-------
SECTION 2
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE/CONSTRAINTS TO ABATE AIRCRAFT NOISE
The noise problem surrounding military aircraft operations emanate from three
general sources:
1. Noise produced by aircraft operating on and around airports.
2. Noise produced by aircraft conducting low altitude operations other than that
conducted in the airport environs;
3. Sonic booms produced by supersonic flight activities.
The noise problem has been aggravated by the continuous introduction of more
complex and sophisticated aircraft, as the performance demand of each new aircraft
designed to provide for our Nation's defense dictates the production of aircraft with
jet engines of greater thrust to move a greater payload at a higher speed.
The noise characteristics and the mission requirements surrounding the three
general military noise sources listed above are so diverse that each of the operations
will be treated separately. Data presented herein will be general, and information
confined to flight operations conducted over the United States.
AIRPORT ENVIRONS
In the course of the Task Group's deliberations, the feasibility of imposing oper-
ating restrains/restrictions, both in flight and on the ground, and the development of
operating procedures which would alleviate the noise of military aircraft, was explored.
These actions can reduce the size and duration of the noise contours of the affected
air installation and change aircraft flight routes and in certain applications, these
actions should be able to reduce or eliminate the overall noise emanating from an
airfield. In this discussion, no quantitative estimate of the noise reduction possible is
made.
2-1
-------
It is not an easy task to accurately define what actually is an operational constraint
or what is an operating procedure. The following list of constraints and procedures
illustrates this point.
Operational constraints include such items as:
• Restrict hours of operation
• Prescribe number of operations permitted per unit of time
• Limit operations on weekends and holidays
• Limit areas in which operations may be performed
• Prohibit certain operations
Operational procedures include such items as:
• Use of non-standard techniques; e.g., high gliding, low power approaches;
fast, no flap approaches, etc.
• Minimum power takeoff s, power reductions
• Non-standard departures and arrivals
• Adjustment of flight patterns.
An aircraft required to make a departure turn to the right, instead of the
"standard" left turn to comply with ATC procedures does not constitute an operating
constraint, but rather a procedure, however, restricting all turns to the right at
fields where multi pilot aircraft are used for pilot training (all such aircraft are
piloted from the left side) is a constraint of considerable magnitude, and such a con-
straint where Field Carrier Landing Practice is conducted would be unacceptable.
Restricting air operations or ground runups during the late hours of the evening
(e.g., 220-0600) to only operations of necessity is essentially no restriction at all
since, with few exceptions, this is the only activity carried out during this time
period.
2-2
-------
The training evolution of individual pilots and units requires the capability for
flexible planning. Level of experience of assigned pilots, weather, target availability,
hours of darkness, etc., require continuous adjustment to immediate, short range
and medium range plans to achieve a proper readiness stature. Prohibitive restric-
tions concerning frequency of evolutions could only lead to a derogation of readiness,
therefore, commanders must have the option, implemented wisely, to conduct the
training he sees as necessary to maintain readiness.
Aircraft traffic patterns must be looked at in light of mission requirements.
Some adjustments may be made to alleviate noise. However, many of the apparent
changes are not feasible, e.g. , "why not make right turns away from residential
areas at field "X"? This may not be possible due to conflicting traffic with other
airports or, as mentioned previously, is not compatible with training situations of
inexperienced pilots.
Present operating techniques developed for each aircraft are optimum for maxi-
mum performance in any particular mode of operation. Development of "quiet"
operational procedures have not been explored except on a local basis. However,
it must be noted that standard operating procedures have been shown to be directly
related to flight safety. Burdening pilots with multitudinous aircraft operating tech-
niques for various air installations and various aircraft operating conditions (e.g.,
wind velocity, humidity, weight, etc.) over what is currently done must be approached
very carefully to avoid derogation of safety.
LOW ALTITUDE OPERATIONS
The military services have a continuing requirement to conduct low altitude train-
ing flights at or below 1500 feet above the surface in excess of 300 knots indicated
airspeed. This training is essential in maintaining the capability of penetrating an
enemy radar defense system. Normally, this type of training is not conducted during
the hours of darkness. All missions of this type must be conducted on routes published
by the DOD.
2-3
-------
1. Routes are designed to avoid:
a. Control zones, control zone extensions, airport traffic areas, and termi-
nal control areas.
b. All known uncontrolled airports to the extent possible.
c. Control areas and transition areas to the extent possible.
d. " Populated areas to the extent possible so that the adverse effects of speed
and sound to persons and property on the ground are minimized.
2. Additional factors pertaining to these routes:
a. The speed shall be the minimum subsonic speed required for the parti-
cular operation.
b. Routes are flown only when the ceiling is at least 3,000 feet and visibility
at least five miles.
c. Route users effect inter-and-intra-service coordination and share use
of routes to the maximum practicable extent to minimize the number of
low altitude routes.
d. Routes are coordinated with Flight Standards and Air Traffic Control
Divisions at the appropriate FAA Regional Office to minimize impact
on their airspace users.
e. The affected public is advised of these routes by publicizing of the routes.
The military also conducts low altitude flight operations in restricted visibility
conditions. This type of operation is normally conducted by bomber aircraft on a
route that terminates at a Radar Bomb Scoring (RBS) facility. Aircraft are normally
flown at 500 feet above the surface during daylight hours and at 800 feet during the
hours of darkness. When visibility decreases to five miles or less the aircraft climbs
to a higher altitude and proceeds in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules. Once
an RBS site is selected, the Strategic Air Command and the Federal Avaiation Admin-
istration jointly design a route in accordance with established criteria, one of which
is to avoid population centers. These routes are also published .and publicized.
2-4
-------
SUPERSONIC FLIGHT
In order to perform the Navy and Air Force mission it is necessary to conduct
operations which involve supersonic flight over the United States. Air Force flight
operations resulted in approximately 1,500,000 nautical miles of supersonic flight
annually during 1970-1972. This represents approximately 98% of the total military
supersonic flight activities conducted over the U.S. , with Navy activity accounting
for the remaining activity. Based upon the total number of hours flown by the Air
Force during the same period, the supersonic flight operations represent approxi-
mately .0003 of the total Air Force flight operations, the Navy's even less.
The military supersonic operations fall into two general categories:
1. Operations of short supersonic duration conducted by fighter /interceptor-type
aircraft.
2. Sustained supersonic operations conducted by high altitude reconnaisance
aircraft.
OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT OF LIMITED SUPERSONIC REQUIREMENT
Supersonic operations of short duration are conducted by fighter/interceptor-type
aircraft capable of short supersonic dashes in the accomplishment of special mission
requirements which comprise an extremely small part of their overall mission. This
category generates more than 95% of the military supersonic flight activities, but is
responsible for less than 50% of the supersonic miles flown. All Navy supersonic
requirements fall in this category. The activities include those conducted in under-
graduate pilot training, interceptor training, aerial combat tactics training, research
flights, and aircraft acceptance flight checks. Most of these missions can be highly
responsive in eliminating overflight of sensitive areas, as the underlying environs do
not contribute to mission accomplishment. The primary operational requirement is
that the flights be conducted in airspace separated from other air traffic that is within
reasonable range of the air base (not to require aerial refueling).
2-5
-------
OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT CONDUCTING SUSTAINED SUPERSONIC ACTIVITIES
Certain Air Force supersonic reconnaissance aircraft flying above 70,000 feet
normally cruise at speeds of Mach 3. As previously stated, this mission generates
more than 50% of supersonic nautical miles flown by military aircraft. To accomplish
its assigned mission, a large percentage of reconnaissance aircraft activities must
be conducted over land to accomplish valid training. Some of the operational problems
in avoiding all areas sensitive to booms becomes apparent with a profile view of an
average mission. An average training mission traverses approximately 2500 nautical
miles, and based upon an estimated boom exposure width of 70 miles at cruising alti-
tude, approximately 175,000 square miles of terrain underlying the flight track could
be exposed to the audible boom on a single flight. Additional operational constraints
include a limited maneuvering capability during certain critical portions of a flight,
a nominal aircraft turning radius of 90 miles which limits avoiding sensitive areas
close to each other, airspace limitations caused by the necessity to separate climb,
descent and refueling corridors from other air traffic, and the necessity to fly over
certain ground installations to calibrate and assess the unique equipment aboard the
aircraft.
AIR FORCE REGULATION OF SUPERSONIC FLIGHT ACTIVITIES
As supersonic flight requirements expanded with the introduction into the Air
Force of more sophisticated aircraft, it quickly became apparent that compatibility
of the Air Force mission with the environs demanded that the selection of supersonic
flight corridors be closely controlled to minimize the impact upon the underlying
areas. Unilateral limitations on supersonic flight were incorporated in 1967 into Air
Force Regulation 55-34, "Reducing Flight Disturbances that Cause Adverse Public
Reactions. " These policies have been continually reviewed and adjusted, and the
current directive is attached.
As a matter of Air Force Policy (the Navy has a similar policy) the generation
of sonic booms is not authorized except during:
2-6
-------
1. Strategic Air Command and North American Air Defense Command exercises
approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and only to the extent required to achieve
command objectives.
2. Aerospace Defense Command flights engaged in active air defense missions.
3. Tactical missions which require supersonic speeds.
4. Phases of formal training courses and proficiency flights which require
supersonic speeds. When such flights are necessary, they are conducted
over specially designated areas and are closely supervised.
5. Research, test, and operational suitability check flights which require super-
sonic speeds. These flights are also conducted over designated areas.
6. Demonstrations specifically authorized by a major command. Such flights
are coordinated in advance with Air Force Headquarters.
7. Any Emergency when, in the judgement of the pilot, safety justifies a devia-
tion from this general policy.
When supersonic operations are required, flights are conducted at altitudes above
30,000 feet over land areas, and above 10,000 feet over open water areas (at least 15
miles from the nearest shoreline). Metropolitan areas (100,000 or more population),
all National Parks, and other critical areas specified by the Air Force, will be avoided
by one-half mile for each 1,000 feet of altitude. Some exceptions are noted in the
regulation. Current specified critical areas to be avoided include certain National
Monuments identified as fragile by the National Park Service.
To insure close control in this area of flight operations, the Air Force has a
Sonic Boom Reporting System with a computerized repository. Commanders of all
Air Force and Navy units utilizing aircraft capable of supersonic speeds are required
to insure that reports of all flight activities at or above Mach One (a speed equal to
that of sound) are properly recorded on a Sonic Boom Log and forwarded to the reposi-
tory. The information included in each report provides the date, time starting and
2-7
-------
stopping locations of the supersonic activity, the Mach number, altitude, aircraft
serial number, and reporting base. This information is used primarily to substantiate
damage claims against the DOD.
CURRENT PROGRAMS
In summary, the following programs are currently being pursued in the interest
of noise abatement.
