Massport Community Advisory Committee One Broadway, 14th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142
September 10, 2020
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Massport CAC Members
RE: Inaugural Boston Logan International Airport Fly Quiet Report
Dear Massport CAC Members:
Attached you will find Massport’s transmittal letter as well as a copy of the official Inaugural Boston Logan International Airport Fly Quiet Report.
At the request of the Massport Community Advisory Committee (MCAC), Massport contracted with aviation consultant Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) to develop the report. Massport worked collaboratively with the MCAC to develop the report to increase transparency and provide more information for the communities and the residents impacted by Logan’s operations.
Logan Airport joins other U.S. airports, such as San Francisco International Airport and O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, who also publish quarterly Fly Quiet Reports. As quarterly reports are released, the MCAC will continue to provide feedback to Massport on ways to improve the report over time. The MCAC aims to use the data to work with Massport to develop a Fly Quiet Program to encourage airlines to optimize their operations and provide noise benefits for the residents impacted by Logan Airport.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Romero Massport CAC Executive Director
Enc: Inaugural Massport Fly Quiet Report and Transmittal Letter cc: David Carlon, MCAC Chair
Massachusetts Port Authority One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S East Boston, MA 02128-2909 Telephone (617) 568-5000 www.massport.com
September 2, 2020
VIA Electronic Mail Matthew Romero, Executive Director Massport Community Advisory Committee [email protected]
RE: Fly Quiet Report
Dear Mr. Romero,
Attached please find the final draft template of the Boston Logan Fly Quiet Report. This draft template reflects input from the MCAC both in content and format and utilizes 2019 1st quarter data as an example. The report is based on available data from Massport’s Noise Monitoring System. Over time, we anticipate that elements of this report may be modified after some level of content review and discussion between Massport and the MCAC.
We look forward to continuing to work with the MCAC in making the Fly Quiet Report a meaningful resource for neighboring communities.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Gallagher Community Relations and Government Affairs
CC: Via Electronic Mail Alaina Coppola Flavio Leo
Operating Boston Logan International Airport • Port of Boston general cargo and passenger terminals • Hanscom Field • Boston Fish Pier • Commonwealth Pier (site of World Trade Center Boston) • Worcester Regional Airport
Boston Logan International Airport Fly Quiet Quarterly Report
Q1 2019
Prepared by:
Mary Ellen Eagan Bob Mentzer Kate Larson
Last revised April 23, 2020
FINAL DRAFT
Executive Summary
This BOS Fly Quiet Report presents data collected by Massport’s Noise and Operations Monitoring System (NOMS) for the first quarter of 2019 (January 1 through March 31). This report has been developed in response to requests from the Massachusetts Port Authority Community Advisory Committee (MCAC), and it has been revised to respond to MCAC feedback on earlier drafts. This current draft continues to use data from the first quarter of 2019; after the reporting content and format is agreed upon, it is intended that comparable reports will be generated quarterly going forward.
This Quarterly Report consists of four components: • Component 1: Airline Fleet Composition and Noise Rating • Component 2: Flight Track Monitoring • Component 3: Noise Monitor Aircraft Noise Event Reports • Component 4: Weather and Runway Usage A technical explanation of each component is presented at the start of each section, followed by the graphical reporting elements. Key findings are summarized below.
Operations There were 93,764 operations in the 1st Quarter 2019 compared to 90,903 operations in the 1st Quarter 2018 (a 3.1 percent increase)
Airline Fleet Airlines flew quieter aircraft in the 1st Quarter 2019 (93.6% greater than Stage 3) compared to the 1st Quarter 2018 (93.0% greater than Stage 3)
Flight Tracks The percentage of jet departures from Runways 04R, 9, 15R, 22R, 22L that were above 6,000 feet when crossing back over the shoreline was collectively 99.4% for 1st Quarter 2019. For jet departures from Runway 27, 88.5% passed through all five gates of the prescribed corridor, and for Runway 33L, 98.3% avoided turning too early from the designated initial heading.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 2 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Noise Monitor Results For the five noise monitor locations reported on for 1st Quarter 2019, the average number of aircraft noise events per day ranged from 61 to 133. The maximum number of noise events per day ranged from 205 to 576.
