and takeoff.
(d) The routes of flight used to and from runways (Kandu, 1994, pg. 7). Variation in each of these variables can cause remarkable changes in the noise pattern.
There are two other types of models – Military Noise Map and Helicopter
Model, but INM is the model used by commercial airports. And is the standard prediction analysis tool currently available to airport planning agencies for predicting aircraft noise in areas surrounding airport. The FAA contends that the INM is by far the most efficient model of its kind and has since refined it many times (Kandu, 1994, pg. 15).
27 12.3. Noise Exposure Maps (NEM)
As part of the FAR Part 150 requirement, airport operators must submit Noise
Exposure Maps to the FAA when preparing a Part 150 study. The NEM is basically a geographic depiction of the airport, its noise contours and the surrounding areas. FAR
Part 150 requires that such noise exposure maps depict continuous contours for levels of
65, 70, and 75. Within a 65 Ldn contour, the airport operator is to identify land uses and assess the compatibility of such uses in accordance with standards and procedures of
Appendix A of FAR Part 150 (FAA Circular No. 150/5020-1 pg. 8, 1983).
The NEM shows an airport’s present and future noise levels as it relates to land uses within a certain perimeter of the airport. NEM consists of two sets of noise contour maps of the airport. One indicating the present land use and the noise contours reflecting the existing airport operations, while the other is for future land use and the noise contours projected for a five-year growth. The forecasts are based on reasonable assumptions of future airport operations (growth), changes in land use pattern, and any compatibility improvements that may be necessary due to noise compatibility measures planned for that 5-year period (Kundu, 1994, pg. 7).
28 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS
Land Use Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibels Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Residential Residential, other than mobile homes Y N1 N1 N N N Mobile home parks Y N1 N N N N Transient lodgings Y N1 N1 N1 N N Public Use Schools Y N1 N1 N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 Y4 Parking Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale and retail-building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Retail trade-general Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Y Y Y2 Y3 N N Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (except livestock)/forestry Y Y6 Y7 Y8 Y8 Y8 Livestock farming and breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N N Mining and fishing, resource production Y Y Y Y Y Y and extraction Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y3 Y3 N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables Y Y 25 30 N N
Source: Land Use Compatibility Planning , Tools, Kits, 1977
29
30
Source: OSHA, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter 27, Part 1910
Note: When the daily exposure is composed of two or more periods of noise exposure of difference levels, their combined effect should be considered, rather than the individual effect of each.
31 13. Land Use and Noise Compatibility
In addition to NEMs, the FAR Part 150 also requires airport operators to prepare
and submit Noise Compatibility programs. The intent is to seek optimal accommodation
of both airport operations and community development needs without compromising
health, safety, economic, and environmental concern (Kandu, 1994, pg. 10). To
accomplish this, the airport targets existing incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the
airport for reduction and avoidance of the introduction of new incompatible land uses in the future. Ideally, the FAR Part 150 encourages the airport operator and interested stakeholders to scout a wide range of feasible alternatives of noise control measures and land use patterns (Kandu, 1994, pg. 10). A checklist for preparing Noise Compatibility
Programs is contained in Appendix 2 of Part 150. NCP identifies what measures the airport operator has taken or proposed to take in the future, to effect noise impacts through adjustments of airport operational changes. Also, the NCP identifies areas of
incompatible land uses and establishes strategies to mitigate noise effects in such areas,
especially those with the 65 noise contours. As of now, the NCP is the main tool
available to guide/coordinate airport planning agencies, as well as local governments to
plan/achieve maximum noise compatibility to the satisfaction of all concerns. The NCP is an elaborate process involving state/local governments, airport operators, airport users, the federal agencies and citizens (Kandu, 1994, pg., 27).
32 SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
33
SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES (continued)
34 SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES (continued)
35 14. Predicting Noise Compatibility
Noise compatibility is one of the most difficult things to predict due to the fact
that different uses of the land have different sensitivities to noise. Conversely, individuals
view what is acceptable or an intruding level of noise differently. Location, weather
condition and the time of day can significantly effect how an individual perceives noise.
The activities being undertaken at the time the noise was generated can also affect noise as intrusive or not intrusive (Hall, 1965, pg. 44).
Regardless of human activities, the associated noise sensitivity can be traumatic
to the recipient, therefore, warranting attention when planning land use activities near
airports. This is one of the reasons why the ASNA Act stipulates that the FAA identifies
land use activities that are regarded as being “compatible” and “incompatible” with
varied levels of noise exposure experience by individuals. Hence, the requirement of
FAR Part 150 is widely used as a guiding tool for developing and reviewing airport noise
exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs. It is important to note however
that land use guidelines are a planning tool used as an indicator for particular land uses appropriate for certain measures or calculated noise exposure levels (Hall, 1965, pg. 46).
15. Reasons for Noise Compatibility Study
The federal government first issued its comprehensive aviation noise abatement policy some 26 years ago. At the time, it was estimated that 6-7 million Americans residing near airports were exposed to significant doses of aircraft noise. That number has since declined (Koening, Tayler, 1982). While advances in technologies, and new
planning tools have helped in reducing the number of Americans exposed, over the
decades, the problem still persists in most airports including relievers.
36 Aircraft noise has been characterized as having a catastrophic effect on humans
and wildlife. For humans, the adverse effect of noise exposure can be categorized in three
ways: degradation of health, attitudinal reactions, and activity interference. The first
category, which includes hearing loss, is relatively encountered from aircraft source at any point outside the airport boundary. The levels defining the thresholds of interference
with noise-sensitive human activity, such as sleep and speech are lower; therefore airport
noise can affect compatibility or incompatibility (AC 150/5020-1, 1983 pg. 20).
16. Aircraft Noise Effect on its Surroundings
16.1. Humans
Aircraft noise has gained notoriety for interfering with daily normal activities of
people. It has been faulted for disturbing conversation, sleep and relaxation. Also, it has
been noted as being a culprit of degrading the quality of life for its neighbors (DOT,
1976, pg. 17). Depending on the type of land use activities in the community adjoining
the airport, aircraft noise could invariably affect education, health services, other public
activities, as well as the economic health of the area since residential land may be
devalued and people move out (Lung, 1997, pg. 2). Though there could be indirect and subtle social and psychological inferences associated with aircraft noise, most of the problems are mainly annoyance. The direct physical health danger aircraft noise poses to
people is not fully known. But, there are some health and environmental concerns that
can be attributed to aircraft noise (Lung, 1997, pg. 3).
As researchers have concluded that children in schools bombarded by frequent
aircraft noise don’t learn to read as well as children in quieter schools. One major reason
for this is that kids tuned out speech in the racket. “We’ve known for a long time that
37 chronic noise is having a devastating effect on the academic performance of children in
noisy homes and schools,” says Gary Evans, an expert on environmental stress. Evans and his collaborator, Lorraine Maxwell, compared first and second grade children in a noisy school in the flight path of a New York international airport with similar children in a quieter school. Evans and Maxwell in their research found that the students in the flight path performed less than their counterpart in the quieter school (Lung, 1997, pg. 12).
As mentioned earlier, a greater number of people live in the areas that are significantly exposed to aircraft noise increasingly creating aggravation to them.
However, the subjective reactions of individuals to aircraft noise vary greatly. This makes it even more difficult to adequately compare the noise problem surrounding individual airports, especially if that airport serves as reliever/general aviation to a major commercial airport. For example, observation by aircraft noise abatement staff at Lunken
Municipal Airport in Cincinnati, Ohio over a period of time have lead them to conclude that many of the noise complaints received by the airport authorities result from over flights in and out of Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport.
16.2. Residential Property
Besides human effect of aircraft noise, there is also an effect on other things as well. The annoyance due to aircraft is capitalized into the value of residential property.
Since 1969, a number of studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between residential property values and aircraft noise levels. These studies sought to obtain a measure of the aircraft noise effect on property values of a unit change in noise exposure levels, with other factors remaining unchanged (Nelson, 1978, pg.1).
Studying people residing near six of the nation’s major airports, Mr. Nelson and
38 his associates concluded that aircraft noise is capitalized in housing prices. He showed that most of the prices for the houses near the airports were much lower than that of comparable houses far from the airport (Nelson, 1978, pg. 66). Due to perceived property devaluation caused by aircraft noise over the years, some communities have turned to the courts as a way of expressing their reaction to aircraft noise. In some cases, homeowners have been awarded compensation for nuisance and devaluation of their property. Due to such lawsuits, some airports have reacted by acquiring substantial residential areas near their airports. Examples of such practices have taken place in areas surrounding Seattle-
Tacoma International and Los Angeles International Airports. Los Angeles is on record as spending the most money on acquiring residential homes (DOT, 1976, pg. 18).
16.3. Health Effects
People vary in their ability to hear sounds, their physiological predisposition to noise and their emotional experience of annoyance to a given noise
(http://www.noise.org/library/ane/ane/htm). However, aircraft noise has a significant impact on the quality of life, and in that sense, it is a health hazard in accordance with the
World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health. WHO defines health to include total physical and mental well being, as well as the absence of disease? Accordingly, a
1971 WHO Working group stated that noise must be recognized as a threat to humans.
The extent to which people believe exposure to aircraft noise will damage their health affects their response to noise. Also, the degree to which an individual fears physical harm from the source of the noise, in this case aircraft, will affect his/her attitude toward the noise (FAA AC 150/5020-2, 1985, pg. 8).
39 Studies have shown that aircraft noise is more disturbing in the summer than in the winter because in the summer windows are likely to be opened and recreational activities take place out in the ambient environment.
In 1975, Mill indicated that adults could suffer hearing loss when they are exposed to “moderately” high levels of noise (74-80 dBA) 8 hours a day over a working lifetime. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) also noted, considerably more people are affected when similar exposures reach slightly higher levels (85 dBA). Others like Kryter, put a danger zone for hearing loss at day-night levels of 55-dBA (Kane, pg. 76).
While there are indications of a decrease in noise exposure, the Environmental
Protection Agency’s assessment indicates that there has been substantial increase in land areas affected by the noise from other sources such as cars, busses and trucks. The assessment covers a period between 1955 and 1970. Some studies have also sited aircraft noise as being an accomplice in affecting formerly quiet wilderness areas (Kane pg. 74).
17. Methodology
17.1. The methodology consists of:
17.1.1. Interviews of aircraft noise abatement experts; airport planners and
aircraft noise abatement officers at some commercial service and reliever/general
aviation airports. This was to determine the procedure and protocol to follow as
well as determining what factors inhibit or encourage aircraft noise abatement
programs and the level of community participation. Initially, letters were sent to
forty-five randomly select reliever/general aviation airports. The purpose was to
determine whether these airports are undertaking aircraft noise abatement
40 measures. If yes, what was the reason for taking such action and if no why? Of these, twelve said they have an aircraft noise abatement program in place, six have initiated an aircraft noise abatement program, and eleven have no aircraft noise abatement program, while the remaining sixteen did not respond. Of the twelve that have such programs, only eight have fledging aircraft noise programs with an appointed noise abatement officer. Of the eight, four were selected for this thesis The selecting of the airports for this study was based on the information received from the respondent, availability of materials on the airports and overall co-operation of the airports to disseminate information. Other criteria used for the selection are the size of the airport, enplanement, etc.
17.1.2. Review of policies with respect to aircraft noise abatement programs on case study airports. The purpose is to determine what national, state and local legislative measures that influence aircraft noise abatement procedure at individual reliever/general aviation airport.
17.1.3. Survey the airports selected for the study. This is to determine how their programs are being implemented, their success and failures, major stakeholders, and the level of citizens’ participation. Also, to assess whether the citizens’ participation has impeded or encouraged the implementation of the noise abatement programs at individual airports. The survey was designed targeting the airport planners, noise abatement officers and the airport authority/ operators.