• Ground noise suppressor. Acquisition of both in frame and out-of-frame
suppressors has been and continues to be pursued.
• Use of satellite airfields in remote areas to conduct especially noisy or
repetitive evolutions.
• Headquarters level directives, which control:
Supersonic flight operations
Minimum altitudes over specified areas
Annoyance to the civilian population
Permissible activities
General noise abatement policies
• Further, there are few airports without self imposed restrictions, e.g. no
afterburner take-offs after 2200 hours, no ground run-ups after 2200 hours,
etc.
• Continual review of low level training routes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the above the Environmental Protection Agency will request that the
Department of Defense undertake a comprehensive analysis of its aircraft operating
constraints and procedures to determine what can be done specifically to further
2-8
-------
reduce the noise impact from aircraft operations without compromising flight safety
or National defense needs. And that any new noise abatement procedures identified
by this analysis be incorporated into the Department of Defenses flight operations at
the earliest possible time.
In order to further balance the effort to reduce the impact of noise from military
aircraft it is recommended that the Congress continue to support the Department of
Defense in the continuing program of acquisition of ground maintenance noise
suppressors.
2-9
-------
SECTION 3
LAND USE CONTROL IN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORTS
OVERVIEW
This section summarizes the results of applied research conducted
at Headquarters, Air Training Command, Base Master Planning. The purpose of
this section is: (1) the identification and appraisal of the conflict between land use
and aircraft operations, (2) the identification and description of legislative require-
ments and (3) the description of an airport environs planning methodology. This
methodology, developed for use at U.S. Air Force (Air Training Command) bases,
is constantly being refined and updated as new information becomes available through
both research and actual experience.
The section discusses the justification and requirement for airport environs land
use planning in legal, economic, legislative, political and practical terms. The scope
of airport environs land use planning determinants is identified and discussed. National,
state and local legislative efforts, such as the National Land Use and Policy Planning
Assistance Act of 1973 and several state acts, are discussed.
Drawing from research and case studies, an Airport Environs Policy Plan is
presented. An airport land use planning methodology is developed from flight opera-
tional data, flight patterns, flight profiles, accident histories and plots, flight charac-
teristics, aircraft types and long term projections. The "how to do it" aspects of
drawing the aircraft operations "footprint" are detailed.
The Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan is developed using an area
called the Compatible Use District and comprehensive land use standards.
An implementation strategy is overviewed in terms of integrating the Compatible
Use District System with comprehensive land use plans. The zoning process is
discussed using court cases and legal review. Zoning legislation in selected states
3-1
-------
is summarized and compared. Specialized zoning methods and alternative implemen-
tation methods are cited. Findings are summarized and recommendations are
suggested.
INTRODUCTION
The immediate requirement to plan the use of land throughout the United States
is critical. Even though some land use has been planned for centuries and the planning
process is now evolving at an accelerating rate, many believe that the time may have
already passed to solve the land use problem.
This concern is being translated into action in many places. The Land Use
Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973 (S. 268 and S. 924) is now pending before
the Congress. Many state legislatures are currently considering legislation similar
to S. 268 and/or the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Land Use Development Code.
Planning agencies at all governmental levels are proliferating throughout the country.
The evolution and recognition of planning is the logical reaction of a society which
has increased substantially in both numbers and geographic density concentrations.
Areas which were once part of agricultural America (and environmentally "clean")
are suddenly becoming urban. Simultaneously, the American public is demanding
environmental quality. The complexities of this modern society will not allow us to
retrace our steps back to the frontier days of the nineteenth century. Granted, many
people are returning to the "land" but the bulk of the American population is urban
centered.
Herein lies the challenge. What can be done to maintain "necessities" of life in
a modern world without destroying or impairing life itself ? Is it possible for man
and his activities to exist with man himself and the natural order without serious
negative environmental results ? The planner must respond with an affirmative reply,
citing environmental land use planning as his answer.
3-2
-------
Simply stated, the planner must negotiate the compromise between conflicting
planning elements. He must fully inventory and evaluate what exists as natural or
man-made fact. He must then produce and implement plans for future compatibility
among planning elements while, at the same time, eliminating as many negative impacts
as possible.
This discussion is concerned with a portion of the environmental land use planning
process: that of the airport and adjacent land use. Airports and their impacts are
real. They are here to stay. However, there exist serious conflicts between many
airports and the land areas in their environs. It is suggested that solutions to these
conflicts can be achieved through the skillful employment of the environmental land
use planning process.
For purposes of this paper, planning is defined as "a process for the rational
choices between alternative futures assuring orderly physical growth with the ultimate
objective of the protection and promotion of the public health, safety and welfare as
well as economic and social stability. "
Such planning is long range and comprehensive. It is a means to bring technical
and professional inputs into the political decision-making process. It is a method by
which long range objectives can be translated into short range actions. It is designed
to achieve a rational compromise between the public and private interest.
There is virtually unanimous agreement among planners and others associated
with airports that compatible land use adjacent to these installations is imperative.
There has been, and still is, considerable confusion and disagreement concerning
how to effectively accomplish this task. Throughout the evolution of airport land use
efforts, there have been recurring difficulties and deficiencies. These problems
essentially fall within four categories:
]. .Legislation - The necessary state enabling acts have generally been omitted
from state laws. Those that do exist are basically inadequate. Without legis-
lation which specifically recognizes the requirement for airport environs
compatible land use, realistic solutions cannot be achieved.
3-3
-------
2. The Courts - The results of litigation concerning nuisance, damage, trespass
and taking without due compensation have generally been against the airport
operator, even when the airport was there first.
3. Technology - The means by which the impact of aircraft operations can be
evaluated in terms of noise and accident hazard have been slow in developing.
Substantive efforts in noise evaluation have been confined to the last 10 to 15
years.
4. Planning - Planners have not produced systems of land use compatibility
based on all aircraft land use determinants to effectuate adequate installation
and area inhabitant protection through rational and reasonable criteria.
THE CASE FOR AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE CONTROLS
It is human nature to wait until a problem exists before substantive commitments
are made. This is, of course, understandable when one considers the fact that all
things cannot be accomplished simultaneously. Commitments are made on the basis
of priorities. It then follows that the solution of the airport land use problem must
begin with the recognition that there is, in fact, a problem and that if it is not resolved
the results will be unacceptable.
THE LEGAL BASIS
In its purest sense, government exists to serve the people. Land use legislation,
particularly zoning, was designed to protect people from threats to health, safety and
general welfare. In the early days of zoning, it was used to prevent the construction
of such things as slaughter houses in residential neighborhoods. Zoning has evolved
considerably since then but health, safety and welfare remain paramount. It is within
this framework that the airport land use question must be discussed.
In terms of safety, airport operations pose a greater threat than most other land
uses. Many governmental jurisdictions now prevent or limit construction and certain
3-4
-------
land uses due to flood plains, steep slopes, poor soil stability and so forth, but few
do so because of aircraft operations. Airplanes crash and people die. That is a fact,
as is the certainty that there will be floods in flood plains.
Within the last six months, there have been a number of aircraft crashes near
airports with significant loss of life:
-November 1972 - A civilian owned sabre jet crashed during takeoff into an ice
cream parlor at the end of the Sacramento Executive Airport runways. Twenty-two
persons in the building died. The State of California had opposed the shopping center
7
development. It was built anyway.
-December 1972 - A United Airlines 737 crashed, while landing, into a residen-
tial area less than two miles from Chicago's Midway Airport, killing 43 passengers
and two persons on the ground. It was reported that more passengers would have
a
survived had it not been for the fact that part of the aircraft was inside a house.
-December 1972 - A Lear jet crashed, while taking off from Detroit's Metro-
politan Airport, into a four million gallon gasoline tank killing all aboard and one
man on the ground.
-December 1972 - A twin engine Cessna crashed into two homes shortly after
takeoff from Buffalo International Airport. Three people on board and three in the
houses were killed.
-February 1973 - A Lear jet, while taking off at Atlanta, struck a flock of birds
(allegedly from a sanitary land fill near the runway end) and crashed into a wooded
area after hitting an apartment building, killing all aboard.
Although there were other crashes during this time period, those cited have two
things in common: the crashes were in the immediate vicinity of the airport during
takeoff or landing, and they either killed or narrowly missed killing people on the
ground. Had there been effective airport land use compatibility zoning, persons on
the ground would not have been exposed to this hazard and personnel in the aircraft
would have had a better chance for survival.
3-5
-------
Although the danger to ground level activities from aircraft operations can be
disastrous, the converse is also true. Tall structures, confusing light emissions and
other similar land based activities pose serious hazards to low level flight. Many
states have long recognized this relationship and have enabling acts which allow local
authorities to enact zoning ordinances which prevent land uses potentially hazardous
to aircraft operations. Of the acts reviewed, none allow land use zoning
12
per se.
The intent of these acts is to establish height limitations, control electrical
emissions, etc. They are designed to protect flight operations only. No concern is
given to the inhabitant of the land in terms of his safety. Some ordinances under
these state acts include such things as residential exclusions but they would probably
be thrown out by the courts because the enabling acts generally do not allow such
regulation.
The list of unnecessary deaths due to land use incompatibility would be very
long. Numerous crashes have occurred in the history of aviation when aircraft met
obstructions. Most states reacted positively. It is only reasonable that a similar
response is warranted to protect land users from the type of deaths previously cited.
Such a response is clearly within the zoning mandate to protect and promote safety.
Airport land use regulation must also consider health. It is becoming more
apparent that the noise produced by low-flying aircraft results in health hazards to
area inhabitants. This health hazard must be considered in several ways. Firstly,
it is known that exposure to high noise levels over long periods will damage hearing.
13
Scientific research indicates that this is the case in limited areas around airports.
The far reaching health hazard of noise is psychological or mental. Scientific data
on this point is limited. The main body of knowledge is from psycho-acoustic and
social surveys. This information has been translated into what is called "anticipated
14
community response. " Although it is largely subjective, such data are real in
that people do perceive certain noise conditions to be detrimental. It is also on this
basis that court decisions are being made.
3-6
-------
Unfortunately the aircraft noise problem is difficult to handle effectively. Aircraft
noise is dependent on many variables. It is extremely complicated in that the number
of flights, runway utilization, time of day and many other factors determine the extent
of noise exposure. Simply stated, aircraft noise exposure is considerably different
from that produced by a machine running at a constant rate with a steady noise output.
Short of having a computer program that can say a person will go deaf in so many
years at location XYZ, the planner, local governments and the courts must use the
best available tools.
The third basic zoning consideration is that of the public welfare. Public welfare
can be construed to mean many things. In the case of airports the public welfare is
clearly economic. Most airports were originally located some distance from the city
being served or other urbanized areas. As population increases, so does the demand
for land. Since airports attract economic growth, development gradually surrounds
the airport. For many land uses this is economically and practically sound. Certain
industrial, business and airport support functions owe their existence to the airport.