Runway Use The top four runways used for jet arrivals in the 1st Quarter 2019 are: Runway 27 (30%), Runway 22L (26%), Runway (20%), and Runway (19%) The top four runways used for jet departures in the 1st Quarter 2019 are: Runway 33L (29%), Runway 22R (27%), Runway 9 (20%), and Runway 27 (16%)
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 3 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 2 List of Acronyms ...... 5 Component 1: Airline Fleet Composition and Noise Rating ...... 6 Fleet Composition (Component 1a) ...... 6 Noise Rating (Component 1b) ...... 6 Component 2: Flight Track Monitoring ...... 8 Departure Flight Track Monitoring ...... 9 Runway 4R ...... 11 Runway 9 ...... 14 Runway 15R ...... 17 Runways 22R and 22L ...... 20 Runway 27 ...... 25 Runway 33L ...... 27 Arrival Flight Track Monitoring ...... 29 Component 3: Noise Monitor Aircraft Noise Event Reports ...... 34 Site 15 ...... 37 Site 16 ...... 39 Site 26 ...... 41 Site 2 ...... 43 Site 5 ...... 45 Component 4: Runway Usage ...... 47 Appendix A: Comparison of This Document to SFO Fly Quiet Report ...... 53 Appendix B: Statistical Details, Aircraft Noise Event Reports at Monitors ...... 55
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 4 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
List of Acronyms
Acronym Full name or Definition Notes BOS Boston Logan International Airport CNI Cumulative Noise Index As defined by the Logan Airport Noise Abatement Rules and Regulations, Airline CNI is computed by summing the noise/acoustical energy for all operations for each airline. The CNI per Operation for that airline can then be computed by dividing (logarithmically) the Airline CNI by its total number of operations. Thus, airlines with the highest CNI per Operation have the loudest fleet and/or have higher night operations, on a per flight basis dBA A-weighted decibel Standard basic unit for measuring environmental sound levels: the A-weighting approximates the way humans perceive sound DME Distance Measuring DME is often used as a unit of measurement referring to the Equipment distance from the airport’s VOR beacon in nautical miles EDR Environmental Data Each year (except for ESPR years), Massport prepares EDR Report documentation to report on current conditions in a range of environmental categories. ESPR Environmental Status Roughly every five years, Massport produces an ESPR document in and Planning Report place of an EDR; the ESPR includes all EDR reporting elements and also includes long term forecast scenario(s). FAA Federal Aviation Administration Lmax Maximum A-weighted The maximum level reported of a noise event. noise level nmi Nautical miles A unit of measure equal to 6076.12 feet NOMS Noise and Operations Massport’s NOMS, installed in 2008, includes extensive analysis and Monitoring System mapping capabilities, the latest FAA NextGen radar data feed, use of multilateration radar (a separate and unique source of operational data), improved noise complaint handling, and direct correlation of noise events with radar flight paths and complaints. Massport upgraded the NOMS in 2018. RNAV Area navigation A method of instrument flight rules (IFR) navigation which defines a route through a series of waypoints ROD Record of Decision SEL Sound Exposure Level SEL is a single event noise metric that takes into account both the fluctuating sound pressure level and the duration of a noise event, by normalizing the equivalent sound energy into a 1-second interval SFO San Francisco International Airport SID Standard instrument A published flight procedure followed by an aircraft immediately Departure after takeoff from an airport StdDev Standard Deviation A statistical term measuring the spread of data VOR VHF (Very High The VOR beacon is a device on the airfield that sends out signals; Frequency) the receiver can measure its bearing to or from the beacon. Used in omnidirectional range combination with DME, the receiver can compute its position.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 5 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Component 1: Airline Fleet Composition and Noise Rating
Fleet Composition (Component 1a) Figure 1-1: Percentage of Jet
Jet aircraft currently operating at Logan Airport are Aircraft by Stage categorized by the FAA1 as Stage 3, Stage 4, or Stage
5; of these, Stage 5 aircraft meet the newest and most stringent noise standards. The designation refers to a noise classification specified in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14 Part 36 (14 CFR Part 36) that sets noise emission standards based on an aircraft’s maximum certificated weight. Generally, the heavier the aircraft, the more noise it is permitted to make within the limits established by 14 CFR Part 36. Percentages of Stage 3, Stage 4, or Stage 5 operations are estimated2 for each airline and are listed in Table 1-1. The pie graph (Figure 1-1) shows overall jet operations for the quarter, by noise certification. Noise Rating (Component 1b)
Airline Cumulative Noise Index (Airline CNI) is Source: HMMH, 2019 computed by summing the noise/acoustical energy for all operations for each airline3. The CNI per Operation can then be computed by dividing (logarithmically) the Airline CNI by the total number of operations. Thus, airlines with the highest CNI per Operation have the loudest fleet and/or have higher night operations, on a per-flight basis. Table 1-2 presents a ranking of airlines by CNI per Operation. Note that the 10 loudest airlines in this ranking are mainly cargo and international airlines. A green bar indicates that 100 percent of the flights at BOS by that airline were in aircraft that are Stage 4 or Stage 5 certified or the equivalent.
1 The FAA regulates the maximum noise level that an individual civil aircraft can emit by requiring aircraft to meet certain noise certification standards. These standards designate changes in maximum noise level requirements by "stage" designation. The FAA publishes certificated noise levels in the advisory circular, Noise Levels for U.S Certificated and Foreign Aircraft. This advisory circular provides noise level data for aircraft certificated under 14 CFR Part 36 and categorizes aircraft into their appropriate "stages". Any aircraft that is certified for airworthiness in the U.S. needs to also comply with noise standard requirements to receive a noise certification. 2 These are estimates only, as aircraft may or may not have been re-certificated into a different Stage category. For example, while an aircraft may meet the noise standard for Stage 5, it may not have been re-certificated. Note that the stage certifications are conservative estimates based on an airline fleet lookup table that is updated annually during Massport’s EDR/ESPR process. The list used in this analysis was updated in 2018 for the 2017 ESPR. 3 From the radar data, jet aircraft operations are extracted with Airline and Aircraft Type identification. A lookup table is used to assign takeoff/landing decibel values and Stage certification level for that aircraft. From there, the decibel values, converted to noise energy, are multiplied by the number of operations. Total noise energy is summed by airline and converted back to decibels to obtain the partial CNI by airline. The noise energy per airline is also divided by that airline’s operations before converting to decibels to obtain the CNI per operation that is used for the airline ranking.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 6 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 1-1: Airline Fleet composition by Noise Certification Stage at BOS
