Wyle Aviation Services, Arlington, VA 703-415-4550 Sustaining Your Airport - FAA Can’t Do It For You Wyle Aviation Services Joe Czech October.

Wyle Aviation Services, Arlington, VA 703-415-4550 www.wylelabs.com

Sustaining Your Airport -FAA Can’t Do It For You

Wyle Aviation ServicesJoe Czech

October 10, 2007

AAAE ’07 Airport Noise Mitigation Symposium

Overview

• Demand for aviation services is increasing dramatically

• Many airports must grow to meet that demand

• Most people want more and better aviation services, and they understand the need for airports to grow

• Those who oppose airport growth are generally those who carry the noise burden

• How can we achieve public acceptance and sustain our airports to meet this ever growing demand?

Public Airports

• All public airports are part of the national transportation system– Primary purpose - serve the local

demand no matter level of national demand

– Most serve demand for aviation services that extends beyond the local area

– Important local economic engines that provide jobs and other indirect benefits to their communities

Demand For Aviation Services

• The majority of people and businesses have a growing need for aviation services

• Opponents of airport growth are in the minority– They may succeed in slowing the growth of an

airport, but rarely stop it

• Can local officials plan more effectively to meet the growing demand? – Control of land use is local, so FAA cannot

prevent non compatible noise sensitive development

– The answer lies in the 1976 Aviation Noise Policy

Aviation Noise Abatement Policy

• FAA attempted to update 1976 Policy – Draft update issued for comment in 2000 – FAA recently decided not to proceed to

final

• The 1976 Policy is the prevailing national aviation noise policy for the foreseeable future– Time to revisit provisions that address

responsibilities – How long can it sustain airport growth

needs?

What’s The Problem?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1975 1990 2000

Millions of People

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Millions of Flights

U.S. People exposedto DNL above 65dB

U.S. ScheduledCommercial Traffic

Next Generation Air Transportation System

(NextGen)

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Concept of Operations -– “Current operational trends show that

environmental impacts…will be the primary constraints on the capacity and flexibility of the NextGen unless these impacts are managed and mitigated.”

– “Environmental issues have resulted in the delay and/or down-scaling of certain airport capacity projects…”

– “Airports will need to escalate their efforts to address the environmental concerns of their neighboring communities.”

– “Noise has been and will continue to be a primary area of concern.”

Understanding the Problem

The trajectories of future demand for air transportation and public resistance to airport expansion are colliding – FAA predicts 1+ billion annual passengers by 2015

– NextGen goal is to triple system-wide capacity (3X) by 2025

– JPDO and ACI says environmental concerns (primarily noise) are greatest impediments to public acceptance of expansion projects

10

15

20

25

30

35

1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Millions of Flights

2020

35

30

25

20

15

1976

The Growing Challenge

10

15

20

25

30

35

1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Millions of Flights

2020

35

30

25

20

15

1976

• Demand is rapidly exceeding available capacity

• Market is changing – new aircraft types (i.e., VLJ, 787, etc.)

• New noise reduction technology meaningful only in long term

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

B62

B777-200MD80

B747-100

DC9-10

B707-100

B727-100Caravelle

A340

A300

L1011

DC10-10

Comet 4

A320-100

FIRST GENERATION TURBOFAN

SECOND GENERATION TURBOFAN

B747-200

DC8-20

B737-300

EPNL

1976 Aviation Noise Policy

Introduction – “Those who anticipate a complete Federal

solution to the aircraft noise problem misunderstand the need for federal, local and private interaction”

“The primary obligation to address the airport noise problem always has been and remains a local responsibility”

State and Local Governments

“State and Local Governments and Planning Agencies must provide for land use planning and development, zoning, and housing regulation that will limit the uses of land near airports to purposes compatible with airport operations”

“State and Local governments also should require that appropriate notice of airport noise exposure be provided to the purchasers of real estate and to prospective residents in areas near airports to ensure awareness of the nature of the airport environs”

Airport Proprietors

“Airport Proprietors are primarily responsible for planning and implementing action designed to reduce the effect of noise on residents of the surrounding area”– Optimal site location – Improvements in airport design– Noise abatement ground procedures– Land acquisition– Restrictions on airport use that do not:

• Unjustly discriminate against any user• Impede safety or federal management of the air

navigation system • Unreasonably interfere with interstate or foreign

commerce”

Residents/Prospective Residents

“Residents in areas surrounding airports should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can be taken to minimize its effect on people”

“Prospective residents of areas impacted by airport noise should be aware of the effect of noise on their quality of life and act accordingly” “Individual and community responses to

aircraft noise differ substantially and, for some individuals, a reduced level of noise may not eliminate the annoyance or irritation”

Federal Government

“The Federal Government has the authority and responsibility to control aircraft noise”– Regulation of source emissions– Flight operational procedures– Management of the ATC system and airspace

in ways that minimize noise impact (consistent with the highest standards of safety)