These land uses, as well as the airport, attract other uses which are not compatible
with airport operations. Over time, those directly dependent on the airport are
overcome by a majority who do not care about the airport. Many are unwary home
purchasers who work elsewhere. Finally these people initiate legal or political action
against the airport. The airport either pays, curtails or alters operations, relocates
1 fi
or closes entirely.
Such situations affect the economic welfare in two primary ways. The airport is
a major industry which produces substantial amounts of primary money for the local
17
economy as well as primary jobs. In any case, these primary dollars are affected.
In some communities, particularly where there are military airports, the loss of
18
dollars due to base closure can be disastrous.
The second way the economic welfare is affected is through the waste of public
tax dollars. Most major airports are owned by some level of government. They are
19
multimillion dollar investments. If they are closed or replaced the taxpayer pays
3-7
-------
the price. In terms of the public trust it is the duty of those in government to protect
this investment.
The control of land use within the vicinity of airports clearly falls within the
zoning purpose of protecting and promoting the health, safety and welfare. The means
to achieve compatibility within this framework must be developed.
THE PRACTICAL BASIS
The United States public demands adequate, safe air transport service and a ready
national defense organization. Loss or compromise of either because of urban encroach-
ment is not justified.
If an installation is forced to close, it may be replaced or the service transferred
to another location. In any case, there will be an economic loss. If the service is
transferred to another location, the level of service and convenience may decline.
If flight operations are altered due to the presence of encroachment, safety haz-
ards may result. Takeoff power may be reduced. Glide paths may be steeper. Pat-
terns may be altered. Each of these modifications may be a safety compromise that
could have been avoided.
With reference to military airports, closure due to encroachment endangers the
national defense. The unknowing might say that the elimination 01 a single air base
really does not matter. This is simply not the case. Each military airfield has a spe-
cific role in the national defense program. There have been many closures since
World War II and as a result the inventory of usable installations has decreased signi-
ficantly. The options, short of building entirely new installations, are severely
limited.
The nation's airspace is becoming more and more limited due to the tremendous
increase in commercial and general aviation. When all the airways are overlayed on
the United States it becomes quite clear that there are few areas left with essentially
unencumbered airspace. Such airspace is vitally important to the U. S. military.
3-8
-------
Most military training areas are located in these areas for the obvious reason. If
such training installations are eliminated due to encroachment this airspace advantage
will be lost.
In terms of health, safety, welfare and plain common sense, it is readily apparent
that all efforts should be made to maintain existing airports without limitations due to
incompatible land use. Quite frankly, there are no valid arguments to justify incom-
patible land use around airports. The free market system of land economics requires
that a landowner is entitled to a reasonable return from his land. Compatible land use
planning will not prevent such economic return. It means that certain uses will not be
allowed in certain areas. That is exactly what zoning is all about.
THE LEGISLATIVE BASIS
It is often said that whenever a. problem is identified the solution is to simply
legislate it out of existence. Even this oversimplification has an element of truth in
the airport land use question. Unfortunately, legislation is often the only means by
which problem solution may begin.
The regulation of land use in the United States has traditionally been exercised
by the states through delegation to the local governments. For the most part this
has worked in the past. This concept of total local control is currently undergoing
critical review and the indications are that the land use planning process is about to
change through national legislation.
During the 92nd Congress, three bills were introduced which would have estab-
lished a National Land Use Policy: S. 632 (Jackson Bill), S. 992 (Administration Bill)
and H. R. 7211 (Aspinall Bill). Each of these bills would have required that the states
implement a comprehensive planning process, designate areas of critical concern and
develop plans. Penalties would be levied for non-compliance. Each of the bills would
have required specific measures concerning unique ecosystems and areas or facilities
of greater than local concern. The airport land use compatibility question falls within
the scope of these bills.
3-9
-------
None of the bills was enacted into law. The Land Use Policy and Planning Assist-
ance Act of 1973 (S. 268 and S. 924) is now before the Senate. With reference to the
airport land use compatibility problem, Sec 303(d) is quoted:
"Any method of implementation employed by the state shall include the
authority of the state to prohibit, under state police powers, the use of
land within areas which, under the state land use program, have been
designated as areas of critical environmental concern, which are, or
may be impacted by key facilities, or which have been identified as
presently or potentially subject to development and land use of regional
benefit, large-scale development, or large-scale subdivisions, which
use is inconsistent with the requirements of the state land use program
as they pertain to areas of critical environmental concern, key facili-
ties, development and land use of regional benefit, large scale develop-
ment, and large scale subdivisions."^
It is quite clear, that it is only a matter of time until the states will be forced to
resolve their land use problems. Several states are well into the process. The State
of Florida enacted the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972
in its last legislative session. The Act, modeled along the lines of the American
21
Law Institute Code authorizes the "state land planning agency to recommend, and
the administration commission to designate, areas of critical state concern and to
specify principles for guiding development therein. " The Act further authorizes
"local governments to adopt appropriate land development regulations for such areas
22
subject to approval of the state land planning agency. "
In the State of Washington, the State Land Use Planning Commission has prepared
23
legislation which would designate "airports and seaports of state and/or federal
24
interest" as development of greater than local impact. Such designation is designed
25
to ensure that "the net impact is in the best interest of all affected state citizens.
The Washington Act also includes a significant provision in Sec 4-501 which states:
"... the state agency may exercise emergency power to designate
areas of state-wide significance and or development of greater than
local impact as specified in part 5 of this article. The state agency
shall develop regulations, including regulations for the granting and
denial of development permits, for areas of state-wide significance,
flood plains and/or development of greater than local impact and sub-
mit them to the governor for his approval.
3-10
-------
The signals are clear. Legislators have recognized the problem and they are in the
process of strongly urging the states and local governments to implement the planning
process for areas such as the airport environs. These legislative actions plus the
health, safety and welfare and practical considerations form the case for airport
environs land use controls. How then are these factors translated into substantive
implementation programs ?
THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS POLICY PLAN
Land use planning is accomplished through a process of phases. Generally, these
phases are survey, analysis, plan and implementation. Preceding these phases is the
formation of a policy plan which sets forth the framework within which the planning
process will be conducted, although it will evolve and change as phases of the process
are completed. The policy plan is vitally important because it constitutes the general
statement of objectives.
The policy plan is developed by the planner with his client. In this plan, the plan-
ner attempts to frame the problem and translate his client's desires into policy state-
ments. These policies become the basis of the land use regulation system. They
serve as the standard by which all airport land use planning and zoning decisions are
made and evaluated. These policies can also serve as the purpose or intent statements
of legislation or ordinances.
Frederick H. Bair, Jr. , the noted zoning authority, states:
"The first, and perhaps major, virtue of intent statements is that they
force drafters to relate regulations to defensible public purposes, they
also serve as a guide to the courts and may be both a guide and a de-
fense for local legislative bodies. In the absence of such statements,
courts are hesitant to speculate as to any special intent of the legis-
lative body."27
The Policy Plan may also be used as the planning document often required by state
zoning law. Most states require that zoning be compatible with a comprehensive plan.
For example, the State of Arizona requires that:
3-11
-------
"The commission shall formulate and adopt a comprehensive long term
county plan for the area of jurisdiction. The county plan, with accom-
panying maps, plates, charts and descriptive matter shall show the
commission's recommendations for development of the area of juris-
diction together with general zoning regulations.
The State of Nebraska is more specific on this requirement where state law
says:
"Such regulation (referring to zoning) shall be made in accordance with
a comprehensive development plan which shall consist of both graphic
and textual material and shall be designed to accommodate anticipated
long-range future growth which shall be based upon documented popu-
OQ
lation and economic projections.'
The policy plan can meet the plan requirements of state law in addition to provid-
ing a practical decision-making guide. In some cases, such policies must be sup-
plemented by graphic material, although the fact remains that the policy statement
is definitely needed.
POLICY FORMULATION AND CONTENT
The drafting of airport environs planning policies is based on the factors discussed
in the preceding section. If the problem improperly identified and well stated, policy
\
writing is relatively easy. For instance, it has been established that airport land use
controls must promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. The policy
for this purpose can be stated as follows:
Policy #1
HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
In order to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, and
general welfare of the inhabitants of the airport environs, it is necessary to:
1. Guide, control and regulate future growth and development.
2. Promote orderly and appropriate use of the land.
3-12
-------
3. Protect the character and stability of existing land uses.
4. Prevent the destruction or impairment of the airport and public investment
therein.
5. Enhance the quality of the areas affected, and
6. Protect the general economic welfare by restricting incompatible land use.
With the general planning purpose established, it is necessary to provide addi-
tional refinement in terms of specific implementation action:
Policy #2
IMPLEMENT PLANS
In order to effectuate Policy #1, it is necessary to:
1. Develop an Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan.
2. Adopt appropriate ordinances to implement the land use plan.
3. Restrict or prohibit incompatible land use.
4. Establish the standards of compatibility, and
5. Prevent the establishment of any land use which would endanger the continued
use of the airport.
As discussed in the preceding section, there are land uses which can endanger
aircraft operations. These uses must be specified and recognized as incompatible:
Policy #3
INCOMPATIBLE USES
Within the airport environs, there are certain land uses which are recognized as
being incompatible. These land uses are not in the public interest and therefore must
be restricted and/or prohibited:
1. Uses which release into the air any substance which would impair visibility
or otherwise interfere with the operation of aircraft, such as but not limited
to steam, dust and smoke.
3-13
-------
2. Uses which produce light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective),
which would interfere with pilot vision.
3. Uses which produce electrical emissions which would interfere with aircraft
communication systems or navigational equipment.
4. Uses which would attract birds or waterfowl, such as but not limited to
dumping of garbage, maintenance of feeding stations, or the growing of
certain vegetation.
5. Uses which extend into the air within ten feet of the approach-departure
surface and/or transitional surfaces as set forth in Air Force Manual 86-8.
6. Uses which exceed a height of 150 feet above the runway elevation.
Certain noise levels and accident hazard potential must be recognized as incom-
patible with some land uses:
Policy #4
NOISE AND ACCIDENT HAZARD
It is recognized that certain noise levels of varying duration and frequency create
hazards to both physical and mental health. It is further recognized that a definite
danger to life exists in certain areas adjacent to airports. Where these conditions
exist, it is not consistent with the public health, safety and welfare to allow the
following land uses:
1. Residential
2. Retail Business
3. Office Buildings
4. Public Buildings
5. Recreation Buildings and Structures
3-14
-------
Where significant accident potential exists, density and intensity of use standards
should be drafted:
Policy #5
LAND USE DENSITY
Land areas below approach-departure flight paths are exposed to significant
danger of aircraft accidents. It is, therefore, necessary to limit the density of
development and the intensity of use.