First Quarter, 2019 (Jan. 1 - March 31) Airline Name Airline Group Operations CNI per Op % stg 3 % stg 4 % stg 5 Piedmont Airlines Regional 680 93.34 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. International 180 94.34 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Hainan Airlines Holding Company LimitedInternational 232 94.52 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% SATA Internacional International 132 95.25 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Norwegian Air Shuttle International 72 98.79 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Turk Hava Yollari A.O. International 124 99.42 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. International 173 99.47 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. International 174 102.42 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Societe Air France International 176 95.79 0.0% 3.4% 96.6% Expressjet Domestic 284 90.76 0.0% 12.0% 88.0% Lufthansa German Airlines International 332 100.08 0.0% 38.3% 61.7% IBERIA, Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A. International 152 97.94 0.0% 48.7% 51.3% Spirit Airlines, Inc. Domestic 2,289 97.20 0.0% 62.8% 37.2% Jazz Air Inc. International 961 93.35 0.0% 64.9% 35.1% Transportes Aereos Portugueses S.A. International 122 96.37 0.0% 70.5% 29.5% Icelandair International 225 95.91 0.0% 74.7% 25.3% Alaska Airlines, Inc. Domestic 1,183 97.77 0.0% 86.8% 13.2% Southwest Airlines Co. Domestic 3,938 99.74 0.0% 94.2% 5.8% British Airways, PLC International 615 104.21 0.0% 98.7% 1.3% United Air Lines, Inc. Domestic 5,767 99.83 0.0% 99.5% 0.5% Air Canada International 389 91.71 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Go Jet Domestic 374 92.30 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Endeavor Air Domestic 3,014 93.87 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Compañía Panameña de Aviación S.A. International 268 94.79 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Republic Airlines Regional 3,083 95.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A.International Avianca 152 95.50 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% TAM Airlines International 102 96.20 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Sky Regional Airlines Inc International 812 96.81 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Alitalia - Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A. International 46 97.17 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% JetBlue Airways Corporation Domestic 27,141 97.73 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Aer Lingus Limited International 258 98.29 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% MN Airlines, LLC Regional 30 98.62 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Qatar Airways International 180 101.80 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Emirates International 180 101.80 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Cathay Pacific Airways Limited International 170 103.70 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% United Parcel Service, Inc. Cargo 473 105.44 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. International 72 107.09 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Federal Express Corporation Cargo 932 103.40 0.4% 99.6% 0.0% Delta Air Lines, Inc. Domestic 9,462 98.73 3.6% 86.3% 10.2% Mesa Airlines Regional 47 90.61 17.0% 83.0% 0.0% American Airlines, Inc. Domestic 12,405 97.66 25.0% 70.7% 4.3% WOW Air EHF International 171 94.77 84.8% 0.0% 15.2% SkyWest Airlines Domestic 1,451 96.92 99.9% 0.1% 0.0% Atlas Air Cargo 126 103.98 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Swift Air Domestic 36 104.74 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 7 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
quieter louder Table 1-2: Airline Fleet Noise Rating 85 90 95 100 105 First Quarter, 2019 (Jan. 1 - March 31) CODE Airline Name Airline Group Operations Airline CNI CNI per Op ASH Mesa Airlines Regional 47 107.33 90.61 ASQ Expressjet Domestic 284 115.30 90.76 ACA Air Canada International 389 117.60 91.71 GJS Go Jet Domestic 374 118.03 92.30 PDT Piedmont Airlines Regional 680 121.66 93.34 JZA Jazz Air Inc. International 961 123.17 93.35 EDV Endeavor Air Domestic 3,014 128.66 93.87 JAL Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. International 180 116.90 94.34 CHH Hainan Airlines Holding Company Limited International 232 118.18 94.52 WOW WOW Air EHF International 171 117.10 94.77 CMP Compañía Panameña de Aviación S.A. International 268 119.07 94.79 RPA Republic Airlines Regional 3,083 129.88 95.00 RZO SATA Internacional International 132 116.45 95.25 AVA Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. AviancaInternational 152 117.32 95.50 AFR Societe Air France International 176 118.25 95.79 ICE Icelandair International 225 119.43 95.91 TAM TAM Airlines International 102 116.29 96.20 TAP Transportes Aereos Portugueses S.A. International 122 117.24 96.37 SKV Sky Regional Airlines Inc International 812 125.91 96.81 SKW SkyWest Airlines Domestic 1,451 128.53 96.92 AZA Alitalia - Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A. International 46 113.79 97.17 NKS Spirit Airlines, Inc. Domestic 2,289 130.79 97.20 AAL American Airlines, Inc. Domestic 12,405 138.60 97.66 JBU JetBlue Airways Corporation Domestic 27,141 142.06 97.73 ASA Alaska Airlines, Inc. Domestic 1,183 128.50 97.77 IBE IBERIA, Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A. International 152 119.76 97.94 EIN Aer Lingus Limited International 258 122.41 98.29 SCX MN Airlines, LLC Regional 30 113.39 98.62 DAL Delta Air Lines, Inc. Domestic 9,462 138.49 98.73 NAX Norwegian Air Shuttle International 72 117.36 98.79 THY Turk Hava Yollari A.O. International 124 120.35 99.42 VIR Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. International 173 121.85 99.47 SWA Southwest Airlines Co. Domestic 3,938 135.69 99.74 UAL United Air Lines, Inc. Domestic 5,767 137.44 99.83 DLH Lufthansa German Airlines International 332 125.29 100.08 UAE Emirates International 180 124.35 101.80 QTR Qatar Airways International 180 124.35 101.80 SWR Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. International 174 124.83 102.42 FDX Federal Express Corporation Cargo 932 133.09 103.40 CPA Cathay Pacific Airways Limited International 170 126.01 103.70 GTI Atlas Air Cargo 126 124.98 103.98 BAW British Airways, PLC International 615 132.10 104.21 SWQ Swift Air Domestic 36 120.30 104.74 UPS United Parcel Service, Inc. Cargo 473 132.19 105.44 ELY El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. International 72 125.66 107.09 Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 8 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Component 2: Flight Track Monitoring
As is done on an annual basis (reported in the EDR/ESPR appendices), this component contains an analysis of departure flight tracks for the quarter. Additionally, flight track maps for jet arrivals follow the departure track analysis.
Flight track maps for non-jet operations are not included in this report.
Departure Flight Track Monitoring All jet departures for the quarter have been analyzed using Massport’s existing gate definitions to identify compliance or non-compliance with established noise abatement procedures. The map in Figure 2-1 shows the existing gate locations. Future iterations of this Fly Quiet Reporting should show the locations of the applicable gates on each track plot.