41 Part Two
1. The Case Study – Selected Reliever Airports
Aircraft noise is an inevitable by-product of an aircraft operation. For many
people living in the vicinity of airports, aircraft noise can be an unwanted intrusion into the peace and tranquil they seek to enjoy in their communities. Due to this, many if not all airport operators have undertaken significant voluntary steps to reduce or minimize the exposure of airport-area residents to aircraft noise.
This portion of the thesis is a case study of four reliever/general aviation airports.
The purpose, evaluate the steps the operators of these airports are taking or proposed to take in order to reduce aircraft noise impact on the communities surrounding them and the efficiency of the programs and their success, if any, in perceived noise reduction. And also to find out whether the noise abatement programs have encouraged or promoted noise compatibility developments at the individual airports.
The four airports selected for the study are listed below:
1. Scottsdale Airport in Scottsdale, Arizona
2. Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, Minnesota
3. Van Nuys Airport in Van Nuys, California
4. Lunken Municipal Airport, Cincinnati, Ohio
As noted earlier, the selection of the airports was based in part on the response from the
airports as well as availability of information on the airports. Other criteria used are size,
length of main runway, critical aircraft, base aircraft, etc. See the metric below.
42 FACTS ABOUT THE AIRPORTS Scottsdale Airport
Airport Type General Aviation/Reliever Location Scottsdale, Arizona Owner/Operator City of Scottsdale Year Started 1940 Number of Runways 2 Parallel Runway Lanes 75 Foot Size 282 Acres Based Aircraft Yes F.A.R. Part 150 Yes FAA Control Tower Yes FAA Flight Standard District Office Yes Runway Extension Yes Reliever Phoenix International Airport
Flying Cloud Airport
Airport Type General Aviation/Reliever Location Eden Prairie, Minnesota Owner/Operator Metropolitan Airports Commission Year Started 1947 Number of Runways 2 Parallel Size 561 Acres Based Aircraft 485 F.A.R. Part 150 Yes FAA Control Tower Yes FAA Flight Standard District Office Yes Runway Extension Yes Reliever Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
43
Van Nuys Airport
Airport Type General Aviation/Reliever Location Van Nuys, California Owner/Operator City of Las Angeles Year Started 1920 Number of Runways 2 Parallel Size 730 Acres Enplanements 600,000 yearly Based Aircraft Yes F.A.R. Part 150 Yes FAA Control Tower Yes FAA Flight Standard District Office Yes Runway Extension Yes Reliever Las Angeles International Airport
Lunken Airport
Airport Type General Aviation/Reliever Location Cincinnati, Ohio Owner/Operator City of Cincinnati Year Started 1926 Number of Runways 3 Parallel Size 1000 Acres Based Aircraft Yes F.A.R. Part 150 Yes FAA Control Tower Yes FAA Flight Standard District Office Yes Runway Extension Yes Reliever Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
44 2. Analyzing the Noise Abatement Programs
The analysis of the program is based in part on how the individual airports comply with government regulations, use of resources, and whether the airport undertook measures beyond their requirements. The stakeholder of the program at each airport:
2.1. Legislative
¾ Federal
¾ State
¾ Local (City/County & Regional Metropolitan Organization)
¾ Airport Authority
2.2. Community Participation
2.3. Funding
2.4. The role of the airport within the network of the airports it serves
45 3. Scottsdale Airport in the City of Scottsdale, Arizona
AERIAL VIEW OF SCOTTSDALE AIRPORT
3.1. About the Airport
Located in the northeast portion of the metropolitan area, in the City of Scottsdale in Maricopa County (Arizona), Scottsdale Airport is one of several airports serving the
Greater Phoenix. It is an important center for corporate aviation and is the hub of a thriving industrial and office park. Scottsdale Airport also plays a major role as a reliever airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. As noted in Part One, reliever/general aviation airports serve as an alternative site for general aviation pilots.
The purpose is to reduce congestion at commercial service airports (Scottsdale Airport:
F.A.R. Noise Compatibility Study, Noise Compatibility Program Update, March 1977).
46 The airport covers land area of approximately 282 acres. It is about nine miles
north of downtown Scottsdale, three miles east of the Paradise Valley Mall area of
Phoenix and southwest of the McDowell Mountains. It is approximately 16 miles
southwest of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport. Additionally, the communities of
Paradise Valley, Fountain Hills, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and island of unincorporated Maricopa county are all located in the vicinity of the airport
(Scottsdale Airport F.A.R. Noise Compatibility Study, March 1977). (Arial / Site Map
Scottsdale Road borders the Scottsdale Airport on the east on the north by Frank Lloyd
Wright Boulevard, on the west by Hayden Road and on the south by Thunderbird Road.
In the immediate west of the airport is located Scottsdale Industrial Airpark. Residential development is in all directions from the airport, and closest to the airfield is predominantly industrial development.
47 LOCATION MAP
The airport is classified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS) as both a Commercial and a Reliever Airport for Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport. As a reliever airport, it provides an alternative-landing site for general aviation pilots, thereby reducing congestion at the commercial service airport
(Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, Noise Compatibility
Program Update, March 1977).
3.2. The Scottsdale Airport History
Scottsdale airport was started in the 1940s as Thunderbird II Airfield. During the early years of the airport it was used extensively as pilot training facility for U.S. Army
48 Air Corps during the World War II. With decrease in demand for pilots after the war, the airport was put up for sale under the Surplus Property Act. In 1953, the Seventh Day
Adventist Church acquired the property and built a church as well as the Thunderbird II
Academy, a private school on the property. Thereafter, the airport though operational was only used to provide pilot training for the church’s missionary program (Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Environmental Impact Statement,
February 1980, Pg. 1-1). In the early 1960s a local land developer known as George
Tewksbury purchased about 642 acres of the property from the Seventh Day Adventist for an industrial park development. With funding from the FAA in 1966 the City of
Scottsdale also bought 226 acres of the parcel from the Seventh Day Adventist for the sole purpose of developing a municipal airport. The result, a construction of paved 4,800 foot by 75-foot runway, which began that year. Later in 1967, an aircraft parking apron, connecting taxiway, and aircraft turnarounds were constructed.
The official opening of the facility for operation began in 1976. A number of facility improvements took place in the years that followed. Among them, the construction of parallel taxiways, a general aviation terminal, hangars, tiedowns, an FAA
Flight Standards District Office, an FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower, airfield lighting, descend aids, and a runway extension. The City undertook and completed many projects.
These include drainage and erosion control. Other pertinent projects like remodeling of the terminal building, improvements to the airport access road, and automobile parking area were slated for ensuing years (Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study Exposure Maps Update, November 1995, Pg. 1-9).
49 3.3. Jurisdiction and Responsibilities
As in all airports, reduction of noise impact at Scottsdale airport is a complex and sensitive issue, with several stakeholders sharing and playing a significant role: the federal government, state and local governments and planning agencies, the airport operator, airport users and local residents. The airport operator is very much aware that these players’ interest must be considered and adequately addressed when planning noise abatement projects. Also, it is imperative for each of the parties involved to properly understand their level of authority in dealing with aircraft noise problems.
3.3.1. Federal Government
As stated in the preceding pages, the federal government has long been a major player in reducing aircraft noise impact on airport communities. In view of this, the federal government under the auspices of the FAA has enacted series of legislation, which airport operators must adhere to if they wish to apply for federal assistance for its aircraft noise abatement programs. Though participation is voluntary, Scottsdale airport, like most of the nation’s airports, has undertaken several measures outlined by federal legislation. Besides, F.A.R. Parts 36 and 91, Scottsdale airport has conducted F.A.R. Part
150 Study. The purpose of which is to outline those action the Scottsdale airport is taking or intend to take to make aircraft noise compatible to the airport neighbors (Pg. 15-19 for discussion on Part 150 Studies and other federal legislation).
3.3.2. State
Though the state of Arizona does not directly implement and administer general- purpose land use regulations, it has vested cities, towns, and counties with that power through enabling legislation. Arizona Revised Statutes do not mandate the establishment
50 of planning commissions, agencies or departments in municipalities. However, where such appointments are made, the municipality is required to prepare and adopt a long- range general plan, and may regulate zoning, subdivision and land development.
(Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, Noise Exposure Maps
Update, November 1995, Pg. 1-6)
3.3.3. Local Government
Scottsdale and Phoenix share responsibilities for land use regulation in the
Scottsdale airport area. Both cities operate under council/manager form of government.
Scottsdale has six council members plus a mayor; Phoenix has eight city council members all of whom are elected by voters (Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study, Noise Exposure Maps Update, November 1995, Pg. 1-6).
Besides regulating land use, local governments may acquire property to mitigate or prevent airport noise impacts. It can also sponsor sound insulation programs for the purpose of aircraft noise control. The local governments may be eligible to apply for
FAA grants under Part 150 if they are designated as a sponsor of a project in an approved noise compatibility program. The City of Scottsdale has passed series of land use ordinances to discourage non-compatibility uses as a way of reducing aircraft noise impact on the surrounding communities.
3.4. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
MAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for all jurisdictions within Maricopa County, Arizona; including the Phoenix the Phoenix urbanized area. MAG consists of 24 cities and towns, Maricopa County, the Gila River
Indian Community. As MPO, is responsible for, among other things, conducting regional
51 transportation planning. In accordance with FAA Order 5100.38, it is also responsible for sponsoring regional aviation system planning studies.
It adopted its first Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP) in 1979 and updates in
1976 and 1993. The RASP serves as a guide for meeting the future air transportation needs of the region (Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study,
Noise Exposure Maps Update, November 1995, Pg. 1-7).
3.5 The Airport Proprietor
The City of Scottsdale has legal jurisdiction and responsibility to operate
Scottsdale Airport. As airport proprietor, the City has limited power to control what types of civil aircraft use its airport and to impose curfews or other restrictions. This power is limited by the rules of F.A.R. Part 161. Airport proprietors may not take actions that (a) impose an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, (b) unjustly discriminate between different categories of airport users and (c) involve unilateral action in matters preempted by the federal government.
The City has among other things, taken steps to control an aircraft noise by installing sound barriers and acoustical shielding and by controlling the times when aircraft engine maintenance run-up may take place. Within the law and availability of financial resources, airport operator has acquired land or easements, and development rights, to ensure the use of property for purposes, which are compatible with airport operations (Scottsdale Airport Noise Exposure Maps Update, November 1995, pg. 1-7).
Like all airports throughout the United Sates of America, air traffic activity at the
Scottsdale airport is recorded by the airport management staff from information supplied it by the FAA. Aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) are reported as being either
52 local, typically those activities associated with training operations or itinerant, those
generally performed by an aircraft with a specific origin and destination away from the
airport. About 68 percent of the total operations at Scottsdale Airport can be attributed to
itinerant operations, while the remaining 32 percent are local. Besides the FAA, the
airport management staff collects and record data relating to passenger enplanements at the airport is defined as passenger that boards an aircraft for departure at the airport.
3.6. Other Area Airports
There are five public, seven private, and one military airport within a 20 nautical
mile (NM) range of Scottsdale Airport. The five public airports, their locations, and
proximity to the Scottsdale Airports are: Mesa Falcon Field, 13 NM southeast, Stellar
Airpark 19 NM south; Phoenix Sky Harbor International 12 NM south- southwest,
Glendale Municipal 19 NM west-southwest and Phoenix Deer Valley Airport 9 NM
west-northwest. The seven private and the two military airports are Sky Ranch Carefree,
Brensteson, Hanga Haciendas, Paradise, McGill, Pleasant Valley Papago Army Air Field
and Luke Air Force Base. They are located with 24 NM of the Scottsdale Airport
perimeter. Flights coming in and leaving Scottsdale Airport use both Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Air traffic operations at Scottsdale Airport
are VFR whereby the pilot uses a general common visual reporting point in the area to
identify their location to the tower personnel (Scottsdale Airport: Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study, Noise Exposure Maps Update, November, 1995, Pg. 1-15).