All land uses have some sensitivity to noise. A system of noise sensitivity and
construction attenuation should be recognized to allow development where it would
otherwise be incompatible:
Policy #6
NOISE REDUCTION STANDARDS
It has been established that different land uses have different sensitivities to
noise. Standards of acceptability should be adopted based on these noise sensitivities.
In addition, a system of noise reduction standards for construction should be used
to allow certain uses where they would otherwise be prohibited.
The planning process is not single purpose. It is comprehensive and includes
all land use determinants. It follows that the evaluation of aircraft operations/land
use compatibility is only a part of planning. Thus Policy #7:
Policy #7
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
It is recognized that land use planning and zoning in the airport environs cannot
rest solely on airport impacts. Allocation of land uses within the airport environs
should be further refined by analysis of:
1. Physiographic Factors
2. Climate and Hydrology
3-15
-------
3. Vegetation
4. Surficial Geology
5. Soils Characteristics
6. Intrinsic Land Use Suitability
7. Economic and Social Demand
8. Land Ownership Patterns and Value
9. Existing Land Use
10. Cost and Availability of Public Utilities
11. Cost and Availability of Transportation
12. Cost and Availability of Community Facilities
The ten policies outlined above serve as the focal point for airport environs land
use compatibility planning. Depending on the individual situation, policies should be
modified, expanded or limited. Adaptation should be accomplished at the local level
by local people. Policies may be incorporated into existing policy plans. In any
event, such policies are extremely important. In terms of total implementation
strategy, they should be presented to local policy makers at the beginning of the plan-
ning process. Such policies may be quite acceptable at first while specific details in
an ordinance may not. Once the policies are accepted they serve as "notice to the
world. " The details can then follow.
DEFINING THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS "FOOTPRINT" BASIC DATA REQUIREMENTS
The airport operations "footprint" is the foundation of airport area land use com-
patibility planning. Before any planning can begin, the planner must know the exact
nature of the aircraft operations. He must know such things as what kinds of aircraft
use the airport, where they fly, how high they fly, how many times they fly over a
given area and what time of day they operate. The planner must be able to accurately
3-16
-------
depict in words and graphic material the sum total of aircraft operations in the airport
environs.
Operations data acquisition can be divided into several steps. The first require-
ment is to fully inventory the types of aircraft using the installation because each has
a different "footprint. " The second step is to accurately depict the flight patterns in
the vicinity of the airport for each aircraft (Figure 3-1). In most cases, these
patterns should be plotted on a 1"=2000T USGS map with a radius of approximately five
to eight miles. Most civil airports have relatively simple flight patterns, at least
compared to those at military airfields. Most civil aviation patterns are essentially
straight-in and straight-out. Figure 3-1 shows one of the more complicated pattern
arrangements used by the military; that of the training base using T-37 and T-38
aircraft. Similar patterns can be found at civil airports with National Guard or
Reserve units.
The complex example in Figure 3-1 has five basic patterns:
1. Straight Out Takeoff
2. Straight In Landing
3. Overhead Landing
4. Closed Pattern to the Inside Downwind
5. Closed (Crosswind) Pattern to the Outside Downwind
Step three in this process is the plotting of profiles for each aircraft on each
pattern (Figure 3-2). This information is vital because noise exposure is a func-
tion of aircraft altitude. It is readily apparent that flight profiles differ considerably
by aircraft and pattern.
The depiction of flight patterns and profiles requires a certain degree of judgment.
Flight patterns are variable. They are not stable like highways. In some cases, it is
advisable to establish ranges of variation based on accurate data. In spite of this
variation, it is necessary to establish a single flight path to serve as the basis for
3-17
-------
ra
a
co
a>
3-18
-------
H
J_
\
iTi
H
-5
I I M I (I I I « '
w
PL.
O
H
O
I I I II i ! I I i t I M I S I I I ! i I > ' ' '
i i i i i i i i i
I I J I ! I I I I
en
0
-------
noise contour work. The line selected may be that which has 50% or 75% of the
nights.
Flight profiles vary from season to season. Generally, in the summer heat they
are lower, while in the winter they may be much higher. Variation ranges for the
same aircraft may be considerably different in the northern states as compared to
the southern states. Here, as in the case of flight patterns, a line must be selected.
Selection may be based on the worst (lowest), average or best (highest) situation. As
a general rule, the lowest profile should be selected, particularly where it is flown
more than several months per year.
Both pattern and profile depictions should be based on actual operations rather
than manufacturers' specifications or other "theoretical" data. As was stated pre-
viously, operations for a given aircraft vary from airport to airport. Where there
are planned operational changes such information should also be plotted and
considered.
With the patterns and profiles finalized, it is possible to compile operational
data in terms of number of flights, frequency, etc. Data must be tabulated on a daily
and yearly basis for each pattern and aircraft. For instance, the total daily number
of overhead landings on Runway 30 (assumes all landings during one day are on Run-
way 30) must be specified. The amount of time during a year that the overhead
pattern to Runway 30 is used must be specified by a percentage figure. Since there
are three other landing patterns on this runway (overhead, RW 12, straight-in RW 30
and straight-in RW 12), the sum of all four must equal 100%. In the case of the
Figure 3-1 example, 20 different operational patterns must be considered.
The planning of the airport environs must recognize accident potential. Concern
for this factor historically has focused on approach-departure zones as the critical
areas of paramount importance. It is obvious that the Figure 3-1 example does
not jibe with the traditional view. Use of these traditional potential hazard zones for
civil airports is also questionable. What is needed is a measurement technique that
more precisely depicts and analyzes the actual critical accident hazard areas.
3-20
-------
It should be noted that such a technique will not replace the system of zones cur-
rently used for obstruction and height zoning. That system is good for what is was
designed to do. The new technique will be used to determine land use compatibility
based on hazard to the land use rather than hazard to operations from land uses.
The logical way to evaluate accident hazard is to plot and evaluate past accidents.
In the case of the Figure 3-1 example, histories of T-37 and T-38 accidents at
all installations using these aircraft were assembled for the period 1961 to present.
As a further refinement, these accidents were plotted by the pattern being flown at
the time of the crash. The results were enlightening in the sense that they did not sup-
port the use of the conventional approach-departure zones.
At airports where there are many types of aircraft in use, accident plotting is
more complex. Some airports and aircraft have excellent safety records and, as a
result, there is little upon which to base an analysis. In no case should the accident
sample be based only on the history of one airport. On the other hand, the sample
should not be based on all accidents of all aircraft at all airports. The sample, in
order to be valid, should be confined to all accidents, at all airports where the same
type of aircraft are being flown as are in use, or projected to be used, at the subject
airport.
Closely related to the accident plot is the summarization of flight characteristics.
Aircraft differ operationally in that certain portions of flight are more hazardous than
others. Factors such as glide characteristics and the results of system malfunctions
must be known. For instance, the glide characteristics of the T-38 are very poor
compared to those of the T-37. The T-38 also flies at greater speeds. This means
that the T-38 comes down much faster. If a problem develops which necessitates the
ejection of the pilot in a T-38, little can be done to direct the aircraft to an open area.
The T-37 moves much slower, glides farther and can be directed to some degree.
Other flight characteristic considerations include the fact that hydraulic failure
in a T-38 or the ingestion of birds in both engines almost certainly means an accident.
3-21
-------
These factors do not exist with the T-37. It is also known that one of the most critical
portions of a T-38 flight is during the final turn.
Obviously, a thorough knowledge of flight characteristics, together with accident
histories, reconstituted as disaster potential impact zones surpasses the older method
of simply designating runway ends as the sole hazard areas. Utilization of this data
is explained below.
The preceding discussion of data acquisition has dealt exclusively with the existing
situation. Airport operations, like all things, change. Therefore, the data acquisi-
tion phase must include a projection of the future. For civil airports' projections in
terms of future aircraft and daily usage are usually available. If the acquisition of a
new aircraft is being projected, its patterns and profiles should be plotted, based on
the best available information. Operational data, such as daily flight numbers and
pattern utilization, can also be assembled. For land use planning purposes such
projections should be treated as though they exist today.
Military airports pose a somewhat different problem. Future projections are not
based on anticipated passenger demand. They are sometimes based on total mission
changes which are often in the form of classified information. Where future mission
changes are known, data should be assembled for that mission. In cases where a new
aircraft is projected for a certain installation it should be considered in the same
manner. In other cases, the potentiality of mission changes should be considered so
that an installation's short range land use plan does not obsolete the installation for
future use. Such data, as in the case of the civil airport, should be treated as valid
for land use planning purposes.
THE NOISE "FOOTPRINT"
Noise is the most bothersome airport problem today because noise causes people
to react against the airport. The description, depiction and evaluation of noise due to
aircraft operations is by far the least resolved factor in airport planning. At present,
there are at least ten aircraft noise systems being used in the world. Four of these
(CNR, NEF, CNEL and db(A)) are used in the United States.
3-22
-------
Composite Noise Rating (CNR) has been in use since the early 1960's. The essence
of the CNR system is the expression of aircraft noise in terms of perceived noise level
(PNL) in perceived noise decibels (PNdB) at any given distances from the noise
source. PNL contours are drawn to correspond to flight paths and profiles. The
PNL contours are then converted to CNR by applying corrections for the number of
30
operations, etc.
The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) system is a refinement of the CNR system
which uses EPNL (Effective Perceived Noise Level) rather than PNL as the basic
• ad
32
31
noise contours. Major advances over CNR include tone correction, duration correc-
tion and computerization.
The State of California uses a system called the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL). This system, based on actual monitoring, uses decibels (db) as the
33
basic measure. It, like CNR and NEF, includes such elements as noise level of
separate events, the number of noise events in some specified time period and normal-
izing constants.
The db(A) system is used by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
35
ment (HUD) for purposes of the FHA Mortgage Insurance Program. HUD also uses
CNR or NEF. Use of db(A) (decibels on the A scale) requires simple on-scene mea-
surement. Such measurements are then expressed by the amount of exposure.
Composite Noise Rating has been the most widely used system although it is now
being replaced by Noise Exposure Forecast. In a recent study by Bolt, Beranek, and
Newman for the United States Air Force, BB and N recommended:
"The USAF aircraft noise-land use planning procedure should employ
EPNL (NEF) as the measure for specifying noise from aircraft."
For immediate purposes either CNR or NEF must be used. NEF is a better system
although properly constructed CNR controus can be used. The methodology developed
in this section can employ either system or could be used with any new comparable
system.