In this section, six sets of pages display data for each of the six departure directions, ordered by departure runway (4R, 09, 15R, 22L/R, 27, 33L). The pages for each runway begin with a jet departure flight track graphic for the specified runway end. The color coding by altitude shows the collective rate of ascent. A week-long sample is shown for each set of flight tracks, chosen as a time of high usage of that particular runway. Each graphic is limited to a week of data due to current software limitations.
Tables following each track plot provide counts of the tracks that passes through each gate or section of a gate. To provide additional information, gate crossing plots display the horizontal and vertical dispersion of the flights passing through each of the analysis gates under each set of departures; mean and standard deviation lines help identify statistical spread.
The majority of jet aircraft departing from BOS follow RNAV SIDs which define a precise and repeatable flight path from each runway. Aircraft not using RNAV follow the conventional “LOGAN TWO” SID descriptions which are presented below[1]. The RNAV SIDs generally overlay the conventional “LOGAN TWO” SIDs.
[1] LOGAN TWO SID, effective May 23, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 9 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-1: Existing Gate Locations
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 10 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway 4R Jet departures from Runway 4R are instructed to fly runway heading to 4 DME after takeoff and then turn right to a 90-degree heading. They are also instructed not to cross back over land until reaching 6,000 feet altitude. The Nahant Gate monitors compliance with the first portion of the departure (avoiding early turns); the Swampscott and Marblehead Gates monitor northbound shoreline crossings; and the Hull 2, Hull 3, and Cohasset Gates monitor southbound shoreline crossings.
Figure 2-2: Selected busy week departures from Runway 4: (336 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, February 27 - March 5, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 11 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-3: Runway 4R Jet Departures through Nahant Gate, Q1 2019 Table 2-1 Runway 4R Jet Departures through Nahant Gate, Q1 2019 Number of Percentage Tracks Through Through Gate Gate Segment Segment North End of 2 0.2% OverGate Causeway 1,184 99.6% South End of 3 0.3% TotalGate 1,189 100.0% Source: HMMH, 2019
Table 2-2 Runway 4R Jet Departure Shoreline Crossings, Q1 2019 Number of Tracks Through Gate Number Above 6,000 ft Percentage Above 6,000 ft
Swampscott Gate 35 5 14.3% Marblehead Gate 451 441 97.8% Hull 2 Gate 71 71 100.0% Hull 3 Gate 151 151 100.0% Cohasset Gate 57 57 100.0% Total 765 725 94.8%
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 12 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-4: Runway 4R Jet Departures through Shoreline Gates, Q1 2019
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 13 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway 9 Jet departures from Runway 9 are instructed to stay on course until vectored by FAA Air Traffic after takeoff. They are also instructed not to cross back over land until reaching 6,000 feet altitude. The Winthrop 1 and Winthrop 2 gates monitor early turns for departures off Runway 9. The Revere, Swampscott, or Marblehead gates monitor northbound shoreline crossings, while the Hull 2, Hull 3, or Cohasset gates monitor southbound shoreline crossings.
Figure 2-5: Selected busy week departures from Runway 9 (1,427 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 21-27, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 14 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 2-3: Runway 9 Jet Departures between Winthrop Gates 1 and 2, Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Gate Percentage Through Gate
Winthrop 1 Gate 2 0.02%
Winthrop 2 Gate 1 0.01%
Neither Gate 8,236 99.96% Total 8,239 100.00%
Note: tracks through either gate indicate aircraft turning before reaching BOS 2 DME. No gate plots provided here since vast majority of aircraft do not pass through either of these gates.
Table 2-4: Runway 9 Jet Departure Shoreline Crossings, Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Gate Number Above 6,000 ft Percentage Above 6,000 ft
Revere Gate 6 2 33.3% Swampscott Gate 147 134 91.2% Marblehead Gate 1,935 1,931 99.8% Hull 2 Gate 483 481 99.6% Hull 3 Gate 826 811 98.2% Cohasset Gate 2,656 2,654 99.9% Total 6,053 6,013 99.3%
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 15 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-6: Runway 9 Jet Departures through Shoreline Gates, Q1 2019 Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 16 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway 15R After takeoff, Runway 15R fly runway heading to one DME and then turn left to a 120 degree heading to avoid Hull, head out over Boston Harbor, and return over the shore through the Swampscott and Marblehead Gates to the north, or through the Hull 2, Hull 3, and Cohasset Gates to the south.
Figure 2-7: Selected busy week departures from Runway 15 (199 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, January 25-31, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 17 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 2-5: Runway 15R Jet Departures Through Hull 1 Gate, Figure 2-8: Runway 15R Jet Departures through Hull 1 Gate, Q1 2019 Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Percentage Through Gate Through Gate Segment Segment North of Hull Peninsula 1,408 99.9% Over Hull 2 0.1% Total 1,410 100.0% Source: HMMH, 2019
Table 2-6: Runway 15R Jet Departure Shoreline Crossings, Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Gate Number Above 6,000 ft Percentage Above 6,000 ft
Swampscott Gate 61 61 100.0% Marblehead Gate 385 385 100.0% Hull 2 Gate 1 0 0.0% Hull 3 Gate 46 40 87.0% Cohasset Gate 322 322 100.0% Total 815 808 99.1%
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 18 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-9: Runway 15R Jet Departures through Shoreline Gates, Q1 2019 Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 19 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runways 22R and 22L Departures from Runways 22R and 22L turn left immediately to gain altitude over water. The Squantum 2 and Hull 1 Gates are used to monitor the turn to 140 degrees over Boston Harbor and then passage north of Hull. The shoreline gates are used to monitor altitude of shoreline crossings, as for Runways 4R, 9, and 15R above, aircraft should be higher than 6,000 feet when crossing.