3.7. Noise Abatement Procedures at Scottsdale Airport
Scottsdale airport authority has put in place a series of noise abatement
procedures at the airport. Among such procedures are: Pilots using Scottsdale Airports
53 are discouraged from overflights of nearby residential areas and if possible, to keep
pattern traffic on each runway closes in to the airport. However, adjustments are made in an event of heavy traffic volume for the required aircraft separation. Other noise abatement procedures have been incorporated into the IFR departure routes with the left turns to either 260 degrees (Runway 3) or right turns to 300 degrees (Runway 21). In addition, ATCT favors southeast bound VFR traffic departing on Runway 21 to first make a right turn and cross over the airport before heading east and climb as quickly as possible. This enables the aircraft to avoid low overflight of a nearby residential area.
Furthermore, the Scottsdale Tower discourages “formation” departures from using Runway 21 and encourages instead their use of Runway 3. Also, they discourage multi-engine aircraft from simulating single-engine departures. The Scottsdale Airport
Management gives a Scottsdale Airport Pilot Guide to all pilots using their facility to guide them. Listed below are the nine recommended procedures to be followed by any using the airport.
¾ Runway 3 is the designated calm wind runway.
¾ Make right turn to 300 degrees as soon as possible when departing
Runway 21, consistent with safety.
¾ No mid-field, stop and go, formation, simulated single engine departures
or go arounds on Runway 21.
¾ No touch-and-go, or stop-and-go operations 9:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.
¾ Climb as high as possible before leaving airport perimeters, consistent
with safety.
54 ¾ No engine maintenance runups 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m., except in
emergencies.
¾ Maintenance runups are to be conducted only in the designated engine
runup area at the north end of kilo ramp (next to the north end of the
runway).
¾ Request that all aircraft not meeting F.A.R. Part 36, Stage 111
requirements takeoff on Runway 3 and land on Runway 21, weather and
traffic condition permitting, consistent with safety.
¾ Please fly as high and tight patterns, no low approaches, follow the VASI
consistent with safety, use best angle of climb (Vx) on takeoff for noise
abatement (http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/Noise.asp, 7/23/04).
3.8. Existing Land Use in the Airport Area
A land use map of Scottsdale shows generalized existing land use in the
Scottsdale airport area. The map was based on aerial photographs taken in July
1994 and a consultant field survey conducted in December of 1994. The land use categories shown on the map were selected to conveniently demonstrate and to fit noise and land use compatibility planning requirement. With exception of immediate east of the airport, most of the lands in the vicinity of the airport have been developed. Developments in the airport surroundings are mainly single- family home with clusters of multi-family apartments and condominiums. There are two large resorts and two hotels in the airport parameter. Though commercial establishments, these types of land uses are normally considered to be noise- sensitive due to the fact that they serve as temporary dwelling places.
55 3.9. The History of Noise Abatement at Scottsdale Airport
The Scottsdale Airport Noise abatement program is based on the premises
that “good neighbors make every effort to understand the concerns of their
neighbors, and take action to minimize aircraft influence experienced by residents
(http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/Noise.asp, 7/23/04).
3.9.1. “Good Neighbor” Pledge
The airport management, sensitive to the concerns of the citizens, has
developed a “Good Neighbor Pledge for pilots. Though not legally binding, it’s
intended to demonstrate to the airport’s residential neighbors their concerns, as such
is making sure that pilots using the airport are aware of noise abatement procedures
and to “fly neighborly” (https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm.asp,
7/23/04). Below is the Pledge:
“As a Pilot who is concerned about being a good neighbor, my goal is to:
Safely operate aircraft in a responsible and courteous manner;
¾ Seek to learn and follow noise abatement procedures;
¾ Fly at the highest and safest altitudes, and avoid training activity over
congested and residential areas;
¾ Follow AOPA Noise Awareness Steps and manufacture’s noise
abatement procedures whenever consistent with safety;
¾ Avoid flight during “quiet hour” whenever possible, 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m., and
¾ Demonstrate my commitment to the Scottsdale Airport and its
surrounding community by educating other pilots about the importance
56 of noise abatement (Noise complaints received are compiled and
published on a monthly basis.
(https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm.asp, 7/23/04).
However, for a noise complaint to become part of the City’s official record, it has to
be submitted via the e-services link or the 24-hour noise hotline. The frequently asked
questions are 1) why do planes fly over my house? 2) Planes seem to be flying over my house on purpose. Why? 3) Why don’t airplane owners get rid of those noisy jets? 4)
What causes planes to take off in the direction of my home? 5) Who can do something
about low-flying planes? 6) What can the airport do to restrict noisy planes? 7) How can
citizens and government work together to significantly decrease aircraft noise in our
community? (http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/ai…/NoiseSub_Reports_FAQ.as, 7/23/04).
As the jet age dawned in the 1960, aircraft noise became an increased problem for
many airports throughout the country. Though jet traffic at Scottsdale was not as heavy as
at many other airports, aircraft noise began to be an issue of concern in the 1960s. In
1970, an informal noise abatement procedure for jets flying under visual flight rules
(VFR) was implemented at the airport. A decade later, an ordinance restricting selected
activities at the airport considered being the cause of noise complaints was passed by the
City of Scottsdale. The FAA Tower Order under the directives of the local air traffic
control Manager put additional noise abatement processes in place. That order, which
was put in place in1985, though remains in force, and has been ratified over the years.
The City of Scottsdale conducted its first comprehensive noise compatibility study in
1985 following the rules and guidelines set forth by Federal Aviation Regulation (F.A.R.)
Part 150 (http://www.scottsdaleaz.gove/Airport/Noise.asp, 7/23/04).
57 As stated earlier, the FAA established F.A.R Part 150 as a means to implement
legislation enacted by U.S. Congress in 1979. The law is intended to provide federal
funding assistance for airports that wish to undertake noise compatibility studies.
Scottsdale was one of the earliest participants in the Part 150 program. FAA approved the
City’s proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) on December 19, 1986. It involved several noise abatement measures, land use measures, as well as continuing program measures, which were implemented in the following years. The noise contours were updated again in 1991.
In late 1993, the City thought it was time to revisit the airport noise situation. The reason was to come up with more up-to-date noise exposure maps and at the same time review the need for new or refined measures to improve noise abatement and reduce potential noise problem in the airport surroundings. The City hired a contractor to prepare
the updated F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program while a new Airport Master
Plan was developed (http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/Nosie.asp, 7/23/04).
The updated Noise Compatibility Program for the Scottsdale Airport was
designed through a consultative process involving numerous technical analyses. A
consulting firm, Coffman Associates was hired by the City to provide technical assistance
for the study, using computer noise modeling, and land use analyses. A 26-Member
Planning Advisory Committee was commissioned by the City to serve as an informal
advisory group. The committee comprised of representatives of the FAA, local
governments, airport user, and local citizens groups were tasked to review and comment
on the consultant’s process, progress, findings and recommendations. Also, during and
after the study, local residents were invited to several public information workshops and
58 public hearings. The City Council formally accepted the Noise Compatibility Program on
January 21, 1997, and authorized its submission to the FAA for review and approval.
3.9.2. The Updated Noise Compatibility Program
The Scottsdale Airport’s Updated Noise Compatibility Program has three components. These are: a noise abatement component, which dealt with aircraft operating
procedures; a land use component which involved land use planning and zoning actions;
and a program management component to administer, monitor and update the program
(https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm, 7/23/04).
3.9.3. Noise Abatement Component
The Noise Compatibility Study considered different noise abatement alternatives:
Among them were: changes in flight tracks, runway use, and aircraft operating
procedures. Each one was carefully analyzed and evaluated for its impact on airspace,
safety, cost and more importantly its effectiveness in reducing aircraft noise. The final
plan involved twelve noise abatement measures, ten of which were continuation of
existing ones. Bellow is those twelve noise abatement measures:
¾ Continue to encourage aircraft not in compliance with F.A.R. Part 36, Stage 3
to use Runway 21 for landing and Runway 3 for takeoffs.
¾ This policy applied to the loudest jet aircraft, known as Stage 2 jets, using the
airport. These aircrafts are encouraged to fly, if possible, over less densely
developed areas north of the airport instead of south of the airport .
¾ Continue to encourage right turns as soon as practical when departing Runway
21. This policy is to minimize the amount of residential land south and west of
the airport overflown by aircraft taking off to the southwest on Runway 21. It
59 is intended to get aircraft north of the developed urban area as quickly as possible. This procedure is likely to reduce traffic conflicts with aircraft using other airports west and south of Scottsdale.
¾ Request use of National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) standard
noise abatement departure procedures.
¾ The Scottsdale Airport management encourages jet operators to use the
“standard noise abatement departure procedure” developed by the NBAA
or equivalent procedures developed aircraft manufactures. The NBAA
procedure calls for a reduction of thrust and a quiet climb after aircraft
reach 1,000 feet above the ground. This is believed to create less noise
than a normal takeoff and climb procedure.
¾ Continue requiring maintenance run-ups to be done at the north end of
Kilo ramp, and continue prohibiting maintenance run-ups between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except for emergencies. However, during the day will
continue to be done at the north edge of the parking ramp on the West
Side of the airport. The idea is to put aircraft as far away from the densely
populated residential areas near the airport. Maintenance run-ups can be
very annoying because it has no predictable pattern, unlike overflights,
which get louder and then softer in a predictable way. Maintenance run-
ups generally last longer than overflights. When done in the night and
early morning hours when people are asleep or trying to sleep, it can be
highly aggravating.
60 ¾ Stop-and-go operations, intersection departures, formation departures, and
simulated single-engine takeoffs and go-arounds by multi-engine aircraft
are forbidden on Runway 21. In 1980, the City Council passed an
Ordinance prohibiting these types of flight procedures fearing that they
would increase frequency of low overflights and hence noise disturbance
in the residential areas south of the airport.
¾ Discourage straight-out and left turns after departure on Runway 21. This
policy supports Noise Abatement Measure 2. If aircraft takes off on
Runway 21 and fly straight-out or turn left, it would fly over much of
more residential area than if it turns right as soon as practicable.
¾ Discourage a right-hand traffic pattern, long straight-in approaches, and
right turns on departure before the airport boundary on Runway 3. This
will limit flight procedures that would cause overflight, therefore noise
problem for residents south and east of the airport.
¾ Restricts touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations between 9:30 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. This restriction was enacted in 1980 to prevent multiple
approaches and touch-and-go’s. Due to their repetitive nature, they can be
very annoying to residents near an airport, especially at night when people
are asleep or trying to sleep.
¾ Preferential use of Runway 3. Runway 3 has been designated in the Tower
Order on noise abatement as being the calm wind runway. Therefore, it is
better to use it at all times. This will encourage more takeoffs to the north
61 with sparsely residential development than otherwise to the south, which
is densely populated.
¾ Discourage descents below 2,500 feet MSL for practice instrument
approaches. This will encourage noise abatement as it would discourage
repetitive, low overflight. Though low approaches are discouraged at the
airport, they are not entirely forbidden because pilots must occasionally
use it as a way of learning and maintaining their proficiency.
¾ Encourage use of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Noise
Awareness Steps by propeller aircraft. The AOPA publishes “noise
awareness steps” for pilots of light, propeller driven aircraft. This
publication informs pilots of the best possible way to operate their aircraft
to reduce noise. Scottsdale has tried to incorporate these steps into its
version or future versions of the Scottsdale Airport Pilot Guide to be
distributed to operators of aircraft based at the airport.