3-23
-------
Figure VI-1-3 is a Composite Noise Rating contour map for the Figure 3-1
example. CNR and NEF maps usually have only two noise contour lines: CNR 100 or
NEF 30 and CNR 115 or NEF 40. These lines create three zones. CNR Zone 3 or
NEF Zone C is within the CNR 115 or NEF 40 line. CNR Zone 2 or NEF B is between
CNR 100 and CNR 115 or NEF 30 and NEF 40. Areas outside CNR 100 or NEF 30 are
considered as CNR Zone 1 or NEF Zone A. Use of these zones has generally focused
on residential acceptability which is based on levels of anticipated community response.
HUD's use of this system denies mortgage insurance in CNR Zone 3 or NEF Zone C
37
and considers CNR Zone 2 or NEF B as normally unacceptable.
The Figure 3-3 CNR map has four lines: CNR 122. 5, 115, 107. 5 and 100.
These lines correspond to NEF 45, 40, 35 and 30 respectively. These CNR lines
were used for three reasons:
1. They offer more land use options
2. They correspond to the NEF system
3. They correspond to most of the land use studies which use the NEF system.
Drawing a valid CNR noise contour map is a very complex, time consuming proc-
ess. It is quite easy to consume 200-400 manhours on a really complicated CNR map.
There are actually two ways to draw a CNR map. The first involves selecting pre-
drawn PNL contours for the group of aircraft in which the subject aircraft is classi-
fied, applying operational corrections and connecting the lines. This method, however,
does not produce a valid, accurate CNR map.
The first problem is that aircraft are grouped in terms of noise output. This
grouping concept says that the T-37 makes the same amount of noise that a T-38 pro-
duces. This is simply not true. Secondly, the grouping procedure assumes that both
aircraft have the same landing and takeoff flight profiles. As shown in Figure 3-2
there is wide flight profile variation even for the same aircraft. A third problem is
the total inability of applying the predrawn contours to any pattern other than a straight-
in landing or straight-out takeoff. Use of the predrawn method is totally unacceptable
for purposes of compatible land use planning.
3-24
-------
I
ts
PJ
-------
The proper procedure is to construct a separate contour for each flight profile
(on each flight path) using the noise output figure for the specific aircraft at the power
settings being used. This method simply requires plotting PNL points laterally along
a given flight path and then connecting the points. One must visualize the aircraft
traveling at the top of a triangle. As the aircraft goes higher, the base of the triangle
gets smaller until it disappears entirely. Since the altitude (side of triangle) at any
given point along the flight path and the noise exposure in PNL at a given distance
(hypotenuse of triangle) is known, it is a simple matter to plot the points by determining
the length of the triangle's base.
The Accident Hazard "Footprint1'
The present method of plotting aircraft accidents does not support the use of con-
ventional approach-departure zones for compatible land use planning although the
standard obstruction type zoning is still valid. In the Figure 3-1 example, use of
these zones would miss certain critical areas while including other large areas
unnecessarily.
The problem is to accurately depict accident hazards in zonal terms. Simply
plotting accidents is not the complete solution as was shown in the analysis of opera-
tional characteristics. Throughout the litigation history of airports, the courts have
consistently used the altitude of the overflight as a basis for decisions. Altitudes of
500 and 100 feet above ground level (AGL) have been cited frequently.
For the Figure 1-1 airport, all areas below flight paths of less than 200 feet
AGL, 200-500 feet AGL and 500-1000 feet AGL extending 500 to 1000 feet laterally
were designated by the delineation of three accident zones at the ends of each runway
(Figure 3-4). The accident plot was then overlayed on each runway to determine
how many aircraft would have impacted in each area, assuming they had all occurred
at the subject airport. The results were approximately 30% in Zone 1, 20% in Zone 2
and 10% in Zone 3. Thirty percent would have occurred on or adjacent to the runways.
Of all the accidents, only 10% would have occurred outside the airport boundaries and
the three zones.
3-26
-------
LO
W
ss
o
r
w
Q
U
U
CO
(D
C
O
N
rt
N
rt
ffi
fl
0)
T3
•i— I
O
O
I
CO
0
3-27
-------
Within this general framework it is possible to develop standards of land use
based on accident occurrence and area. In any case, the above described method
offers a better approach than simply using approach-departure zones. The three
accident zones were based on T-37 and T-38 aircraft operations. The width of the
zones was based on the size of the area where debris was scattered, as well as the
accident plot. Other aircraft, because of size, accident histories and performance
characteristics, will produce different accident hazard zones. For example, a 1000-
foot wide corridor is not necessarily appropriate for a 747.
If an airport has many types of aircraft or if there is a projected change of air-
craft type, such factors should be considered. The actual delineation of these zones
for a given installation will, to a large degree, be the result of professional judgment
by planners and aviation experts.
THE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS "FOOTPRINT"
The planner now has a detailed package of operational factors which are expressed
through a noise map and an accident hazard map.
These two maps, drawing on the composite operational factors, form the frame-
work for compatible land use planning. The noise map generally establishes the outer
boundary of the airport planning area. It is comprehensive in the sense that it includes
all areas significantly impacted or affected by aircraft operations. In airport land use
planning, it is generally accepted that all land areas within CNR Zones 2 and 3 or NEF
B and C are impacted and should be regulated to some degree. The Accident Hazard
Zones fall within the noise zones. These two maps are combined to produce the Air-
port Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan.
3-28
-------
THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
The Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan (Figure 3-5) includes land
areas upon which certain land uses may obstruct the airspace or otherwise be hazard-
ous to aircraft operations and/or land areas which are exposed to the health and
safety hazards of aircraft operations.
The plan itself is the result of overlaying the noise and accident zone maps and
combining the four noise and three accident zones. The plan for the Figure 3-1
example is comprised of ten Compatible Use Districts (CUD). The number and char-
acter of these districts will vary depending on the airport in question. The districts
are:
CUD 1. Areas below flight paths of less than 200 feet altitude extending 1000 feet
laterally.
CUD 2. Areas below flight paths of 200 to 500 feet altitude extending 500 feet
laterally within CNR Zone 122. 5+ or NEF Zone 45+.
CUD 3. Areas below flight paths of 200 to 500 feet altitude extending 500 feet
laterally within CNR Zone 115 to 122.4 or NEF Zone 40 to 44. 9.
CUD 4. Areas below flight paths of 500 to 1000 feet altitude extending 500 feet
laterally within CNR Zone 115 to 122.4 or NEF Zone 40 to 44. 9.
CUD 5. Areas within CNR Zone 122. 5+ or NEF Zone 45+.
CUD 6. Areas within CNR Zone 115 to 122.4 or NEF Zone 40 to 44. 9.
CUD 7. Areas below flight paths of 500 to 1000 feet altitude extending 500 feet
laterally within CNR Zone 107. 5 to 114. 9 or NEF Zone 35 to 39. 9
CUD 8. Areas below flight paths of 500 to 1000 feet altitude extending 500 feet
laterally within CNR Zone 100-107.4 or NEF Zone 30-34. 9.
CUD 9. Areas within CNR Zone 107. 5 to 114. 9 or NEF Zone 35 to 39. 9.
3-29
-------
•£ £ i i * i *»'
m m
T iT ^
11 i
rO
• iH
•s
!
u
Q
CO
P
-§
Oj
CO
g
t:
o
&
<
i
co
3-30
-------
CUD 10. Areas within CNR Zone 100 to 107.4 or NEF 30-34. 9.
The Compatible Use Districts exist in order to provide a means by which realis-
tic land use decisions can be made. It is obvious that one large undifferentiated area
and one set of land use standards would be impractical and unreasonable, particularly
where development pressure is intense.
The Compatible Use District combines all aircraft operational land use impacts.
It is a means by which the sum total of noise, accident potential and other factors may
be brought to bear on land use decision-making. It is multi-impact compared to
single impact noise planning and zoning.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS
The essence of the land planning process is the land use standard. It is, at this
point, that the planner must stop to ask some crucial zoning test questions concerning
the land use plan and future zoning implementation:
1. Is it reasonable?
2. Is it arbitrary?
3. Does it promote and protect the general health, safety and welfare?
If the plan fails on any one of these points, it will not accomplish the desired goals.
Although there are other tests, the above are the most critical.
Is the system reasonable ? It is here that serious thought and analysis must be
given to exactly what must be accomplished. How much protection from what impacts
is necessary? What and where is compatible land use? How much land does the sys-
tem render economically useless ? If the system destroys economic utility, this can
constitute "taking without due compensation. " The point of the reasonableness test is
to keep restrictions at the absolute minimum while accomplishing the desired result.
This requires detailed, rational, documented analysis.
3-31
-------
Is the system arbitrary? What is the basis for the zoning district boundaries?
What is the basis for the land use restrictions in each zoning district? The arbitrary
test requires that zoning actions must have a rational, identifiable basis.
Does the land use system promote and protect the general health, safety, and
welfare? With reference to noise, does the system protect the people from health
hazards ? Does the system protect the people from a recognized danger of aircraft
accidents ? Is the general welfare advanced ?
Development of land use standards can be divided into two parts: the determina-
tion of compatibility with noise and of compatibility with accident potential. The
separate sets of standards can then be combined to correspond with the ten compatible
use districts.
Compatibility with noise has been the subject of many studies. It is generally
agreed by the noise experts that some land uses are simply not compatible at certain
high noise levels, whereas other uses are compatible with no restrictions at the same
noise levels. A large number of uses are compatible if certain noise reduction con-
siderations are incorporated into the construction criteria.
Noise compatibility standards are based on factors such as:
"1. Speech communication needs
2. Subjective judgments of noise acceptability and relative noisiness
3. Need for freedom from noise intrusions
4. Sleep sensitivity criteria
5. Accumulated case histories of noise complaint experience near civil and
military airports, and
6. Typical noise insulation provided by common types of building
construction."
3-32
-------
The noise/land use compatibility standards used with the Compatible Use Districts
are mostly based on the results of a Bolt, Beranek and Newman Study entitled, Noise
Exposure Forecasts: Evolution, Evaluat'^n, Extensions and Land Use Interpretations.
This study classified a number of land luses in terms of compatibility, non-compati-
bility and marginal compatibility requiring special consideration. Using this study
39
plus a number of other sources, a system of compatibility using Noise Reduction
Factors was designed.
The basis of the Noise Reduction Factor System is the upper noise level expressed
in CNR at which a given land use is outright compatible. Beyond that point up to a
higher cutoff level, the use is conditionally acceptable. The difference between the
two noise levels constitutes the range of noise reduction. For instance, if a use is
acceptable with no limitations at CNR 110, CNR 110 is the zero point. If a structure
is proposed for a location at CNR 117, the Noise Reduction Factor is 7. If the use is
conditionally acceptable only between CNR 110 and CNR 117.5, the Noise Reduction
Factor for that use ranges between 0 and 7.5. Beyond CNR 117. 5 the use is not
compatible.