Figure 2-10: Selected busy week departures from Runway 22R (1,522 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 25- 31, 20192019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 20 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Note: ideally, future versions of this report will show Runway 22L and Runway 22R departures on the same plot
Figure 2-11: Selected busy week departures from Runway 22L (229 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, January 21-27, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 21 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT Figure 2-12: Runways 22R/22L Jet Departures through Table 2-7: Runways 22R/22L Jet Departures through Squantum 2 Gate, Q1 2019 Squantum 2 Gate, Q1 2019 Number of Tracks Percentage Through Gate Through Gate Segment Segment 0 - 12,000 ft 293 2.4% 12,000 - 14,000 ft 10,847 89.5% 14,000 - 21,000 ft 978 8.1% 21,000 - 27,000 ft 1 0.0% Total 12,119 100.0% Source: HMMH, 2019
Note: The first segment of the 27,000-foot wide gate is the northernmost segment and is primarily over Boston Harbor. The subsequent segments extend southward toward Quincy.
Figure 2-13: Runway s 22R/22L Jet Departures through Hull 1 Gate, Q1 2019 Table 2-8: Runways 22R and 22L Hull 1 Gate Summary Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Percentage Gate Segment Through Gate Segment North of Hull Peninsula 12,012 99.1%
Over Hull 105 0.9%
Total 12,117 100.0%
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 22 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 2-9: Runways 22R/22L Jet Departure Shoreline Crossings, Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Gate Number Above 6,000 ft Percentage Above 6,000 ft
Revere Gate 19 19 100.0% Swampscott Gate 310 310 100.0% Marblehead Gate 2,940 2,939 100.0% Hull 2 Gate 6 5 83.3% Hull 3 Gate 653 648 99.2% Cohasset Gate 4,537 4,536 100.0% Total 8,465 8,457 99.9%
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 23 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-14: Runways 22R/22L Jet Departures through Shoreline Gates, Q1 2019 Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 24 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway 27 Massport monitors Runway 27 jet departures using a series of gates (Gates A through E); Gate A is closest to the airport, with each subsequently labeled gate further from the runway. The gates increase in width as the distance is increased along the flight path, together forming a noise abatement corridor. A consistent percentage of traffic through each gate means that flights are not entering the corridor late or exiting the corridor too early.
Figure 2-15: Selected busy week departures from Runway 27 (983 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 1-7, 2019 2019
Note: In the gate crossing plots for Runway 27 departures, each of the gate plots has been extended to the right and to the left to display all of the flights, including those that do not pass through the prescribed corridor.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 25 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-16 Runway 27Jet Departures through Gates A-E
Table 2-10: Runway 27 Jet
Departure Tracks Through Each Gate in Corridor, Q1 2019
6,911 Total # of Tracks
Total # of Tracks Through 6,117 All Gates
Percent of Tracks Through 88.5% All Gates Number Through Gate A 6,258 Width: 1,400 ft.
Number Through Gate B 6,695 Width: 2,200 ft.
Number Through Gate C 6,819 Width: 2,900 ft.
Number Through Gate D 6,844 Width: 4,700 ft.
Number Through Gate E 6,809 Width: 6,300 ft.
Average Percentage 96.7% Through Each Gate
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 26 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway 33L The Somerville and Everett Gates extend from BOS 2 DME to BOS 5 DME and are used to monitor the departure procedure for Runway 33L. Turns to the left before the BOS 5 DME would pass through the Somerville Gate. Turns to the right prior to the BOS 5 DME would pass through the Everett Gate. Aircraft should avoid turning prior to reaching 3,000 feet, so passing through neither gate is best. If a flight does cross one of the early turn gates, it should be above 3,000 feet.
Figure 2-17: Selected busy week departures from Runway 33L (1,585 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 17-23, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 27 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 2-11: Runway 33L Jet Departures between Everett and Somerville Early Turn Monitoring Gates Q1 2019
Number of Tracks Through Gate Number Below 3000 ft Percentage Below 3000 ft
Everett Gate 59 43 0.4% Somerville Gate 191 154 1.3% Neither gate 11,848 98.3% Total 12,098
Figure 2-18: Runway 33L Jet Departures through Somerville and Everett Gates, Q1 2019 Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 28 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Arrival Flight Track Monitoring Each set of plotted arrival tracks represents a week-long period selected from Q1 2019 when that runway handled a high volume of flights. The altitude color coding is the same as in the departure plots, showing the collective rate of descent.
Figure 2-19: Selected busy week arrivals to Runway 4R (1,267 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 21-27, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 29 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-20: Selected busy week arrivals to Runway 15R (194 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, February 22 – 28, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 30 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-21: Selected busy week arrivals to Runway 22L (1,635 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 25 – 31, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 31 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-22: Selected busy week arrivals to Runway 27 (1,644 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 17 – 23, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 32 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 2-23: Selected busy week arrivals to Runway 33L (1,054 flights)
Source: Massport NOMS data, March 1-7, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 33 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Component 3: Noise Monitor Aircraft Noise Event Reports
Massport’s Noise Abatement Office maintains the Noise and Operations Monitoring System (NOMS), which includes 30 permanent noise monitors located in surrounding communities, as shown in Figure 3- 1. Massport’s annual environmental reporting includes a comparison of the computer noise modeling results with measured levels from the noise monitoring system. It should be noted that the measurement data is not used to calibrate the noise model or adjust the results in any way.
Table 3-1 presents the measured aircraft DNL4 for each month and the average DNL for the quarter for each of the monitors. Future Fly Quiet Reports will provide a comparison of the current quarter to the previous quarter.