¾ Encourage aircraft on approach to Runway 21 to avoid overflights of
residential areas whenever possible. Housing developments are spread all
over the area north to northeast of the airport. In some of these residential
areas, the elevations are much higher than the airport elevation.
Consequently, aircraft could be relatively low in these areas when making
an approach to land on Runway 21. Housing stock in this area is
somewhat dispersed, for this reason, it is possible for aircraft approaching
from west to avoid direct overflights of housing areas by lining up for a
relatively short final approach (1.0 to 1.5 miles) to Runway 21. Scottsdale
62 plans to encourage this procedure through update versions of the
Scottsdale Airport Pilot Guide.
¾ Ongoing noise abatement, Pilot communication and community outreach
program.
¾ Generating monthly noise reports to track trends and identify problem
areas.
¾ Update noise abatement information displays and Pilot Guides provided to
flight academies.
¾ Complete the new helicopter Letter of Agreement (LOA) and arrival and
departure maps.
¾ New Pilot “Good Neighbor” Pledge Program
¾ “Late night/early morning” arrival/departures are sent monthly reminder
letters promoting our voluntary curfew from 10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m.
¾ Producing a pilot educational video in CD-ROM and web viewing format
to educate pilots.
¾ Regional Flight Schools and airports now meeting monthly to discuss
safety, pilot education and noise abatement efforts.
¾ Continuing Homeowner Outreach Program for dissemination of current
airport issues.
(http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/a…NoiseSub_CurrentEvents.as, 7/23/04).
63 3.10. The Impact of Noise Abatement Actions at Scottsdale Airport
The map below indicates the actual noise contours for 1995 conditions as well as projections for the years 2000, 2005 and 2015. This is based on the assumption that all the update noise abatement recommendations are implemented.
The noise projection for the year 2000 is basically the same as that of 1995 noise contours even though airport operations have been projected to increase substantially.
The lack of meaningful increase in the noise contour may be attributed to the implementation of the updated noise abatement measures. The noise contours only increase slightly in the 2005 before reducing drastically in the 2015 projections. This partial reduction in the noise contours could be the result of the gradual replacement and or the retirement of the aging and very loud Stage II business jets by much quieter Stage
III jets (https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm.asp, 7/23/04).
As shown in the data below in 1995 no residents were exposed to noise in excess of 65 DNL. The number of residents expected to be exposed to noise above 65 DNL, in the year 2000, remained at zero if the updated plan were to be implemented as opposed to six without the implementation of the plan. If the plan were implemented about 14 residents would be exposed to noise above 65 DNL in the year 2005 compared to 70 without the updated plan. By the year 2015, the 65 DNL contour would be withdrawn from any residential area.
3.11. Land Use Management Procedure
As noted earlier, land use management is generally used as a tool by local authorities to discourage incompatible developments in noise-affected or noise sensitive areas of any airport. The City of Scottsdale has adopted series of land use measures in the
64 past and continues to do so today.
3.11.1. Program for Scottsdale Airport:
The Cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix both have jurisdiction on land use within the perimeter affected by aircraft using Scottsdale Airport. Therefore, both cities have to establish an “Airport Influence Area” around the airport. The area must encompass the forecast noise contours for the year 2005, areas subject to frequent, low altitude overflights as well as areas from which the most noise complaints have been received.
¾ Scottsdale and Phoenix preserve existing General Plan and zoning
designations for compatible land uses in Airport Influence Area. Large
parcels of land near the airport are designated for commercial, office
or industrial development. These designations are compatible with
aircraft noise; therefore, the cities must ensure that they are used for
such purposes only.
¾ The City of Scottsdale amends the Scottsdale General Plan to provide
for compatible land use on the northeast corner of Bell and Hayden
Roads. A large strip of land on the northeast corner of Bell and
Hayden Roads has been designated in the Scottsdale General Plan for
medium density residential development. The area falls within the 65
DNL is burdened with frequent overflights.
¾ Scottsdale rezones areas north and east of the airport for compatible
use consistent with the General Plan. The Plan designates several large
areas within the Airport Influence Area for commercial and industrial
use however; current zoning calls for housing development.
65 ¾ Scottsdale adopts airport noise overlay zoning within the Airport
Influence Area. There would be three overlay zones established within
the boundaries based on the 65 and the 55 DNL contours as well as the
outer limits of the Airport Influence Area. Each of which will have
different standards applying to it. To augment the overlay-zoning
requirement, the City should also amend its subdivision regulations to
authorize the granting of noise and aviation easement by developers.
The building code should also be amended to include stringent sound
insulation standards.
¾ Phoenix through the rezoning process, prohibits new noise-sensitive
uses in 65 DNL, requires sound insulation between 55 and 65 DNL
and also require fair disclosure agreements and covenants in Airport
Influence Area. These proposed policies are basically the same as
those of the City of Scottsdale. Both policies included avoiding
development of new homes and noise-sensitive institutions within the
65 DNL contours. The 65 DNL contour serves as a threshold with
which the FAA will fund project to mitigate aircraft noise that impacts
certain existing non-compatible land uses such as residential or
schools.
¾ The Cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix adopt project review guidelines
for rezoning, special use, conditional use, planned development, and
variance application within the Airport Influence Area. Adopting
special project review criteria to address specific airport land use
66 compatibility needs will help to ensure that airport compatibility
continues to be adhered to in all future land use deliberations. As local
planning officials are often times faces with decisions on potential land
use changes near airport.
¾ Scottsdale encourages fair disclosure of aircraft overflights and noise
to potential future property owners in Airport Influence Area. This is
intended to ensure that prospective homebuyers are adequately
informed of potential disruptive aircraft noise in the area where the
property is located. Other ways to encourage disclosure are:
distributing prepared information materials for the real estate industry,
posting signs near the airport noting the presence of aircraft in the area
and keeping the local city planning departments informed about the
airport and the airport noise situation.
3.12. Program Management Process
Like any program, the success of Noise Compatibility Program requires a continuing effort to monitor compliance and identify new or unanticipated problems and changing conditions. There are five management processes slated for Scottsdale Airport.
They are as follows:
¾ Maintain and enhance the system for receiving, analyzing and
responding to noise complaints. The airport has well-organized system
of receiving and responding to noise complaints. However, it can
improve it by using a geographic information system, as it would
67 enable more efficient mapping and subsequent analysis of noise
complaints.
¾ Monitor Noise Compatibility Plan implementation. This requires
collaborative effort between the Airport management and the local
FAA Air Traffic Manager.
¾ Updating Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Programs.
The airport management reviews the Noise Exposure Maps and Noise
Compatibility Program periodically and when necessary revises or
updates it. This usually is done every five to eight years. The airport
has done several revisions and updates.
¾ Broadcast noise abatement information on Automatic Terminal
Information Service (ATIS) to pilots using the airport.
¾ Purchase portable noise monitors for monitoring and investigating
noise complaints and conducting effective noise measurement studies
(https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm.ASP, 7/23/04)
3.13. Costs and Funding
The cost to implement the Noise Compatibility Program is $697,000. Arizona
State Department of Transportation is expected to cover approximately 83 percent and
FAA’s Airport Improvement Program while the remaining is paid with airport revenues
(http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/ai…NoiseSub_Reports_FAQ.as, 7/23/04).
3.14. Economic impact of the Airport
With more than 100,000 landings in 1992 alone Scottsdale Airport serves as a
vital economic interest for the city. The scope and impact of general aviation has on an
68 economy is hardly ever recognized even though it is an integral part of the aviation industry. See below for charts and illustrations for such impacts. The airport serves as a gateway for tourists and business people due to its proximity to resorts and popular places
(httP://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/ai..NoiseSub_Reports_FAQ.as, 7/23/04).
69 4. Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
AERIAL VIEW OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT
Forecasts indicate that by the year 2010 annual aircraft operations at Flying Cloud
Airport may reach 302, 200. The same forecasts predicted that base aircraft at the airport
70 could top 600. As a result of this forecast, plans for the expanding of the airport are being
considered. The plan calls for extending the Eastwest runways, developing a new aircraft
hanger area on the south side of the airport and acquisition of land needed to protect the
runway approach zones. (http://www.macnoise.com/relievers/fcm/expansion.htm,
3/31/2002). As the airport geared up for expansion the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, who owns and operators the airport, has been working diligently with the
City of Eden Prairie, airport tenants and residents to properly address the issue of noise impact around the airport.
Flying Cloud Airport is situated on the West Side of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area in the suburb of Eden Prairie. Located in one of the most rapidly growing areas of the Twin Cities, Flying Cloud has been developed to cater to the needs of corporate and business aviation users. The airport has several excellent commercial fixed base operators. The airport provides a full variety of services for both business and recreational flyers (http://www.macavasat.org/relievers/fcm/index.htm, 2/23/02).
The airport has three runways, an FAA tower, an instrument landing system and
24-hour fixed base operations enabling it to offer a lot to the aviation community. Annual
aircraft operations at the Flying Cloud Airport fluctuate from year to year. The highest aircraft operations ever recorded at the airport was 446,198 in 1968, the lowest operations was 145,718 in 1982 and the total annual operations in 2000 was 186,078
(http://www.macavsat.org/relievers/fcm/index.htm, 2/23/02). Metropolitan Airport
Commission (MAC) acquired the Flying Cloud Airport in 1947 from a private operator.
Over the years, the aircraft has grown to 561 acres, with 120 leased aircraft storage
facilities and 485 based aircraft (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, August 2001,
71 Bordering the north, west and east of the airport is residential development.
The Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Office, in response to community request coupled with nearness of the residential community to the airport, developed the voluntary Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Plan. This is to help facilitate aircraft operational procedures compatible with the existing residential development surrounding the airport. The noise abatement plan is designed to minimize the aircraft noise effect on the residents surrounding the airport, yet ensuring the safe, smooth and efficient running of the airport (http://www.macavsat.org/relievers/fcm/index.htm, 2/23/02.
As part of an agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
City of Eden Prairie, the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs staff conducts a noise
study. The monitoring project summarizes operations and assesses the resultant noise in
the vicinity of the airport on a yearly basis during summer months. The result is presented
yearly to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. The Aviation Noise and
Satellite Programs staff attends a quarterly Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
meeting to help address pertinent noise issues that may arise. Since1991 the following
operations (takeoff and landing) have occurred at the airport
(http://www.macavsat.org/relievers/fcm, 2/28/04).
72 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Year Aircraft Operations
1991 198,085 1992 195,694 1993 211,205 1994 232,130 1995 216,313 1996 212,703 1997 202,137 1998 210,907 1999 192,737 2000 186,078 2001 185,593 2002 176,408 2003 155,837
4.1. Flying Cloud Airport expansion plans and operational forecast
MAC has proposed and expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. Consequently, the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplement Draft EIS were prepared for the expansion which include in 2001 by the FAA and MAC: The propose expansion
will be as follows:
¾ Extending the north, east/west parallel runway 300 feet to the west for
a total length of 3,900.
¾ Extending the south, east/west parallel runway 1,200 feet to the west
for a total length of 5,000.
¾ Construction of additional hangers on the south side of the airport.
¾ Acquisition of approximately 280 acres of land to protect the runway
approaches and for the new hanger area. Shown below is the EIS
operational forecast for the airport.
73 Aircraft Operations Expansion Alternative Year 2000 2005 2010
Total 234,470 240,160 241,353 No-Expansion Jet 7,612 8,335 8,659 Total 267,750 289,743 302,982 Expansion (Alternative F) Jet 19,594 22,781 24,433
Source: Supplement Draft Environmental Impact Statement, August 2001.
Currently, the airport has two parallel east/west runways 3,600 feet and 3,900 feet in length and one-north/south runway 2,700 feet in length. The airport has a full instrument approach landing system with FAA controlled tower. It operates 24-hours a day and is capable of handle all single-engine piston aircraft, most twin-engine piston, turboprop, and corporate turbojet aircraft (www.macavsat.org, 3/31/02).