Determination of what constitutes the required noise reduction is accomplished
through conventional standards of noise transmission through given substances,
planting and other barrier construction and siting considerations. Liberal zoning
provisions for specific site analysis, as well as procedures for verification by
architects and acoustical engineers that the standard has been met, are part of the
system.
Land use standards for the three accident zones are primarily expressed in terms
of non-compatibility and compatibility with density and intensity of use criteria.
Certain uses such as those which concentrate large numbers of people are clearly not
compatible in hazard areas. Other uses, such as industrial, are limited in terms
of lot coverage to allow open spaces in critical areas. These standards are the
composite of the studies referenced above plus an analysis of accident occurrence vs.
area.
3-33
-------
This analysis focuses on five land areas: the three accident zones, on or adjacent
to the runways (2000 feet wide) and all other areas within a six-mile radius. The per-
centage of the total accidents and area for each of the above are calculated. An
accident vs Area Ratio of the percent total accidents to the percent total area for each
. .. , , , (Percent total accidents)
zone is then developed, JPercent total area f
There is an established land use standard for areas on or adjacent to the run-
ways; that of no buildings, structures or habitation. Using the Accident vs Area
Ratio for on or adjacent to the runways as the base, the Land Use Hazard Index
(Accident Zone 1, etc) . , _, T , TT TT , T , . ,,
J —-2 ' v is expressed. The Land Use Hazard Index is then con-
(on or adjacent to runway)
verted into the Aircraft Hazard Acceptability Index (100-LUHI) which ranges from
0 to 100, with on or adjacent to runways equaling 0 and all other areas within six
mile radius equaling approximately 98 or 99.
The Aircraft Hazard Acceptability Index (AHAI) is the basic guide to determine
the allocation of various land uses in the airport environs. Land use standards are
known for on or adjacent to runways (total prohibition of structures) arid all other
areas within a six mile radius (no restrictions). Between these two extremes are the
three accident zones. Using the AHAl's for each zone and existing land use recom-
mendations, it is then simply a matter of equating land use compatibility to AHAl's
(see Land Use Compatibility Chart).
With the basic compatibility question resolved it is necessary to develop density
and intensity of use standards. Such standards are based primarily on the size and
shape of accident impact areas, although the AHAI is also considered. Basic data
includes the percent of the total accident zone impacted by a single crash and the per-
cent of the total accident zone impacted by all crashes. Using a maximum 0. 2%
chance of a single building being impacted by some debris from a crash, lot size and
lot coverage standards are written. For residential uses a minimum of 75% open
space is required.
3-34
-------
The combined system of land use compatibility for the ten compatible use districts
depicted in Figure 3-5 is shown in Figure 3-6.
Compatible Use District I has the highest accident potential, plus noise levels
almost always exceed CNR 115 (Zone 3) or NEF 40 (Zone C). CUD 1, therefore, is
subject to the most severe land use restrictions. Uses are essentially limited to
agriculture and open space.
Compatible Use Districts 2 and 3 both fall beneath flight patterns of 200 to 500
feet AGL (the second highest accident potential). The difference between them is
the level of noise exposure. CUD 2 has noise above CNR 122. 5 (NEF 45) while CUD 3
has noise below that level. This distinction is made because the noise reduction fac-
tors are different.
Most industrial/manufacturing and wholesale trade functions are compatible in
CUD's 2 and 3.
Compatible Use District 4 is the remaining CNR Zone 3 (NEF C) district subject
to overflights; in this case 500 to 1000 feet AGL altitude. Land use density is higher
than in the previous three districts but the standards based on noise are the same as
CUDS.
Compatible Use Districts 5 and 6 are the two subdivisions of CNR Zone 3 (NEF C)
which are not subject to continuous overflights. Therefore, land use is not restricted
on the basis of accident potential. District 5 is subject to the same noise restrictions
found in CUD 2 while CUD 6 has the same noise standards found in CUDs 3 and 4.
Most retail trade and service land uses become compatible in these CUDs.
Compatible Use Districts 7 and 8 are in the two subdivisions of CNR Zone 2
(NEF B) beneath flight patterns of 500 to 1000 feet AGL. Both require the land use ana
density regulations found in CUD 4. Land use regulation based on noise is more per-
missive than in the previous districts because the exposure is lower.
3-35
-------
LAMP
COMPATIBILITY
»IUMC
II 1
II I
I' 1
14
J
|P
K
u
y
14
IS
^1
19
4.1
42
«,)
«•
4f
«»
ji
»*
A3
17
3»
pi
£2
14
tf
if 14
71 2
If
03
14
ps
tt
U—
111 USEIH
2-4 FAMitV
MUITI TAMIL r ATT*
IHOU* QUA^Tf*!
FOOD { MiWDtfO PtOOJC'S
TI»TIL( Mitt pKoeucrs
APPAftlL
Ll>M|ER ( WOOD PRODUCT i
rtfiir"ji i — niti^'M s
INDUSTRIAL , MMur .1 'j - , , ,
T RANS C TMW > ., 1 u i i i i j
(H.LrfOAu HA. ,L "1 MAN ,
MjiOH -EM,, .E rn-p, c - *
A.BtNAfT -H*,,,- H
"^ , , L , f , t ^
0 [H(k IMAM , 1 r.MM ,, J , «,
COMMLiVClAi rtr (A , i Ki , •
_W_H_OL£^*tl _ FHAl.i
A j rowiOTivf HI F AH
FAT-I*.. < J^*,^. . .-u i
OTMI H HI J A. i T Pl[/l TE Hb N(C
PERSONAL * till1, iNI v
F.NANCl lNSUftANL( »\ fli . '4 t i
PEHSONAL itHVU-t _.
HDOON H(C SfK-iCf-.,
PUSLIC ( QUASI PUBUC jvu-,
CULTURAL ACT.v.THi
CCIHTT««II>
OUTDOOR RUCrff/Ui IN
AGRICULTURE, MININ& ( OPth
FiSMf HY AC Ti VI Ti f S
MlNINt ACTIViT, f»
WMDiy«i-0rrc LAM c
ffATIB Aflfft _„
M^*-
,
2
i
2
3
Z
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
b
b
3
-3
^
'
5
^>
!
*
2
3
i
3
3
5
S
3
*
3
J—
CUZ I
K
X
K
if
X
)(
y
X
V
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
rj
_,
X
4
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
y
»
X
X
<
0
X
X
' — g —
X
0
I
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
cu£ 2
4-11 2-5 -I 5
4- II ?5'I5
4H1 2 5 -I 5
4-11 Z 5- I 5
4-H 25-1 $
4-11 2 5 - I 5
4-11 25-i 5
4 11 2 5 -i 5
d 11 2 5 - <; 5
4-H Z5-f 5
4 -,1 2 5 -/ 5
4-11 2.5 -/ .S
4 M 2 5- / 5
4-,1 2 5 - J2 5
411 25- I? 5
4-11 2 5 -12 5
4H 2 5 -12 5
1_L^ _ L_5
4 H 2 5- i? 5
'j'1 ^ ^ ^ t, "5'
411 25~lZ5
4- -22 5 25-15
X
X
4 11 2S <2 5
4 il 2 5 (2 5
X
y
o
V
o
o'
o
X
K
0
o
o
o
q
0
CUZ3
V
X
*
K
X
X
K
X
0-75 o - 5
O- 7 5 0-5
O - 7 5 O-5
O -7 5 O- 5
O -7 5 O - 5
O -7 5 A -5
0-75 O -5
O -7 5 O-5
O -7 5 O-5
O-75 O- 5
O 7 5 O-5
0-75 O-5
O- 7 5 0-5
0 7 5 OS
O 1 5 O- 5
O T 5 05
_
O T5 O-5
O 7 5 O-5
0 75 0-5
O 7ji 0-5
O-75 OS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O- 4- O -2 5
X
O-?5 O - 5
X
X
X
o
X
d
d
o
X
X
0
a
a
0
0
o
CVJ*
O -75 O - 5
O -7 5 O - 5
O-75 O -5
O -75 0-5
O -7 5 O-5
O-75 0-5
O-75 O-5
O-75 O-S
O -7 5 O- 5
0-75 O -5
O - 7 5 O -5
O - 7.5 O - 5
0-75 0-5
0-75 O- 5
0-75 O - 5
0 - 7. 5 0-5
O-75 O- 5
O
O-75 O - 5
O-75 5- IS
0-75 0~5
C- 7 5 d-5
0-75 0-5
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
0-4 O-2.5
O- 75 0-5
X
X
O
o
tf
\
\
o
X
X
<----§ —
o
o
0
0
o
o
CU*5
X
*
*
X
*•
X
*
4-H 25-25
4-11 25-125
4-H 2.5- Z 5
4-11 a 5 -'2 5
4-11 2.5-H 5
4-H i S-J2.5
4-H 2.5 - U 5
4-H ZS-'25
4-1 1 2.5 -IZ-5
4-11 25- '2 5
d- 11 Z 5 -12.5
4- 1 •? 2.5 -12 S
4-M 2.5-il.S
i5 - J7 5' 10 -25"
4-|1 1.5-H 5
4-11 ? 5-I2 5
4-H 2.5-I2.5
4--I1 2.5-12 5
C1
4-1" 25-12 5
4-11 1.5-IZ.5
4-H 2 5 ~/5 5
4-J3^ ^5-5
4-2^5 2 5 - (5
15 -J*' io-2 5'
15 -34' |0-2 f
15 34 * I 0-2, S
|5 -34* IO-2 5'
15-34' 10-2 5"
15-37 5\ l£>-35 '
15-37 3'x ,0-15-
15-37 S'-x 10-25 '
4-'1 25-/2S
I5-J75\ ,o-25*
4- (1 2.5-12.5
15- 34 lO -22 5
X.
X.
>^
C'
>.
>.
C'
ff
X
*
0
,»
C)
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
0-Land use and structures compatible a-Standard Land Use Manual
K-Land use and structures not comoat- Code
ible b-Noise Sensitivity Code
Numbers-Land use compatible and
structure noise reduction required to 1-Use onlv/no buildings
the degree indicated. 2-Open space only
3-Low intensity
4-Airport related only
Figure 3-6. Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan.
3-36
-------
LAMP Umm COMPATIBILITY
1^
11 X
11 —
It
If
u_
II —
ti-
ll—
»
14
IV
.,
tf
41
Ae
* i
94
33
3*
t_\
|J
7_U -
• 14
7*1
£ii
741 *
ftr
•l»tC
IJ
14
|*
n_
ijcj iufcjuu .
fftiiniMTlA^.