Ultimately, this component of the Fly Quiet Report will contain noise monitor data for all 30 sites for the entire three months of the quarter. For the purposes of this draft, noise measurement data for Sites 15, 16, 26, 2 and 5 were used to produce sample analyses. All five of these sites show very good measured vs. modeled DNL agreement in the 2017 ESPR. Once the format is refined, we will produce similar analyses for all 30 sites.
The analysis for each site focuses on the sound exposure level (SEL) values of the Noise and Operations System-identified aircraft noise events. SEL is a noise metric which takes into account both the maximum sound pressure level and the duration of a noise event, by normalizing the equivalent sound energy into a 1-second interval.
For each site, we present three different graphics. First, a histogram displays the number of identified aircraft noise events by SEL values. Next, a bar graph depicts the number of identified aircraft noise events at that site for each day of the quarter. The third graphic shows the number of noise events correlated with each airline and the average SEL value of those events. The airlines are listed in ascending order from quietest to loudest average SEL.
For a monitor to "recognize" an aircraft noise event, the sound pressure level must rise above a set threshold value for at least 10 seconds; the event will be tagged as an aircraft event if there is an aircraft operation nearby occurring at that time. Sometimes, neighborhood noises occur at the same time as aircraft overflights, adding additional noise energy to the “event”. The only way to positively identify such occurrences is for a human to listen to the sound file that the system collects and stores. In an attempt to remove anomalous events in an automated way and provide a fair airline comparison, statistical outlier events (those whose SEL values are greater than three standard deviations above the mean) were not included in the ranked airline results.
Appendix B provides detailed statistics for the noise event data at each of the sites.
4 The NOMS system calculates aircraft DNL by summing the noise energy of system-identified aircraft noise events. Therefore, most non-aircraft community noise is excluded from the resulting value.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 34 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-1 Noise Monitor Locations
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 35 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Table 3-1 Monthly Average Measured DNL, Q1 2019 Source: Massport NOMS, 2019
Distance from January February March Q1 2019 Site Logan 2019 2019 2019 Location Airport (miles) Measured Aircraft DNL Average South End – Andrews Street 1 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Boston – B and Bolton 2 2.9 57.5 58.5 58.2 58.1 South Boston – Day Blvd. near Farragut 3 2.5 66.0 66.4 58.7 64.8 Winthrop – Bayview and Grandview 4 1.6 71.5 72.3 71.9 71.9 Winthrop – Harborview and Faun Bar 5 1.9 55.0 58.3 58.4 57.5 Winthrop – Somerset near Johnson 6 0.8 61.8 66.6 63.6 64.4 Winthrop – Loring Road near Court 7 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Winthrop – Morton and Amelia 8 1.6 57.8 58.9 58.0 58.3 East Boston – Bayswater near Annavoy 9 1.3 65.9 66.0 66.7 66.3 East Boston – Bayswater near Shawsheen 10 1.3 59.7 60.7 61.1 60.5 East Boston – Selma and Orient 11 1.8 71.1 67.9 72.7 71.1 East Boston Yacht Club 12 1.2 64.0 64.4 63.9 64.1 East Boston High School 13 1.9 62.6 63.2 62.0 62.6 East Boston – Jeffries Point Yacht Club 14 1.2 56.1 56.0 57.3 56.5 Chelsea – Admiral’s Hill 15 2.8 61.7 62.7 61.1 61.8 Revere – Bradstreet and Sales 16 2.4 68.0 67.2 69.3 68.3 Revere – Carey Circle 17 5.3 59.8 58.5 61.2 60.0 Nahant – U.S.C.G. Recreational Facility 18 5.9 31.7 40.8 39.6 39.1 Swampscott – Smith Lane 19 8.7 38.1 37.3 40.9 39.1 Lynn – Pond and Towns Court 20 8.4 52.4 51.4 52.5 52.1 Everett – Tremont near Prescott 21 4.5 48.5 52.6 48.6 50.3 Medford – Magoun near Thatcher 22 6.0 52.4 53.2 52.3 52.7 Dorchester – Myrtlebank near Hilltop 23 6.3 50.5 53.0 51.7 51.8 Milton – Cunningham Park near Fullers 24 8.1 44.3 47.2 44.1 45.3 Quincy – Squaw Rock Park 25 4.2 33.8 28.0 25.7 30.7 Hull – Hull High School near Channel 26 6.0 63.7 60.5 57.7 61.3 Street Roxbury – Boston Latin Academy 27 5.3 52.3 51.8 52.9 52.4 Jamaica Plain – Southbourne Road 28 7.7 41.5 40.9 42.0 41.5 Mattapan – Lewenburg School 29 7.3 38.1 34.3 33.0 35.8 East Boston – Piers Park 30 1.5 48.7 50.1 47.1 48.7
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 36 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Site 15 The primary runways and modes of aircraft operation affecting this site are departures from Runway 33L and arrivals to Runway 15R. Over the three months, 9,271 noise events at site 15 were correlated with aircraft operations. The mean (average) noise event SEL was 85.3 dBA. The number of noise events at site 15 correlated with aircraft operations on a given day in Q1 ranges from 0 to 498, with an average of 103 aircraft noise events per day. At site 15 in Q1, 14 days reported zero aircraft noise events.
Figure 3-2: Distribution of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 15
Source: HMMH, 2019
Figure 3-3 Daily Number of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 15
Site 15 - Aircraft Noise Event Counts 500
400
300
200
100
0 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26
Number Aircraft of Noise Events Date - Q1 2019
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 37 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-4 Ranking of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 15
Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 38 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Site 16 The primary runways and modes of aircraft operation affecting this site are departures from Runway 4R and arrivals to Runway 22L. Over the three months, 12,002 noise events at site 16 were correlated with aircraft operations. The mean (average) noise event SEL was 90.4 dBA. The number of noise events at site 16 correlated with aircraft operations on a given day in Q1 ranges from 0 to 576, with an average of 133 aircraft noise events per day. At site 16 in Q1, 17 days reported zero aircraft noise events.