74 4.2. Flying Cloud Airport Operator
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) a-14 member Commission created in
1943 owns and operates seven airports including Flying Cloud Airport. The others are:
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), St. Paul Downtown Airport, Airlake
Airport, Anoka County-Blaine Airport, Crystal Airport, and Lake Elmo Airport. Flying
Cloud airport located in south central Eden Praire covers 780 acres. The airport, one of six reliever airports to MAP, is classified as General Utility Airport by the FAA and as a minor Airport the Metropolitan Council (http://wwwedenpraire.org, 7/28/04).
75
76 4.3. The History of the Airport
The history of the airport can be traced to the World War II. In 1941, the U.S.
Navy needed a place to train it pilots arranged with a local farmer; Martin “Pappy” Grill
to use a strip he owned. When the strip became obsolete to the Navy, Mr. Grill sold it
with some additional land to Ken Osterberg and W. Beadie of American Aviation, Inc.
By the fall of 1945, this sixty-acre field had been transformed into a “modern airfield”
with two wooden hungers and an administration building. It was named Flying Cloud by
then the airfield manager, Mr. John Stuber. The airport was going to be named Southwest
Minneapolis Airport but Mr. Stuber thought naming the airport Flying Cloud would
reflect the local Indian lore and flying (http://www.edenprairie.org, 7/28/04).
American Aviation, operator of the field, sold it to MAC in 1948. MAC was at that time a new agency created by the state legislature to own and operate a system of airports within the metropolitan area. MAC paved the runway a year after its acquisition, built a control tower on the south side of the field in 1963. In 1966 it was ranked the busiest airfield in the Central United States, second only to the Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. The airport is on record as logging 446,198 operation (take-offs and landings) in 1968, making it the ninth busiest airport in the nation (http://www.edenprairie.org, 7/28/04). The airport logs about
200,000 annually in recent years, making it one of the busiest reliever airports in the
MAC airport system. Over the years the airport has increased in size to about 561 acres,
with 120 leased aircraft storage facilities and 485 based aircraft. In 2000 Flying Cloud
logged a daily average operations of 510 for a yearly total of 186,078. Though lowest in
comparison to some of its previous years operations it.
77 was the higher than any the relievers in the MAC airport system
(http://www.edenprairie.org, 7/28/04).
FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT-2010 DNL Noise Contours
78 4.4. Noise abatement measures
MAC, the operator Flying Cloud Airport is a recipient of FAA airport
development grants. Hence it has to adhere to all necessary federal legislative
requirements pertaining to such grant (See Part One Pages 15-19). MAC in cooperation
with airport users, airport businesses, the FAA and the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory
Commission created a Noise Abatement Plan. In March 1991, the Eden Prairie City
Council endorsed the plan. The endorsement of the plan set the stage for ways to
understand aircraft related noise at the airport and means to address it. Part of the
requirement for the endorsement was that MAC provides noise monitoring to help
establish the pattern of noise associated with Flying Cloud Airport. To effectively
evaluate the Noise abatement plan and make positive corrections such monitoring should
detail where aircraft noise occurs, its magnitude, and its source (Metropolitan Airports
Commission – Flying Cloud Airport Monitoring Study 2000, Pg. 1).
MAC provided a full time monitoring staff each summer who monitors noise and
measures the effectiveness of the noise plan. To determine whether the plan was been
effective, an Air Traffic Observations Survey was conducted during the summer of 1993
and again in 2000. The main purpose of the survey was to determine runway usage and
departure procedures for particular types of aircraft. In all there was ten summer of
Airport Noise Monitoring and eight summer of Air Traffic Observations (Metropolitan
Airport Commission – Flying Cloud Airport Monitoring Study 2000, Pg. 1).
4.5. The Noise Abatement Plan
As stated earlier the airport operator has been working cooperatively with interested parties on the expansion effort and also the anticipated airport noise problems
79 The noise abatement plan for the Flying Cloud Airport was developed with the
recognition of the need to make the airport and the surrounding community as environmentally compatible as possible. Many of the recommendation contained in the
plan were already in place and have proven to be effective. The intent of the plan is to
direct the majority of air traffic over the sparsely populated Minnesota River in order to reduce noise levels over the nearby residential areas. Also, to help reduce noise levels over sensitive areas the traffic pattern altitude was raised to 1000 feet (Metropolitan
Airports Commission – Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Plan, Pg. 1).
In addition, the plan called for comprehensive noise control and compatibility planning. Among such issues were land use compatibility, airport design, aircraft and airport operational procedures, access restriction and noise management. . In an effort to foster inclusiveness groups and associations were formed to represent the stakeholders. The following are the groups and associations formed to address the issues.
4.5.1. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Committee
Developed in July 1998, the purpose of the EIS Committee was to ensure adequate input into the EIS development process on behalf of the various parties represented on the committee (www.macavsat.org 3/31/2002).
4.5.2. EIS Noise Mitigation Committee
The EIS Committee created the EIS Noise Mitigation Committee. Its intent was to
develop noise mitigation measures to address future noise impact around the airport in
the future, consistent with the planned expansion. As a result of cooperative effort by its
members, it was able to develop a noise mitigation plan that was submitted to MAC and
80 was approved for inclusion in the DEIS for public review and comment. The noise mitigation plan it developed included the following: (a) Preferential Use of Runways, (b)
Preferential Departure Routes, (c) Voluntary Nighttime Use Agreements (d) Maintenance
Run-Up Provisions, (e) Provisions for Incompatible New Land Use Development,
(f) Provisions for Incompatible Existing Land Use, (g) Provisions for Incompatible Infill
Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures, (h) Airport User
Information, (i) Noise Violation Process, and (j) Compliance with Ordinance 51
(www.macavsat.org 3/31/2002).
The Advisory Commission recommended and the EIS Noise Mitigation
Committee endorsed the following modification to Ordinance 51.
¾ Jet aircraft not meeting FAR Part 36 Stage 3 certification requirements
will not use the airport between the night time hours of 2200 and 0600
local time. Aircraft weighing up to 22,500 pounds Basic Empty Weight
(BEW) and meeting Part 36 Stage 3 certification requirements would be
allowed to use the airport.
¾ Maintenance runs for all aircraft will not be permitted after curfew hours
(2200 to 0600 local time).
¾ Scheduled airline and FAR 121 cargo operators are not permitted at the
airport.
¾ The purpose was to keep the existing provision of Ordinance 51 in place
for Stage 2 aircraft and add the above points to the Ordinance.
81 4.5.3. Airport Advisory Commission
Formed in 1978, it was intended to promote for serve as a communication liaison
between the City of Eden Prairie and the MAC. It has since its formation acted as a
conduit for discussions and resolution of noise related issues at the airport. It was credited
for the development of the airport’s Voluntary Noise Abatement Plan. The plan which
recognizes the need to make the airport and the surrounding community as environmentally compatible as possible came to being as a result of cooperative effort
between airport users, airport business, the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission,
city officials, FAA and the MAC.
The plan explicitly outlines noise sensitive procedures to be followed by pilots in
an effort to reduce noise impacts around the airport. The operational noise reduction
measures contained in the plan are as follows: (a) Noise Abatement Takeoff and
Approach Procedures, (b) traffic pattern procedures, (c) Maintenance Run-Ups
provisions, (d) helicopter training procedures, and (e) nighttime restrictions. The MAC,
since 1991, under the direction and review of the Advisory Commission, has been
conducting a noise-monitoring study, as part of an agreement it reached with the City of
Eden Prairie in 1990.
The study, conducted during the summer months, is a yearly evaluation intended
to establish a baseline of noise information prior to the airport expansion, as well as provide a mechanism for the ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the Voluntary
Noise Abatement Plan. Additionally, the Advisory Commission reviews noise complaints on a quarterly basis and follow-up on those complaints it deems necessary
(http://www.macnoise.com/relievers/fcm, 3/31/2002).
82 4.6. Rule I Noise abatement takeoff and approach procedures
A basic noise mitigation strategy in use at the Flying Cloud Airport is takeoff and landing procedures. This strategy involves runway selection, takeoff and landing profiles and power settings, and approach or departure paths. The following takeoff and landing approach procedures are used at Flying Cloud Airport:
¾ During calm wind conditions (less than 5 knots) the preferred runway
shall be 9R. Depending on traffic conditions runway 9L may be used.
¾ To have the least impact on the surrounding community, and to provide
for an orderly flow of traffic during non-towered hours, the following
priorities are to be used:
4.6.1. Piston Engine Aircraft or Turbo Prop Aircraft.
Arrivals – 9R, 9L, 27L, 27R, 36, 18
Departure – 9R, 9L, 27L, 27R, 18 36
4.6.2. Jet Aircraft:
Arrival/Departure – 9R, 27L
¾ An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
approach slope indicator or precision approach slope indicator is to
maintain an altitude at or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is
necessary for a safe landing
¾ All general aviation turbine aircraft are to use National Business
Aircraft Association Noise Abatement Procedures when arriving to or
departing the airport.
83 ¾ Turbojet aircraft departing on Runway 9R or 27L are to turn southerly
heading after crossing the departure end of the runway and attaining an
altitude of 500 feet above ground level.
¾ Itinerant traffic are to turn to a southerly heading after crossing the
departure end of the runway and attaining an altitude of 500 feet above
ground level.
4.7. Rule II Traffic Pattern Procedures
Traffic pattern is the specific path to be flown by aircraft operating in the vicinity of
an airport. The following procedures are to be adhered to while operating in the traffic
pattern at the Flying Cloud Airport:
¾ Maintain a traffic pattern altitude of 1000 feet above ground level
established in Part 91 of the Federal Air Regulations.
¾ Prohibition of multiple training events by jet aircraft in the traffic
pattern.
¾ Extended legs in the traffic pattern are forbidden.
¾ Aircraft remaining in the traffic pattern are to use the south parallel
runway.
4.8. Rule III Maintenance runups.
Two locations on the airport are designated for engine tests and maintenance runups. These locations are intended to help minimize the amount of noise projected toward adjacent residential areas.
4.9. Rule IV Helicopter training
¾ All helicopter training are to done within the helicopter traffic pattern
84 area as depicted on the Letter of Agreement between the MAC, FAA
and Helicopter Flight, Inc.
¾ Helicopter training in the traffic pattern area is prohibited from 2200
local time to 0800 local time.
¾ Air Traffic Control determines traffic pattern procedures for training
helicopters, keeping in mind the noise sensitive areas surrounding the
airport.
4.10. Rule IV Nighttime restrictions
The period of 2200 hours to 0700 hours is when most people are resting and are most sensitive to noise intrusions. The following nighttime restrictions are in effect at the airport to help minimize the effect of airport noise on the surrounding community.
¾ No training allowed in the traffic pattern between the hours of 2400
and 0700.
¾ Intersection takeoffs discouraged especially between the hours of 2200
and 0700.
¾ All aircraft not meeting Federal Air Regulation Part 36 are forbidden
at the airport between the hours of 2200 and 0700 (Metropolitan
Airports Commission – Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Plan
Pg. 1-3).
4.10.1. Noise complaint procedure
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has set up a phone line to receive complaints about aircraft operations in the metropolitan area since 1970. The phone number is staffed 24-hours per day. Originally set up to receive complaints from the
85 International Airport, they also handle complaints regarding the reliever airports including Flying Cloud. Callers are requested to give as detailed information about the problem as possible. The information is then passed to either the Manager or the
Assistant Manager of the airport. If the problem party can be identified he/she is counseled, however, appropriate measures are taken against repeat offenders. The complaints are kept on file and are reviewed regularly by the Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Council and the Airport Commission (Metropolitan Airports
Commission – Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Pg. 3).