1-4 PAM cY
MULTIfAMlLf A^Tt
iiwr BvftBTiffi
r»0» | HiMMtP MODUCTi
IUMMR ( WOOD PRODUCT i
FHiHiTMBl I yi.TJHE* ,
fB.NTINft 1 POLISH!**
CHIMICAL* 1 *LLl£0 PROCUCTS
INDUSTRIAL/ MAiNJ^! UKi,',j
P-,M.«, MI.4LS
FAM.CAT1D MirA.S
^T(. MAW^ACTUHlNS '
TRANS, COMM £ UT HI T it ,
HlfcHWAV { £, T n E I T- HCW
AUTO PARKING
UT.L.T.Eb
COMMEPC AL rtEM L. 7 k^l '
WMOLt SALE rw* DE
FOOD O(T*u
ALJTOMQTJtE R( r*l(l
OTMt« *Rfr*IL THEATERS N£c
PERSONAL ( BUSINE j j j « .
INDOOH «tC SESffCFS
PUBLIC i QUASI- PUBLIC bvCi>
Citi.ru "At «nviTirs
Cff««Tlffilk
OUTDOOR RECREATi ")N
PLA^BQUMD L NCICH PARKS
"•°«T« • «»OU^ CAMPS
AGRICULTURE, MINING < OPEN
FABMI- I*ttfT i.VISTOCH
'OffriTu- ACTiviTirt
n»Hf«r Acnvtrirs
IffffH i»fA J
»*^
1
/
T-
1
j
4
3
5
5
_j_
5
5
5
'
-f-
.
>
3
^
~r~
2
^
4
J
J
3
f
J
J
]
9
3
jL
i
2
i
A
3
3
3
J_
•
3
1
>
J-J
CUZ 6
C*H hfF
l(
^
lll-HSg 71-rS
i ,
x
II i-i^ * * 1 5- 1*
X
O -7 5 O - 5
O'l 5 O - 5
2.-LL. °:_| —
O~1 5 O - 9
0 Jj 0 g '
6-? 4 — o^T —
O-15 O- 5
-3~T? — o^~5 —
~3~T5 — o^l —
6-TJ 5-5 '
Q - 7 5 O - 5
0-72 0- 5
0-74 0-5
0-75 O- 5
0-75 O - 5
0^5 05
O i 5 0-5
0-75 0-5
0 7 5 O- 5
O-75 0-5
0-1S 0-5
0-75 0-5
9»-M J-.25
T5-I1 5-125
73-H 5-125
7.5-H 5- .2 5
75-11 5-^25
7 5-M 5 - i 2 5
7.5 - ' 1 X 5 - ' 2 5
7.5 - ) ^ )f 5 - (2 5
O -4- O-2.5
7.5-225* 5-15
0-73 0-5
75-1) 5- 12 5
/ - ".5 ; - 7 5
X
X
O1
73- II 5 5-75
J5 II 5 5-73
t - II 5 1-75
I - i i 5 1-75
75-115 5-15
X
'3-115 5-75
o
O
o
Q
CUZ 7
CN* NIT
M-15 5 -'6
X
X
X
X
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
n
o
0
o
o
o
o
- 1 5 1-75
- ' i ' - 7-5
- 1 5 | - 7 5
-i 5 i-75
-1 5 1-75
:.'i ::!!•
- 15 1-75
o
J- 15 J -75
o
I -H 5 )-75
*- (5 X 2 5-/D
x
O
*
o1
o
o
o
o
o
p
rt
CUZfl
CNR NIT
i - 7, 5 1-5
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
n
o
o
0
o
o
0
o
c
o
o
0
0-4 O - 2.5
Q - 4 O - 2 5
O - 4 O - Z S
O - 4 O- 2.5
O-4 0-2 S
O - 7. 5 0-5
O-7. <5 O-5
O
0 - 7. 5 0 - S
n
0-4 0-2.5
O - 5 x O - Z. 5
x
X
.0
x
' X
cf
1 g
x
x
Ci
o
X
v
Q
o
0
o
o
Q 1
CUZ.9
cuff M«r
75-15 5-'0
7 5- 15 5 - '0
4-15 25-0
4 -_L5 2J.-_ 2_
4-15 25-0
4 - 15 25-0
O
O
0
o
o
o
5
Z!
B '
o
3
. Q .
n
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
- 1 5 1-75
-1 S I-7..5
-15 1 -V5
-1 J 1-75
-MS 1-7.5
-H5 1-7.5
- 1 5 1 - 7. *5
0
1-15 1 -75
n
I- II 5 1-75
4-15 2 5-(0
X
X
O- 4 O-2 5
X
X
O
O-7 3 O - 5
0-75 0-5
0-4 o-2 5
o - 4 o -i 5
O - 7 5 o - 5
f
O - 75 O - 5
O
o
o
o
CUZ 1O
CM* Mlf
1-7 •> t - 5
1-75 1 -!
0-7.5 0-.'.
Q-7..S _O^J
0-7.5 0-3 .
0-75 O-5
O-75 O-5
0
0
P
C
§
O
z
3
b
o
o
o
0
p
o
o
o
0
o
0
0
O - 4 O- 2 5
Q - 4 O- 2 J
0-4 O-2 5
D -4 O-2 5
O-4 O-2 5
Q- 75 ' O - 5
0-7^ D - 5
O
0-7 5 O- S
0
0- * 0-2 5
O-S O-2 5
0-75 o - 5
O-7 5 O - 5
o
0-75 O - 5
O - 7. "i D - 5
£
0"
O
o
0'
0-75 0-5
a
o
o
Q
o
5 1
0-Land use and structures compatible a-Standard Land Use Manual
X-Land use and structures not compat- Code
ible b-Noise Sensitivity Code
Numbers-Land use compatible and
structure noise reduction required to 1-Use only/no buildings
the degree indicated. 2-Open space only
3-Low intensity
4-Airport related only
Figure 3-7. Land Use Compatibility Matrix
3-37
-------
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
*The foregoing are representative land uses.
For uses not listed use the standards for the
most compatible use.
*The numbers are noise reduction factors.
See attachment for a description of their use.
*Noise reduction factors generally apply to
those areas of structures where the public is
received, office areas and other areas where
the normal noise level is low. Excluded areas
would include such activities as factory work
areas.
Lot Area
CUD 1 Ten (10) Acres
CUD 2 Five (5) Acres
CUD 3 Three (3) Acres
CUD 4 Two and one-half (2-1/2) Acres
CUD 5 One (1) Acre
CUD 6 One (1) Acre
CUD 7 Two and one-half (2-1/2) Acres
CUD 8 Two and one-half (2-1/2) Acres
CUD 9 One-fourth (1/4) Acre
CUD 10 One-fourth (1/4) Acre
Lot Coverage
Zero (o) Percent
Twenty (20) Percent
Twenty (20) Percent
Twenty-five (25) Percent
Thirty (30) Percent
Thirty (30) Percent
Twenty-five (25) Percent
Twenty-five (25) Percent
Fifty (50) Percent
Fifty (50) Percent
Density of
Dwelling Units
None
None
None
None
None
None
One (1)
One (1)
One (1)
One (1)
CRITERIA FOR ALL COMPATIBLE USE DISTRICTS
Within the boundaries of the CUDs, there are certain land uses which are recog-
nized as being incompatible. These land uses are not in the public interest and there-
fore must be restricted and/or prohibited.
1. Uses which release into the air any substance which would impair visibility
or otherwise interfere with the operation of aircraft, such as, but not limited
to, steam, dust and smoke.
2. Uses wich produce light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), which
would interfere with pilot vision.
3. Uses which produce electrical emissions which would interfere with aircraft
communication systems or navigational equipment.
4. Uses which would attract birds or waterfowl, such as but not limited to dump-
ing of garbage, maintenance of feeding stations, or the growing of certain
vegetation.
5. Uses which extend into the air within ten feet of the approach-departure sur-
face and/or transitional surfaces.
6. Uses which exceed a height of 150 feet above the runway elevation.
3-38
-------
Compatible Use Districts 9 and 10 are not subject to continuous overflights of
less than 1000 feet AGL but do require the same noise standards as found in CUDs 7
and 8 respectively.
In most cases it will be neither practical nor realistic to simply overlay the Com-
patible Use Districts on a vicinity map and adopt a corresponding ordinance. These
CUDs should serve as the basis for final districting decisions together with other land
use determinants to form the comprehensive land use plan.
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
The Airport Environs Compatibility Land Use Plan can be implemented by several
methods. The most practical means is zoning. Land trades and the purchase of either
40
easements or fee are the other methods. The Compatible Use District offers the
vehicle for decision-making for each method. For zoning, it offers a reasonable,
rational approach which is not arbitrary. For easement or fee purchase, it serves
as the guide for the priority of acquisition. It also outlines what rights or restrictions
must be purchased.
For zoning purposes, the strengths of the CUD system are vitally important, par-
ticularly when contrasted with other airport area land use approaches. The Compa-
tible Use District is less vulnerable to litigation than simple noise zoning because it
aggregates a number of land use determinants and covers the entire impact area.
In terms of shape, the CUD system is not arbitrary. It fits a clearly defined
situation. The placement of each district line can be substantiated. The number of
districts recognizes different degrees of influence and allows a full range of land uses.
Reasonable land use restrictions are held to the absolute minimum, thereby allowing
the individual landowner the maximum economic return while protecting the installa-
tion and area inhabitants. The land use standards have a firm, scientifically authori-
tative basis. They are neither too restrictive nor too permissive.
3-39
-------
The CUD system protects and promotes the public health, safety and welfare.
It is comprehensive. It is long range. It offers a means by which political decisions
can be made. It is firmly rooted in a policy plan.
THE LAND USE PLAN
The Airport Environs Compatibility Land Use Plan should not be considered an
end in itself. It should be considered as one of many inputs into a comprehensive en-
vironmental land use planning process. The CUD system only determines land use
compatibility with aircraft operations. It does not consider the compatibility of land
uses with each other, nor does it consider compatibility based on other land use de-
terminants.
The total environmental land use planning process is designed to determine the
intrinsic suitabilities of land areas. This process requires an evaluation of natural
features such as soil suitability, surficial geology, hydrology and physiographic fea-
tures, etc. This process is commonly called ecological land use planning. It was
41
developed by Ian L. McHarg and is described in his book, Design With Nature.
This process is now being used throughout the United States.
Examples of how ecological planning factors can help in airport planning are the
cases of flood plains and septic tanks. Many states have flood plain zoning acts.
Where a flood plain falls within a CUD, uses such as residences may be prohibited
due to the flood danger. In the case of septic tanks, it may be determined that they
are not allowable because of soil and geologic factors. As a result, development may
be delayed or prevented through zoning.
The results of the ecological analysis should be consolidated, mapped and over-
layed on the Compatible Use Districts. A tentative comprehensive land use plan can
then be formulated. This plan should be compared with, and analyzed against, existing
land use, future land use plans previously prepared, and future transportation plans.