Figure 3-5: Distribution of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 16
Source: HMMH, 2019
Figure 3-6: Daily Number of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 16
Site 16 - Aircraft Noise Event Counts 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26
Number Aircraft of Noise Events Date - Q1 2019
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 39 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-7: Ranking of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 16 quieter louder 76 80 84 88 92 96
Source: HMMH, 2019
Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 40 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Site 26 The primary runway and mode of aircraft operation affecting this site are arrivals to Runway 33L. Over the three months, 10,063 noise events at site 26 were correlated with aircraft operations. The mean (average) noise event SEL was 72.9 dBA. The number of noise events at site 26 correlated with aircraft operations on a given day in Q1 ranges from 1 to 421, with an average of 112 aircraft noise events per day. At site 26 in Q1, zero days reported zero aircraft noise events.
Figure 3-8: Distribution of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 26
Source: HMMH, 2019
Figure 3-9: Daily Number of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 26
Site 26 - Aircraft Noise Event Counts 500
400
300
200
100
0 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26
Number of Aircraft Aircraft of Number Noise Events Date - Q1 2019
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 41 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-10: Ranking of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 26 quieter louder 68 70 72 74 76
Source: HMMH, 2019
Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 42 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Site 2 The primary runway and mode of aircraft operation affecting this site are departures from Runway 27. Over the three months, 5,499 noise events at site 2 were correlated with aircraft operations. The mean (average) noise event SEL was 84.0 dBA. The number of noise events at Site 2 correlated with aircraft operations on a given day in Q1 ranges from 0 to 205, with an average of 61 aircraft noise events per day. At site 2 in Q1, 11 days reported zero aircraft noise events.
Figure 3-11: Distribution of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 2
Source: HMMH, 2019
Figure 3-12: Daily Number of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 2
Site 2 - Aircraft Noise Event Counts 500
400
300
200
100
0 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26
Number Aircraft of Noise Events Date - Q1 2019
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 43 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-13: Ranking of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 2 quieter louder 76 80 84 88 92
Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 44 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Site 5 The primary runways and modes of aircraft operation affecting this site are departures from Runway 9 and arrivals to Runway 27. Over the three months, 7,834 noise events at site 5 were correlated with aircraft operations. The mean (average) noise event SEL was 83.6 dBA. The number of noise events at site 5 correlated with aircraft operations on a given day in Q1 ranges from 0 to 407, with an average of 87 aircraft noise events per day. At site 5 in Q1, 13 days reported zero aircraft noise events.
Figure 3-14: Distribution of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 5
Source: HMMH, 2019
Figure 3-15: Daily Number of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 5 Site 5 - Aircraft Noise Event Counts 500
400
300
200
100
0 1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26
Date - Q1 2019 Number Aircraft of Noise Events
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 45 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Figure 3-16: Ranking of Aircraft Noise Events at Site 5
quieter louder 76 80 84 88 92
Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 46 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Component 4: Runway Usage
Runway use for the quarter was computed by analyzing radar data, summed by jet/non-jet operations, separated by arrival/departure, by day/night, and by runway used. Table 4-1 shows the resulting percentages. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show jet aircraft runway use for the quarter, while Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show non-jet aircraft runway use. Day and night operations are not differentiated on these figures. The arrow size on each map is relative to the runway usage so that it is not necessary to study the figure closely to observe general trends.
Table 4-1: Q1 2019 Runway Usage
DEPARTURES DEPARTURES Runway Day Jet Day NJ Night Jet Night NJ Runway all Jet All NJ 04L 0.0% 15.6% 0.0% 3.8% 04L 0.0% 15.4% 04R 3.0% 2.5% 1.7% 10.1% 04R 2.8% 2.7% 9 20.7% 9.4% 13.3% 11.4% 9 19.6% 9.5% 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14 0.0% 0.0% 15L 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15L 0.0% 0.0% 15R 2.2% 0.4% 9.8% 11.4% 15R 3.4% 0.6% 22L 1.7% 0.1% 2.0% 0.0% 22L 1.7% 0.1% 22R 27.1% 28.8% 28.0% 32.9% 22R 27.2% 28.9% 27 17.1% 7.2% 12.7% 2.5% 27 16.4% 7.1% 32 NA NA NA NA 32 NA NA 33L 28.1% 35.9% 32.6% 27.8% 33L 28.8% 35.8% 33R 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33R 0.0% 0.0% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ARRIVALS ARRIVALS Runway Day Jet Day NJ Night Jet Night NJ Runway all Jet All NJ 04L 2.7% 15.7% 0.3% 2.7% 04L 2.2% 15.4% 04R 21.8% 8.8% 15.3% 14.3% 04R 20.4% 8.9% 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9 0.0% 0.0% 14 NA NA NA NA 14 NA NA 15L 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 15L 0.0% 0.1% 15R 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 15R 0.9% 0.7% 22L 24.9% 25.2% 30.1% 33.0% 22L 26.0% 25.3% 22R 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 3.6% 22R 0.0% 3.2% 27 29.5% 6.4% 30.3% 26.8% 27 29.7% 6.9% 32 2.8% 19.1% 0.0% 0.0% 32 2.2% 18.6% 33L 17.3% 12.3% 23.5% 19.6% 33L 18.6% 12.5% 33R 0.0% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33R 0.0% 8.4% Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 47 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 48 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 49 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 50 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 51 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Runway Usage is largely dependent on weather. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 depict weather and overall runway usage for the first quarter of 2019.