86 5. Van Nuys Airport – Van Nuys, California
AERIAL VIEW OF VAN NUYS AIRPORT
87 LAYOUT MAP
Van Nuys Airport has implemented and expanded its noise management program with one purpose in mind – to reduce aircraft noise in the residential communities adjacent to the airport. Today, more resources than ever before are being dedicated to minimize the impact of noise associated with the operation of aircraft
(www.lawa.org/vny.htm).
The Van Nuys Airport located on a 730 acres is approximately 20 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. It is the “heart and soul” of business/commerce and industry
88 in the San Fernando Valley. With yearly average takeoffs and landings of nearly
600,000, makes it one of the busiest general aviation airports in the world and the fifth busiest in the United States (Van Nuys Airport, Los Angeles World Airports).
Although not a commercial passenger airport, Van Nuys caters to the needs of leisure, business and government travelers using private, corporate and charter aircraft.
Van Nuys is one of four airports owned and operated by City of Los Angeles, including
Los Angeles International, Ontario International, and Palmdale Regional Airport. As a general aviation facility, Van Nuys help enhances capacity and safety at the regional commercial airports because it relieves leisure, tourist and corporate users from those airports. The airport is home to more than 100 businesses including six major fixed-base operators and many aviation service operators. The airport provides aircraft maintenance, fueling, aircraft parking/tiedown, charter service, flight and ground school instruction, aircraft manufacturing, avionics installation and air transport for emergency or media services. All the airports including Van Nuys operates under the direction of a policy- making Board of Airport Commissioners appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles
(http://www.lawa.org/vny/htm, 8/3/2004).
89
18 YEAR AIRCRAFT INVENTORY HISTORY
5.1. History of the Airport
In the 1920s, in the rural San Fernando Valley, a small group of men incorporated
to build an airport. Opened in 1928 under the name Metropolitan Airport on an 80-acre
land surrounded by nothing but trees and farmland. At the time hanger fees for a biplane
were $35 a month and landing fees were 50 cents. In 1930s, the Metropolitan Airport
attracted many stars from Hollywood. Not only did some of the well known stars of that era flew at the airport but also some of the box office “heavy draws” of the period were filmed there. In fact, “Lost Horizon,” “Men with Wings,” and “Storm Over the Andes” all have scenes filmed at the airport (http://www.lawa.org/vny/htm/history.html, 8/3/04).
90 When the Second World War began in 1942, the United States Army purchased
163 acres of the airport property including an acquisition of additional 163 acres of land near the airport for the construction of what became the Van Nuys Army Airfield. In
1944 the United States Navy and the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation jointly constructed the Navy-Lockheed plant. At the same time, Hollywood continued using the airport for filming. A most notable was the scene from “Casablanca” shot at the airport
(http://homel.gte.net/ibalders/vnyhist.htm, 8/12/04).
After the war, the City of Los Angeles purchased the airport from the War Assets
Administration for a token of one dollar, with the understanding that the California Air
National Guard remained there. The airport was renamed San Fernando Valley Airport. It received its current name in 1957. With the completion of the Sherman Way underpass, the runway was expanded from 6,000 to 8,000 feet. The area around the airport experienced industrial growth with annual payroll of companies reaching $43 million.
As industries continue to encroach on the airport, so do residential development.
Developers requested for changes to the City of Los Angeles’ zoning law to enable them build 150 new homes in the areas surrounding the airfield. Their request was granted, and all the new homes built in the area had notices in their deeds that stated, “Lots lie within the approach zone of major airport and are subject to certain noise.” A new control tower started operation at the airport in 1951 and by 1959 the airport was ranked 25 in operation nationwide (http://www.lawa.org/vny/htm/history.htmi, 8/3/04). The airport operations continued to grow throughout the sixties so did aviation industries growth in the area.
The present air traffic control tower was constructed at the airport in 1968 and in that same year, a 27-hole golf course was built in the “clear zone” on the airport property.
91 Today, Van Nuys Airport has, among other things, two parallel runways. Runway
16R/34L 8,000 -foot runway with full instrument landing system. Runway 16L/34 R –
4,000 - foot training runway and an FAA Control Tower which operates daily between
5.45 a.m. and 10.45 p.m. In addition, it has a helicopter center which consists of ramp, hanger space and maintenance facility, Aviation Mechanic School where student obtain certification in airframe and power plant mechanics and Civil Air Patrol/Condor
Squadron consisting of Vintage AT-6 Texan aircraft used in World War II training missions. This craft flies in formation weekly as well as participate in patriotic, charitable and memorial activities (http://www.lawa.org/vny/html/features.html, 8/3/04).
92 VAN NUYS AIRPORT
TOTAL OPERATIONS HISTORY
5.2. Economic impact
With its proximity to local communities, business centers, entertainment industry and recreational facilities, Van Nuys Airport is an integral part of the region’s economy.
The airport generates, attracts and supports both aviation and non-aviation activities in the San Fernando Valley, Greater Los Angeles and throughout Southern California. A home improvement store, hotel, golf course complex and restaurants to name a few are all located on the property (Van Nuys Airport Economic Impact Report, 1999, Pg. 1).
93 An economic impact study released in 1999 by Los Angeles World Airports
concluded that the airport contributes around $1.2 billion dollars to the Southern
California economy, creates 10,027 jobs, generating an earnings impact of $273 millions.
The study also found that the airport generates $73 million in state and local taxes. Due to
the airport’s urban location about 312,700 visitors fly through it yearly using private
corporate and charter aircraft (http://www.lawa.org/vny/html/economic_impact.html,
8/3/04). These visitors require local transportation, meals and accommodations. Most are corporate executives who make considerable expenditure while in the Los Angeles area.
Each visitor spends an average of $309, resulting in $96.7 million per year. The airport does not receive local tax dollars towards its operation as it is financed entirely by revenues from lease, rental and user fees (http://www.lawa.org/vny/html, 8/3/04).
VAN NUYS AIRPORT ECONOMIC IMPACT (millions)
Employment 1995 2015 W/Project 2015 W/O Project Direct Employment 3,477 4,033 $2,717 Indirect/Induced 4,506 6,012 3,709 Employment TOTAL Employment 7,983 10,045 6,426 Direct Output (millions) 740 740 1,300 Indirect/Induced Output 552 512 838 (millions) TOTAL Output 1290 1252 $2,138.00
ANNUAL NET GENERAL FUND REVENUE AMOUNTS 1995-2015
1995 Reported 2015 without 2015 with Project Project Possessory Interest Tax $2,139.00 $2,363.00 $11,535.00 Utility Interest Tax 281,124.00 517,691.00 578,997.00 Sales Tax (1%) 57,750.00 77,839.00 77,839.00 Transient Occupancy Tax 696,103.00 1,416,342.00 1,587,201.00 Interdepartmental Costs $1,587,100.00 2,922,475.00 3,047,475.00 TOTAL $2,624,216.00 $4,936,710.00 $5,30,047.00
Source: Van Nuys Airport Environmental Impact Study
94 5.3. Noise Abatement Program at Van Nuys Airport
Van Nuys Airport has implemented and expanded its noise management program
with one purpose in mind – to reduce aircraft noise in the residential communities
adjacent to the airport. As such more resources than ever before are being dedicated to
minimize the impacts associated with airport operations according to Mr. Richard J.
French, Public Relation Specialist for the airport. He further stated, “our noise management program strives to balance the needs of airport users with those of airport neighbors to effectively reduce aircraft noise.”
The airport’s noise management program and community response programs are done by Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA)’s noise management branch office with full support of the public affairs, airfield operations and administrative staff at the airport
(What Van Nuys Airport is Doing About Noise, Pg.1).
5.4. The noise management program
Van Nuys airport has an ongoing noise reduction program that includes among other things: mandatory noise abatement and curfew regulation, voluntary quiet jet departure as well as early turn and helicopter route and altitude deviation. The goal is to:
monitor and abate noise at Van Nuys Airport success, provide meaningful noise response
to the community; and achieve effective noise reduction at the source through ongoing
pilot education and counseling. Using the same technology, as does the FAA, the LAWA
noise management branch office tracks all arrivals and departures at Van Nuys Airport. If
an operation violates any of the mandatory or voluntary noise abatement programs, the
aircraft owner/operator or enforcement authority is notified for appropriate action to be
taken. Below is the description of the Van Nuys’ Noise abatement programs:
95 5.4.1. Noise abatement and curfew regulation
The Los Angeles City Council adopted the noise abatement and curfew Ordinance in 1981. The regulation prohibits Stage 3 aircraft (newer or modified jet-engine) that generates noise level above 74 decibels, from departing the airport between the hours of
10: p.m. and 7: a.m. Similarly, newer or modified jet-engine aircraft that produce less noise, are not permitted to depart the airport after 11: p.m. Also run-ups for engine maintenance are only allowed between 7: a.m. and 7: p.m. in designated areas.
Exempted from this regulation are helicopters, medical emergency flights, military aircraft and government-operated aircraft for emergency purposes. Any one who violates the regulation could result in a fine ranging from $750 to $3,500. Depending on the nature of the violation the fine may include denial for permission to use the airport for up to three years. The Board of Airport Commissioners recently approved an amendment to the existing airport noise abatement and curfew regulation. Subject to certain exceptions, the amendment, known as Non-Addition Rule, prohibits addition of any older, noisier jet-engine aircraft (Stage 2) that generates noise level in excess of 77 decibels from being based at the VNY (http://www.lawa.org, 8/3/04).
5.4.2. Quite Jet Departure Program
A program began in 1994 in which pilots voluntary agree to: a) Use noise abatement techniques as established in manufacturers’ operating manuals or the Business
Aviation Association Noise Abatement Program. b) Make every effort within adequate safety margins to abide by proper noise-reducing protocols. c) Actively participate in the monitoring program by working with airport staff and others to research any residential complaints regarding one of their flights. d) Work with airport staff and the Van Nuys
96 and the Van Nuys Association to support and encourage other Jet Departure Program. As part of this program, microphones have been placed near the end of the runway to measure departure sound levels. Noise management bureau staff monitors this data on a daily basis. The monitoring staff sends a written notification to owners and operators who exceed criterion noise levels (What Van Nuys Airport Is Doing About Noise, Pg. 4).
5.4.3. Early turn program
A program intended to educate aircraft owners and operators of airport noise abatement procedures to reduce the impact of departure on the airport neighbors. It is a
24-hour monitoring program to detect pilots who turn too early after departure and as result fly over residential areas. Unless specifically instructed to do so by air traffic control, any pilot whose operation is deemed contrary to this program is subject to appropriate action by the VNY noise management branch office.
5.4.4. Helicopter route and altitude deviation program
This program notifies helicopter owners and operators of arrival and departure operations that violate established FAA routes. It also uses the notification procedure as a means of requesting compliance. The FAA has no minimum altitude restrictions for helicopters; however, it does have agreements from VNY-based operators to follow established routes and recommended altitude minimums.
5.4.5. Residential Soundproofing
Los Angeles World Airports in conjunction with local authorities have implemented an Airport Residential Soundproofing Program for noise impacted residential areas in the City of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles World Airports provides funding for this program, which is used mainly to install acoustic modifications. The
97 purpose, lessen the impact of aircraft noise on homes adjacent to the airport. It is strictly a
voluntary program and participants do not incur any cost. Residential buildings in areas
of the City with a recorded Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65 decibels or higher on the noise contour map are eligible for the program (What Van Nuys Airport Is
Doing About Noise, pg. 4.)
5.5. Other noise abatement programs
5.5.1. Noise and complaint monitoring
The airport authorities use variety of ways to monitor noise and complaints. The noise monitoring and complaint are done through the following: a) Flight progress strips.