– Provide financial and technical assistance for noise reduction planning and abatement activities

– Conduct continuing research into noise abatement technology (working with the private sector)

Air Carriers and Users

“The Air Carriers are responsible for retirement, replacement, or retrofit of older jets that do not meet federal noise level standards, and for scheduling and flying airplanes in a way that minimizes the impact of noise on people”

“Air Travelers and Shippers generally should bear the cost of noise reduction, consistent with established federal economic and environmental policy that the adverse environmental consequences of a service or product should be reflected in its price”

The Way Forward

This growing noise challenge requires comprehensive, multi-dimensional national attention and a local approach that includes:– Addressing the communication deficit

• Conducting special noise studies with alternative metrics

– Establishing local noise standards

• Noise overlay zoning

• Building Codes

• Disclosure

– Long-term compatibility planning • Permanent Airport Citizen Advisory Committees

• More comprehensive airport Master Plan noise analysis

• Part 150 or Special Noise Studies

• Remedial sound insulation where appropriate

Special Noise Studies

• Project experience tells us that noise analysis with supplemental metrics:

– Improves communication of noise to community– Helps assess benefits of alternative measures– Provides Decision Makers more detailed data to

address the all dimensions of this complex problem

• Case Summaries for 15 Special Noise Studies that used alternative metrics are posted on the Wyle website at:

www.wylelabs.com/services/arc/documentlibrary/featuredprojects/saps.html

Special Noise Study

• Provides more detail and understanding of predicted noise changes than DNL analysis alone

• Enables better comparison of tradeoffs among alternatives, including abatement alternatives far beyond the DNL contours

• Provides new public outreach opportunities

• Facilitates better prediction and management of public response to growth projects

• Results in better informed decisions

What Comprises DNL?

• By looking inside DNL, we can extract and communicate how many times in a given time period (hour, day, week) aircraft noise will exceed specified thresholds

• Number-of-events Above (NA) metric

— Cumulative number of events above the selected threshold level(s)

— Clearly emerged as the best metric to show changes the frequency of aircraft operations

— Most widely used alternative metric

• Public response to noise analysis with metrics that supplement DNL has all been positive

Frequency of Operations Analysis

• Airport growth means more operations– Thus, more people will hear more

operations more often

• “How often am I going to hear airplanes?”– Showing future DNL contours does not

answer this question– Specific geographic point analysis with

the NA metric answers this question in simple terms

NA 65 Contours

Grid Point Approach

• Select grid points throughout study area at noise sensitive locations

• Show grid points on a map with DNL contours• Calculate DNL and NA values for each grid

point– Calculate NA in 5 dB increments from a floor

threshold to the upper level where NA is zero

– Results show composition of DNL in terms of NA at various levels of intensity

• Result is table of values for each grid point

NA At Grid Points

DNL 62.5

DNL 65.2

Federal Policy & Action

• JPDO offers a unique multi-stakeholder platform to pursue innovative ideas and create a comprehensive aviation development strategy

• Ongoing and future research projects that help airports better anticipate and address community noise expectations

• FAA & DOD both studying feasibility of new approaches to community noise exposure– DoD Guide to Using Supplemental Metrics– ACRP research projects– Clarify and reinforce stakeholder responsibilities

at all levels – government, industry and community

Research

• ACRP funded research projects to better define and more effectively address this problem:

– Project on “Enhancing Land Use Compatibility”

– Synthesis of “Aviation Noise Effects” – Development of a “Guidebook on Community

Responses to Aircraft Noise”

• More research is needed – Alternative metric criteria

• Speech interference and impact on learning• Sleep disturbance• Changes in operation frequency

Local Initiatives

• Local jurisdictions need innovative solutions that go beyond Federal mitigation programs– Establish local noise standards– Create buffer zones that restrict new noise

sensitive development– Airport noise overlay zoning

• Land use restrictions• Noise level reduction requirements in building

code• Noise disclosure

– Establish a permanent Airport Citizen Advisory Committee

Conclusions

• DNL is no longer sufficient as the sole measure of change in noise exposure

• FAA, DoD, JPDO, ACI and ACRP all recognize the need to look beyond DNL 65 and to use alternative noise metrics to supplement DNL

• To gain approval of their growth projects, airports need to perform noise analysis using the alternative metrics that best communicate noise exposure over the selected study area

• Special Noise Studies improve airport credibility and result in better informed decisions

• The NA Metric has emerged as the preferred supplemental metric

Can We Meet The Demand?

• Public acceptance of airport growth projects is essential to meet future demand for aviation services

• To achieve public acceptance, we must quickly and effectively:– Address the growing public concern with

increased operations– Address noise exposure over study areas

that extend well beyond DNL 65 contours

Questions?