Figure 4-5: Weather Q1 2019
Source: Massport, 2019
Figure 4-7: Arrival Runway Usage Q1 2019
Source: Massport, 2019
Figure 4-6: Departure Runway Usage Q1 2019
Source: Massport, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 52 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Appendix A: Comparison of This Document to SFO Fly Quiet Report
SFO’s program, according to their website5, has six elements:
• Fleet Noise Quality Rating • Noise Exceedance Rating • Nighttime Preferential Runway Use Rating • Flight Path monitoring: Shoreline Departure Quality Rating • Flight Path monitoring: Gap Departure Rating • Flight Path monitoring: Foster City Arrival Quality Rating
Each of these elements is used to give an airline a numerical score from 0 to 10, and then those scores are averaged for an overall quarterly rating value. The website explains each element in general terms and goes into some detail for each of the flight path elements. However, the report does not explain the math behind how the numerical rankings are calculated.
The airport also lists annual Fly Quiet Awards on the Fly Quiet Program page of their website, naming a Quietest Overall Airline, a Most Improved Airline, and a Chairperson’s Award. It may be worth noting that the “Quietest Overall Airline” award for 2017 and 2018 went to Air China, with one average daily jet operation in each quarter of both of those years.
SFO publishes its Fly Quiet Report every quarter on its website6. The reports for every quarter since Q2 of 2001 are available for viewing; the format of these is essentially unchanged throughout the 19 years except for the addition of the sixth element in 2006. It should be noted that the SFO report consists only of airline ratings and an SFO average value. These tables are specifically designed to rank airlines and do not convey information to the general public about their experience during the quarter.
Logan Airport’s Fly Quiet Report in the format presented here addresses all of the same dimensions of aircraft noise impact on the surrounding communities as the SFO program (i.e. airline fleet noisiness, noise monitor data, noise abatement flight track compliance, and runway use). Although there are significant differences in the way each dimension is addressed, one goal of Logan’s report is the same as SFO’s – to use graphical elements to report noise in a way that is clear and understandable to the public, as well as comparable from one quarter to another.
The SFO Fleet Noise Quality Rating, although it does not explicitly mention Noise Stage certifications, appears to use a system that quantifies the overall quietness of the airline’s jets; it has a value for the airline’s nationwide fleet and for its SFO operations. Several airlines score a perfect 10 for their quarterly rating in this category; it is unclear why.
SFO’s Noise Exceedance Rating is comparable to the Noise Monitor Aircraft Noise Event Report, in that both access aircraft noise event data from their NOMs systems which have been correlated with radar data to identify airline, aircraft type, and operational details. SFO’s numerical score is tied to Lmax values at monitor locations in comparison to the number of flights by that airline. SFO’s report also
5 https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/fly-quiet
6 https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/fly-quiet-quarterly-reports
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 53 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT considers all sites simultaneously. In contrast, we have prepared a statistical analysis based on SEL values individually for each of Logan’s sites.
Noise Abatement Flight Track Compliance is a component in both airports’ reporting. In the SFO report, there are three distinct elements which each analyze one specific procedure; two of these are departures from Runways 28R/L, while the third is arrivals to Runways 28R/L. This Fly Quiet Report for Logan also uses gates to analyze radar data for compliance with established noise abatement procedures. Logan results are reported by total jet operations instead of by airline for each procedure. No arrival corridors are analyzed for Logan, but every jet departure direction (six total) is examined separately.
Runway Use is included in the SFO report in the form of an airline rating quantifying their use of the nighttime preferential Figure A-1:SFO Runway Use Reporting runway use program. The website states “The program is voluntary; compliance is at the discretion of the pilot in command.” In their rating system, the nighttime period is defined as 1:00 am to 6:00 am. The mathematics behind the scores are not explicitly defined on the website but from the published results it can be inferred that only airlines with flights during that time window are ranked and that the four options listed for departure directions are ranked from best to worst in terms of desirability. In contrast, this Fly Quiet Report for Logan reports overall percentages of runway usage in two different graphic formats but does not identify preferential directions or focus on certain time periods. Wind data for the quarter are also provided in a graphic format in the
Source: SFO Report Logan reporting.
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 54 April 2020 FINAL DRAFT
Appendix B: Statistical Details, Aircraft Noise Event Reports at Monitors
(Component 3)
Table B-1: Additional Aircraft Noise Event Statistics at Monitor Sites
Site 15 Site 16 Site 26 Site 2 Site 5 Location Chelsea Revere Hull S Boston Winthrop R33L D, R4R D, R33L A R27 D R9 D, R27 A Primary Runway and Mode R15R A R22L A 2017 AEDT-computed DNL 62.2 dB 67.8 dB 60.0 dB 60.1 dB 64.1 dB Measured Aircraft DNL (average for Q1 2019) 61.8 68.3 61.3 58.1 57.5 Number of noise events correlated to aircraft operations 9,271 12,002 10,063 5,499 7,834 Average number of events per day 103.0 133.4 112 61.1 87.0 Maximum number of events per day 498 576 421 205 407 Number of days with 0 correlated events 14 17 0 11 13 Number of days with less than 10 events 36 27 3 45 38 Maximum Aircraft Event SEL (before outliers removed) 108.8 dBA 106.1 dBA 89.9 dBA 105.6 dBA 96.0 dBA Average* Aircraft Event SEL (before outliers removed) 85.3 dBA 90.4 dBA 72.9 dBA 84.0 dBA 83.6 dBA SEL Standard Deviation 2.8 dBA 3.4 dBA 3.4 dBA 2.2 dBA 2.8 dBA SEL mean + 3 Std.Dev. 93.7 dBA 100.5 dBA 83.0 dBA 90.7 dBA 91.9 dBA Number of Events classified as outliers (SEL > 3 StdDev. Above mean) 131 297 252 60 113
*Average calculated arithmetically, as opposed to logarithmically
Source: HMMH, 2019
BOS Fly Quiet Report Q1 2019 Page 55 April 2020