Paper strips of flight tracking data used by air traffic controllers. b) Audio recordings of air traffic control tower frequencies. c) Noise event data from field microphones. d)
Radar track data. e) Curfew operation logs. f) Noise complaint logs.
5.5.2. Response to the community
The VNY noise management branch office receives and records noise complaints made to a 24-hour community noise response phone line set up by the airport. The branch office provides its findings to VNY administration, operations and public affairs staff.
Calls to the number are logged and from it, a monthly summary report prepared. The noise management staff responds to calls with letters that include data on the specific aircraft operations and information about whether the pilot violated any voluntary or mandatory noise abatement program (What VNY Airport is Doing About Noise, pg.4).
5.5.3. Community Awareness
The airport authority holds regular meetings with pilots who use the airport to educate them about noise programs and associated issues. The authority also uses the
98 deviation notification letters as means of educating and counseling individual pilots
whom operational activity conflict with the VNY’s noise management program.
Additionally, these communications help increase general awareness of the airport’s
noise reduction effort as the notification letter(s) provides pilots with information such as
date, time, route used and a computer “snapshot” of the operation flight track.
5.6. Van Nuys Airport Plan
The airport plan includes only the land within the boundaries of the airport. The plan is designed to promote the compatibility of the airport with the surrounding community. The following are some of the policies aimed at reducing noise contained in the plan (Van Nuys Airport Plan, February 2000, Pg. 3-11).
99 6. Lunken Airport, Cincinnati, Ohio
AERIAL VIEW OF LUNKEN AIRPORT
“Working together for a better quality of life”. The City of Cincinnati owns and
operates the Lunken Airport. When the airport opened in 1926, there were hardly any developments in the vicinity of the airport. Now there is no area surrounding the airport
that is not environmentally sensitive. Hence the City considers aircraft noise a priority
issue and the airport is noise sensitive airport. As such, the City initiated efforts to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on its surrounding communities in the 1970s and continue to do so today.
6.1. History of the airport
Lunken Airport is located in the southern portion of Hamilton County, Ohio. It is
approximately four and half miles east of Cincinnati’s Central Business District. It
occupies an area on which the early settlers built the town “Columbia”, which is now the
100 present-day Cincinnati. The area frequently experienced high waters and floods so the development of Cincinnati moved to higher elevation. As a result, the original site for the city became nothing but grain fields.
After the 1st World War, a group of retired army pilots developed one of the grain fields into a small barnstorming airport. Charles Lindbergh’s transoceanic solo flight heightened interest in further development of the airfield and Mr. Edmund Lunken, a prominent Cincinnati industrialist and an aviation enthusiast purchased the property. In the early 1920s, Mr. Lunken leased his 204 acres of land to the private Lunken Airport
Company for use as an airfield. In 1928 the City of Cincinnati leased the property from
Mr. Lunken with the understanding that the City will build a Municipal Airport in his honor. In addition to this “gift”, the City purchased the adjacent land, together, the City had land acreage of 1,140 called “Lunken Airport” as stipulated in the original lease.
Except for a portion leased to the City’s Department of Recreation, the airport today occupies almost all the 2,000 acres it owns (The History of Cincinnati Municipal, Lunken
Airport: 75 Years of Aviation).
In its glory days, Lunken airport served as an important port for mail distribution as well as national passenger “hub” for some of the nation’s major airline of that time. It is record that in 1929 Lunken Airport had 29,059 flights carrying 8,528 passengers and
80,000 pounds of mail. History indicates that many prominent businesses began their maiden journey at Lunken. Today the major aircraft manufacturing companies and major avionics activities that were once the signature of the airport are gone, however, it still serves as home for some of the areas ‘big name” corporate jets. As a general aviation airport, it serves as a primary reliever to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
101 Airport in Kenton County Kentucky. Individual owner/operators and corporate aircraft
are dominant users of the airport. The airport now occupies about 1000 acres of land and has 3 runways; 2 are parallel runways (3/21 L and R) and 1 intersecting crosswind runway (7/25). Runway 21 L is equipped with a precision instrument landing system enabling it to accommodate jet aircraft. The lateral separation configuration of the runways makes it possible for aircrafts to simultaneously operate independently under
Visual Flight Rules (F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Vol. I, 2004).
AIRCRAFT CATEGORY AND TYPICAL AIRCRAFT TYPES
Aircraft Category Representative Aircraft Types
Single-engine Piston/Turboprop BE23, C150, C172, C182, C206, PA46
Multi-engine Piston BE55, BE58, C310, C421, PA31
Multi-engine Turboprop AC90, BE20A, BE300, C441
Business Jet BE40, C525, C550, C560, C650, C750, F70, FA20, GLF4, LJ35
Helicopter Bell206, BK117
Military C130, F15, F16, F18
ANNUAL AND DAILY AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Aircraft Categories Annual Average Day
Single-engine Piston/Turboprop 71,802 197
Multi-engine Piston 20,212 55
Multi-engine Turboprop 6,764 19
Business Jet 30,379 83
Helicopter 2,668 7
Military 389 1
Total 132,214 362
Source: Lunken Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program, May, 2004
102 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX
Category/ Aircraft Types Noise Level Designator INM Designator Percent of Fleet Single-engine Piston/Turboprop Beechcraft 23 N/A GASEPF 19.02%
Cessna 172 N/A CNA172 12.49%
Cessna 206 N/A CNA206 17.38%
Piper 46 N/A GASEFV 5.42%
Multi-engine Piston
Piper 31 N/A BEC589 15.28%
Sub-total 15.28%
Multi-engine Turboprop
Beechcraft 2000 3 SD330 2.46%
Beechcraft 300 N/A DHC6 2.66%
Sub-total 5.12%
Business Jet
Cessna 525 3 CNA500 0.69%
Cessna 650 3 CIT3 0.69%
Cessna 750 3 CNA750 0.93%
Canadair CL-60 3 CL600 1.36%
Fokker 70 2 F10062 0.92%
Falcon 203 3 FAL20 0.47%
Cessna 560 3 MU3001 8.26%
Gulfstream III 2 GIIB 0.72%
Gulfstream IV 3 GIV 1.38%
LearJet 35 3 LEAR35 7.56%
Sub-total 22.98%
Helicopter
Bell 206 N/A B206L 0.60%
BK 117 N/A BO105 1.42%
Sub-total 2.02%
Military
C-130 3 C130 0.29%
Sub-total 0.29%
103 6.2. Lunken’s Noise Compatibility Programs
Lunken is one of the early initiators of programs to minimize noise impacts from
aircraft on the airport’s neighbors. This was evident in its 1989 Master Plan, which
looked at the potential impact of aircraft noise if the airport was to experience future
growth. Though the 1989 Master Plan’s Zoning recommendations were never implemented, it identified compatible and non-compatible land uses near the airport.
Cincinnati Lunken Airport Recommended Procedures for VFR Arrivals and
Departures were put in place in 1992, which dealt with turbine-powered aircraft, night operations, etc. Continuing the efforts to make the airport “noise friendly”, the airport, in collaboration with the Lunken Airport Advisory and Users Committee as well as the
FAA Flight Standard District Office (FSDO), instituted the “Fly Neighborly” program for pilots and would-be-pilots in 2000. The intent was to make pilots and other users of the airport aware of the sensitivity of the noise issue and how to make it manageable. The Fly
Neighborly program and other noise abatement procedures are discussed in the preceding pages. The same year the Airport updated the Cincinnati Lunken Airport Recommended
Procedures to what is now the airport’s Recommended Noise Abatement Procedures.
6.3. Existing Noise Abatement Procedures
As indicated above, Lunken Airport has over the years, put in place a number of
noise abatement procedures. The measures are operational related (arrival/departure) and
are meant to minimize aircraft noise impact in the noise sensitive areas surrounding the
airport. The following are existing noise abatement procedures at Lunken Airport.
6.3.1. Arrivals
6.3.1.1. Aircraft from the northeast
104 ¾ Landing south of the airport, using runway 21 L, 21 R or 25
must follow the Little Miami River maintaining 1,500 MSL
or above until 2-mile final.
¾ Landing north of the airport aircraft is to maintain 1,500
MSL or above to 2-mile final or 2,500 if overflying
sensitive areas and must follow interstate beltway and river
to runways.
6.3.1.2. From the south and the east
¾ Aircraft should maintain 1,500 MSL or above until 2-mile
final or 2,500 MSL or above if overflying sensitive areas
when landing south., also aircraft is to follow the Ohio
River and maintain 1,500 MSL or above until 2-mile final.
6.3.1.3. From the southwest
¾ Aircraft is to maintain 2,500 MSL or above if flying over
sensitive areas. Must maintain 1,500 MSL or above until 2-
mile final when landing south.
¾ Follow Interstate 275 northbound and maintain 1,500 MSL
or above until 2-mile final when landing north.
6.3.1.4. From the northwest
¾ Regardless of runway used, the aircraft must maintain
2,500 MSL or above. If flying over sensitive areas the pilot
is to maintain 1,500 MSL or above until 2-mile final.
6.3.1.5. Departures
105 ¾ All aircraft are to use runways 3R, 3L, 7 and must avoid
noise sensitive areas.
¾ Aircraft using runway 21L, 21R, 25 – aircraft must follow
river southeast bound to 2,000 before turning on course.
6.4. Other Measures
6.4.1. Maintenance Run-up Restrictions
¾ Prohibition of Jet and turbine engine aircraft run-ups on
ramp areas and shall be conducted in the areas designated
by the Airport Manager or Air Traffic Control
¾ Execice caution in order to prevent undue noise and prop
blast on airport tenant area
¾ Except for an emergency, all maintenance run-ups shall be
conducted between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, or between the hours of 1:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on weekends
¾ The airport has also designated preferred run-up areas;
Taxiway A-25/21L Holding/Run-Up Area, Taxiway B and
Taxiway G/Run-Up Area. Pilots using the airport must
adhere to AOPA guideline/recommendation
¾ Put as much distance as possible between your aircraft and
the noise sensitive areas
¾ On takeoff, gain altitude as quickly as possible while still
within the airport’s boundary
106 ¾ Request the longest runway available, use every foot of it
¾ Do Not request or accept interception departures
¾ Use the takeoff technique recommended by the pilot’s
operating handbook
¾ Climb at your best angle or rate-of-climb speed (operator’s
handbook)
¾ During touch-and-go operations, plan your touchdown for
the first third of the runway.
¾ When landing, use what are sometimes call “low-energy,
high-profile” descents
¾ Delay using flaps until necessary so that you don’t end up
using excessive power to maintain speed and altitude.
¾ Don’t compromise safety for noise abatement
6.4.2. Telephone Hotline
The airport has instituted a noise hotline to take calls from impacted citizens. This allows the airport to map calls and get a better picture of the affected areas. The airport has held several public meetings and workshops to make residents know that the airport understands their concerns and is willing to work with them on the noise issue.
Additionally, as part of addressing the noise issue, the city established a committee to oversee airport operations and growth and to report and advise the City
Council of their findings. Known as the Luncheon Airport Oversight Board, it consists of four community/residents, three Lunken Airport users, a representative of environmental and recreational interests and one at large, appointed by the mayor.
107 Recently, the City hired a consultant to conduct a F.A.R Part 150 Study for the
airport. A Part 150 Study or Airport Noise Compatibility Planning is a federal legislation
requiring airport operators to work collaboratively with their communities to address
noise impacts of aircraft operations. The airport’s Part 150 is still in a draft stage.
6.5. The airport’s economic impact
The Lunken Airport as a general aviation airport has been providing aviation- related goods and services to the Greater Cincinnati Community for over 75 years. As a result it has a profound economic significant to the region. The airport is home to nearly
60 businesses offering such services as aircraft repair and maintenance, air taxi, and flight instructions. It also houses some of the areas major corporate jets. There are non-aviation businesses that find the airport attractive. These coupled with the operation of the airport itself, create enormous economic activity in the region. Besides, the airport indirectly
contributes to the economic welfare of the region by bringing out-of-town people into the
region who bring new money into the region’s economy, thereby creating additional
economic growth. The industries that benefit the most from the visitor spending impact
are hotels and lodging places, retail trade, eating and drinking places, real estate, and transportation industries (The Economic Impact of Lunken On the Greater Cincinnati
Economy, June, 1999).
Also, the airport stimulates economic development in the area immediately
surrounding the airport by making it attractive place for aviation-related businesses or businesses that rely on aviation. Some businesses locate near the airport to take advantage of the close proximity to airport clients and airport business. For example, Firststar chose to build a new facility in the Lunken area because the company has daily flights at
108 Lunken for transporting checks. It is believed that if it were not for Lunken Airport,
Firststar would have moved this facility to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Lunken Airport is expanding to meet the needs of business that would like to locate at the airport and the needs of individuals that would like to store aircraft and make
more use of the airport. These improvements will have both short and long-term impacts.
In the short-run, there will be economic impacts from construction. In the long run, there
will be a greater economic activity and around Lunken due to its expansion (The
Economic Impact of Lunken Airport on the Greater Cincinnati Economy, June 1999).
Recently, there had been exploratory discussion of bringing in commercial
commuter aircraft that fly passengers for hire. This announcement of interest in
establishing air carrier services at Lunken seems to have fueled greater concern about
aircraft noise issues by the surrounding communities. The communities are aware of the
economic benefits such project will bring but they feel that increased development and
runway improvements will only increase the number of commercial carrier flights at the
airport thus increasing noise. The airport authorities have conducted series of public
meetings as a way of involving all interested parties in the decision process.
109 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Category Economic Activity
Total Payroll and Benefits $1,690,758.00
Total Other Operating Expenditures $1,734,508.00
Total Operating Expenditures $3,425,265.00
Local Operating Expenditures $3,251,815.00
Total Employment 37
Category Economic Activity
Total Payroll and Benefits $34,878,166.00
Total Other Operating Expenditures $44,200,281.00
Total Operating Expenditures $79,078,447.00
Local Operating Expenditures $55,210,295.00
Total Employment 708
Non-Aviation Related Activities
Impact on Business Sales $ 34,753,821.00
Impact on Earnings $ 83,744.076.00
Total Economic Impact $118,467,897.00
Impact on Employment 1,976
110 7. Findings and Recommendations
The aircraft noise became a growing problem in the 1960s with the advent of jet
aircraft and the rapid growth in the number of commercial aircraft operations in the
United States. With the growth came citizens’ concerns about noise ramifications in their
communities. Recognizing that aircraft noise and its adverse impact on residential and
other noise sensitive land uses would impede the growth of the aviation industry,
Congress decided to intervene by taking a regulatory action.
The increase focus on the aircraft noise problem can be attributed to factors such as: increase in air traffic, larger and more powerful jet engines, increased urbanization of
airport neighborhoods and heightened public awareness of its harmful effects. The
seriousness of the aircraft noise problem was manifested in 1969 by the passage of
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 36, setting a noise standard for the certification of turbojet aircraft of new design. Later, that regulation was amended in 1973, extending the same standard to all new aircraft of older design.
During the early years of aircraft noise abatement, the concern was at commercial
service airports with minimal attention given reliever/general aviation airports because the later was thought of as having less aircraft activity. Reliever/general airports are no longer stuck in the middle of “nowhere” with just cornfields as neighbors are like they used to be. Today, nearly all reliever/general aviation airports that only a few decades ago, were owned and operated by individual aviation enthusiasts are now owned and operated by Cities, municipalities or legislative bodies. Most reliever/general aviation
airports are experiencing rapidly growing communities encroaching on them therefore are
becoming a source of aircraft noise complaint than ever before. Aircraft noise to some is
111 an unwanted sound that disrupts peace and tranquility therefore a threat to public health.
Annoyance is the most prevalent effect of aircraft noise. But being able to measure the
annoyance caused by aircraft noise is very problematic due to the fact that annoyance is
individual perception. In the past 25 years, however, airport authorities, community and
airport planning agencies, following directives of the federal government, have taken
numerous approaches to control aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports including relievers. These measures include noise control at the source, operational restrictions and effective land use planning. These measures are credited for reducing aircraft noise impact on its communities.
The FAA is charged with administering a program of federal grants-in-aid for the
development of airport master plans, the acquisition of land and for the planning, design
and construction of eligible airport improvements.
F.A.R Part 150 otherwise known as Noise Compatibility Studies was singed into
law on February 18, 1980. The purpose of this law was “to provide and carry out noise
compatibility projects and to provide funding for such projects. The F.A.R Part 150 Study
establishes guidelines for the identification of land uses, which are not compatible with
aircraft noise. Land use control in noise-impacted areas around airports is a tool in
limiting the number of citizens exposed to noise. Through the F.A.R Part 150 Study, the
federal government encourages land use compatibility in the vicinity of airports. Yet, the
federal government has no direct legal jurisdiction to regulate land use. That authority
and responsibility lies solely with state and local governments.
All the airports studied have similar noise abatement programs. Except for
Lunken Airport, the other three airports serve more than one commercial airport. This
112 makes it difficult for proper accountability of which airport actually is responsible for the noise. For example at Lunken, there is a good chance that aircraft noise that residents in
Mt. Lookout, Hyde Park and some of the communities near the airport could be hearing noise from aircraft flyovers to Cincinnati/Kentucky International Airport.
Federal legislation stipulated that for airport to qualify for funding of noise abatement program, the noise-impacted area must fall within 65-noise contour line.
Scottsdale, Flying Cloud and Van Nuy airports have areas that fall with this requirement.
Thus these airports qualified for funding for soundproofing and other noise abatement projects, while Lunken does not. The study reveals that Lunken airport’s passenger growth has decline over the years while the others have actually gained significant growth. As noted earlier all the airports play a major role in the economy of their respective regions. Therefore all interested parties are working together to achieve an amicable goal. Lunken Airport does not have the kind of problem the other three airports have because it does not have room to grow. Flying Cloud Airport is one of the fastest growing airports in the nation today. Not only is the airport growing, the communities around it are growing as well. This makes it difficult for the airport but it has one of the best programs in place. The airports are doing the best they could to solve their respective aircraft noise problem. It will be a good ideal if an agency like the FAA establishes a central data bank for all reliever/general aviation to exchange information on what each reliever/general aviation airport is doing regarding noise problem.
Two of the four-reliever/general aviation airports in the case study, Van Nuys and
Lunken began as military airports. Reliever/general are playing a prominent role in the nation’s aviation system. As commercial service airports are increasingly becoming
113 congested with air traffic, there is a greater chance of demand on the reliever/ general
aviation airports. This coupled with residential and other growth in the areas around these
airports is bound to general increase pressure on the airports to deal with aircraft noise
problem. The reliever/general aviation airports in the case study and others like them are
here to stay and so are their communities. Therefore the airports and their surrounding communities need to devise means to communicate appropriately with each other. To the airports and their communities “we all just have to learn to live with each other”.
114 References
1. Norman Ashford & Paul H. Wright, Airport Engineering, 3rd Edition, John Willey &
Sons, Inc., New York, 1992
2. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Report to
Congress, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 1998-2002, Washington, D.C., 1998
3. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC150/5050-6
Airport-Land Use Compatibility Planning, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
December 30, 1977
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Aircraft Noise and the Market for Residential
Housing: Empirical Results for Seven Selected Airports, Office of University Research, Washington,
D.C., September, 1978
5. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Second National
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning. Summary of Proceedings: A
Dialogue to Balance Needs, New Orleans, LA December 1-3, 1981.
6. Randall Arendt, Growing Greene: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and
Ordinances, Island Press, Washington, D.C. 1999
7. Piyali Kundu, Airport Noise Control: Mitigation Efforts Through Land Use Regulation, Graduate
Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1994
8. Gary W. Evans, Lorraine Maxwell, Chronic Noise Exposure and Reading Deficits: The Mediating
Effects of Language Acquisition, Environment and Behavior, September 1997
9. Tsan-Ju, Shun-Sheng Chen, Pei-Yin Hsieh and Horn-Che Chiang, Auditory effects of Aircraft noise on
people living near an Airport, Archives of Environmental Health, http://web5.infotrac.glaegroup.com.
Accessed October 24, 2000
10. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Noise Issues and Related Impacts: The Issue of Noise,
http://www.njit.edu/Home/noise/chapter4.htm. Accessed August 8, 2001
11. Susan L. Staples, Randolph R. Cornelius, Margaret S. Gibs, and Noise disturbance from a developing
airport: Perceived risk or general annoyance? Environment and Behavior, September 1999.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?. Accessed, July 17, 2001
115 12. Molly Espey and Hilary Lopez, The Impact of Airport Noise and Proximity on
Proximity on Residential Property Values, Growth and Change, Vol. 31 (summer 2000), pp. 408-419,
Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA
13. Edward A. Meister and Rebecca J. Donatelle, The impact of commercial-aircraft
Noise on human health: A neighborhood study in Metropolitan Minnesota, Journal of Environmental
Health, Vol. 63, November 2000. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?. Accessed May 7, 2002.
14. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 150 (Docket No,
28149), Final Policy on Part 150 Approval of Noise Mitigation Measures: Effects on the Use of
Federal Grant for Noise Mitigation Projects,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. October 1, 1998
15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: Adverse
Effects of nighttime Aircraft Noise, Washington, D.C., 2000,
http://www.aviation.dft.gov.uk/sleepdisturbance/03.htm. Accessed September 20, 2002.
16. National Industrial Pollution Control Council, Airports and the Community: Sub-Council Report, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. February 1972.
17. Robert J. Koening and John Tyler, Airport Noise: Land-Use Compatibility by the Year 2000, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C. 1982.
18. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy, Washington, D.C. November 18, 1976.
19. Leo L. Beranek, Noise and Vibration Control, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Washington,
D.C.1988.
20. John Roberts and Diane Fairhall, Noise Control in the Built Environment, Gower Publishing Company
Limited, Vermont, 1988.
21. Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation of the Committee on Science and Technology: U.S.
House of Representatives, ninety-fourth Congress, 2nd Section, Aircraft Noise Abatement Technology,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., February 1976.
22. John R. Wiley, Airport Administration and Management, ENO Foundation for Transportation, Inc.,
Westport, Connecticut, 1986.
116 23. Dorothy N. Kane, Environmental Hazards to Young Children, ORYX Press, 1985.
24. Landrum & Brown, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport: F.A.R. Part 150 Study
Update, Cincinnati, and Ohio April 2000.
25. Flying off Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports, National Resources Defense
Council, Incorporated, October 23, 1996.
26. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 150/5020-
2, Noise Assessment Guidelines for New Heliports, Washington, D.C. December 9, 1983.
27. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Fighting Noise: Strengthening
Noise Abatement Policies, OECD, Paris, France, 1986.
28. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 150/5020-
1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning For Airports, Washington, D.C. August 5, 1983.
29. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, Guidelines for
Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control, Washington, D.C., June 1980.
30. Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Noise Effects, Washington, D.C., March 19985, http://
www.noise.org/library/ane/ane.htm. Accessed April 7, 2002.
31. Michael J.T. Smith, Aircraft Noise, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989.
32. (Scottsdale Airport: F.A.R. Noise Compatibility Study, Noise Compatibility Program Update, March
1977).
33. (http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/Noise.asp, 7/23/04)
34. (https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Airport/PledgeForm.asp, 7/23/04)
35. (http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/ai…/NoiseSub_Reports_FAQ.as, 7/23/04)
36. (http://www.macnoise.com/relievers/fcm/expansion.htm
117