3-40
-------
Final allocation of land uses should be the result of a detailed economic demand
analysis. It is not reasonable to zone large areas for uses that will never materia-
lize. Planned, orderly growth does not mean zoning the entire jurisdiction as resi-
dential. Few areas in the United States have the economic demand to develop
entirely. Less than optimum areas such as steep slopes, flood plains, coast lines
and airport vicinities should be restricted as much as necessary.
There are many other factors to consider, such as landownership patterns and
land values and the cost and availability of public facilities and utilities. Planning is
a compromise between competing land use elements. Intrinsic suitability, modified
by man-made restrictions (such as aircraft operations), are simply merged with
economic and social demand factors to produce the plan for future land use.
ZONING
Zoning is a complex and detailed process. Recognition of this fact has caused a
number of planners and lawyers to specialize in the zoning process. Zoning is much
more than merely inserting the names of cities and counties in the blanks of a model
ordinance.
Model ordinances are a valuable tool. They are needed but they must be modified
to meet unique, local conditions. In almost every case, model ordinances must be
altered to meet the provisions of state enabling acts, state court decisions and existing
local ordinances.
State legislation for airport environs compatible land use zoning varies consider-
ably. Within the legislative framework there are essentially two zoning options:
airport zoning and comprehensive zoning. Many states have enacted the FAA Model
Airport Zoning Act. Ordinances enacted under this act are primarily directed at
obstructions and other dangers to flight. Such ordinances do not regulate land use in
the normal sense. Most comprehensive zoning acts do not cover the items covered
in the Airport Zoning Acts although most airport zoning acts do contain a provision
allowing for the incorporation of airport zoning ordinances into comprehensive zoning
42
ordinances.
3-41
-------
Because neither act covers the full range of airport environs considerations,
compatible use zoning ordinance should draw from both acts. Of course, the ideal
situation would be to have a single act covering the airport question.
It has been stated that use of the airport zoning ordinance is illegal because it
constitutes taking without due compensation. Such a gross indictment is misleading.
Although some airport zoning ordinances have had court problems, they are not all
invalid per se. The main problem has been the use of unreasonable and/or arbitrary
standards.
43
The Indiana Toll Road Commission v. Jankovich is a leading case on the validity
of the FAA Model Airport Zoning Ordinance. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the
ordinance constituted a taking without due compensation. Although the U. S. Supreme
Court refused to hear the case, "it found that the Indiana Supreme Court did not con-
template the wholesale invalidation of airport zoning ordinances, but only those parts
which denied the reasonable and ordinary use of airspace by the super adjacent resi-
dents."44
According to the Duke Law Journal, to be valid an ordinance "must satisfy sev-
eral vaguely enunciated tests" which include that: 1) "The regulation must not
deprive the landowner of every beneficial use of his property" and 2) "It must confer
upon the public a benefit which is on balance with the burden imposed on the private
, ,,45
property."
46
Based on the above test, Mutual Chemical Co. v. City of Baltimore and Button
47
v. Mendocino County found airport ordinances invalid because it was determined
that only the users of the airport benefited. Contrasted to the above decisions are
48 49
Florida and Alabama decisions which upheld ordinances as promoting the public
safety for both the users of the airport facilities and the area inhabitants.
The best summary of the constitutional consideration of "taking" is found in The
Quiet Revolution In Land Use Control:
3-42
-------
"First, if one really studies the cases the law on this subject has by no
means been as bad as most people seem to assume. The Supreme
Court of the United States has frequently upheld regulatory systems that
prevent any development of a man's land if the regulation is essential
to promote the public health or safety, and the preservation of a livable
environment and a desirable ecological balance is in the long run
clearly essential to the health of the nation. 'Brandeis briefs' and
expert ecological testimony, when combined with a sophisticated analy-
sis of existing case law, can provide sound constitutional arguments
for the validity of many regulatory measures that might otherwise be
thought so restrictive as to require compensation.
Second, draftsmen of regulations need to make a careful analysis of
the types of activities that may be allowed to take place on land without
destroying environmental values. Too often regulations have taken the
form of blanket prohibitions when a variety of activities could be per-
mitted on the land without detraction from the values that the regula-
tions are designed to protect." ^0
It is apparent that what really matters is a set of reasonable, non-arbitrary land
use standards which protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare. It is
suggested that the Compatible Use District system meets these criteria.
Bosselman and Callies offer what may be the most beneficial advice available
when they say:
"Those who create systems of land regulation based on modern ecological
knowledge should be aware of the constitutional issue, but should not be
so afraid of it that they ignore the approaches that are available for work-
ing creatively within the constitutional limits. "
ZONING LEGISLATION
In Chapter I the new wave of legislation was briefly discussed, focusing on the
proposed Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973 (S. 268), the Florida
Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 and the proposed Washington
Land Use Act. Although they are an indication of the future, most immediate work
must be accomplished within the existing legislative framework.
3-43
-------
In the State of Texas, land use regulation is severely limited because there is no
52
enabling legislation for county zoning. Texas does have an airport zoning act but
it does not allow general land use zoning. An amendment to this act has been intro-
duced in the Texas Legislature. If enacted, this bill will allow implementation of the
Compatible Use District System in Texas.
53 54
The State of Arizona has both county zoning and airport zoning. The county
zoning act does not allow zoning based on noise exposure. It also specifically pro-
55
hibits zoning provisions concerning construction standards. The airport zoning
act uses the FAA model. In order to fully implement a system such as CUD, these
deficiencies should be corrected. The greatest legislative strength for immediate
work will come from suing both acts. California law sets noise criteria for new
airports, noise land use compatibility standards and implementation procedures. The
law excludes military airports and establishes its own noise system (CNEL).
57
California also has a modification of the standard airport zoning ordinance.
Other states having some type of airport zoning act, which were reviewed by the
author, are New Mexico, Arkansas and Mississippi. In each case, revisions are
warranted to allow full enabling powers.
CO
An Act deserving special note is the Minnesota Airport Zoning Act. Although
it is designed for a special purpose, a new airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul area, it
has some interesting provisions. It stipulates that when the site is selected all non-
59
zoned land in the vicinity is automatically zoned agricultural. Even more important
is the provision concerning noise:
".. .The metropolitan council shall determine the probable levels of noise
which will result in various parts of the metropolitan area from the opera-
tion of aircraft using the site, shall establish aircraft noise zones based
thereon applicable to property affected by such noise, and shall establish
acceptable levels of perceived noise decibels for each land use, using the
composite noise rating method and tables or the noise exposure forecast
method and tables. Each government unit having power to adopt land use
and development control measures applicable to property included in any
aircraft noise zone, shall adopt or incorporate in existing land use and
control measures the applicable acceptable level of perceive noise
3-44
-------
decibels established by the council, and shall adopt such other control mea-
sures as may be necessary to prevent the use, construction or improve-
ment of property and buildings under its jurisdiction so that persons
using the property and buildings are subjected to a level of perceived noise
decibels in excess of the acceptable level established for that land use.. . "60
There is a wide range of legislative approaches to airport environs compatible
land use control. The spectrum runs from virtually no control, to specific statewide
systems, to single area legislation. There appears to be a legislative precedent for
virtually every concern. There are several problems, though. Every state is dif-
ferent. Based on the author's evaluation, there is no optimum legislation. The net
result is a different, piece-meal approach in each state. In the interest of the gen-
eral health, safety and welfare a national system should be considered. At the very
least an optimum system should be developed and a concerted effort should be made
for adoption by every state.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Compatible Use District System is worthless without effective implementation.
Viewed from the perspective of the airport operator, implementation is a complex
combination of professional planning input, public relations and plain politics. Assum-
ing he has completed the Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan, he can then
approach local authorities.
The first step may be to initiate low key, behind the scenes, discussions with key
policy makers, local interest groups and the professional planning staff. On the other
hand he may decide to go to the public initially. This decision must be based on an
evaluation of the local situation.
In either case a wide range of participants must be incorporated into the process
and "sold" on the concept. If there is a local planning staff it must be brought into
the program early. The planning commission and local legislative body will approve
or reject the plan. Local interest groups which rely on the airport can be mobilized.
Perhaps the most important actor is the landowner. If he can be "won over," even
3-45
-------
partially, it makes the process much easier. Federal, state and regional authorities
can also be called upon to assist locally or perhaps legislatively at the state and
federal levels.
Following a thorough inventory and appraisal of friends and foes, the Compatible
Use District Plan can be adapted to the local conditions. Much of the adaptation can
be accomplished with or by the local planning or zoning staff. In some communities,
there are no professional planners. There may be a city or county attorney and a
lay planning commission with little knowledge of the legal or practical aspects of the
zoning process. Under no circumstances should the airport operator allow such a
group to enact an ordinance that does not meet the provisions of the state enabling
act or which otherwise might be declared illegal or unconstitutional. It takes only
one developer, his consultants and attorneys to defeat such an ordinance.
Assuming that the plan and ordinance have been properly adapted, the next step
is to present and sell it to the local policy makers. In some communities there will
be little difficulty. The affected land may be grazing land some distance from the
nearest development.
In other cases the opposition will be fierce. The word will go out that the airport
operator is going to render all the adjacent land useless. Every landowner who has
been holding his land for speculative profit will come to the hearing with his consul-
tants and attorneys. The airport operator is at a disadvantage and is believed
insensitive to the welfare of the little man, the landowner. Many of landowners are
friends of the local policy makers. In some areas of the country, any type of land use
control is almost considered un-American.
How can these obstacles be overcome?
The first prerequisite is thorough preparation. The airport operator should know
exactly what he needs in that situation and what is possible before ever going public.
The materials and procedures presented in this report should be assembled. A
thorough knowledge of the local political climate should be developed along with infor-
mation concerning who owns the land and what they intend to do with it.
3-46
-------
Simply stated he must first know his opposition and his plan of attack. Secondly,
he must have the proper weapons to win.
With all of the preparation completed the proposal should be discussed with the
planning staff or if there is no staff, a friendly policy maker. If there is a compre-
hensive plan, the land use policies previously discussed should be submitted as a
possible amendment. A generalized land use plan could also be presented. The
initial approach should avoid the specifics and the details. The possibility of re-
jection is much greater with details than with policies and general land use plans.
The most important point to convey to the public, landowners and policy makers
is that the land will not be rendered economically worthless. A feature news story in
the local newspaper outlining this fact along with the policies would be advisable.
There are numerous facts to use in support of the Compatible Use District con-
cept. If the community is dependent on the airport, examples of previous airport
closures would be helpful. The economic base aspect is vital. How much money does
the airport pump into the local economy annually? In some states there are state
agencies that can assist in this presentation. In Texas, the Texas Industrial Commis-
sion has a legislative mandate to encourage and protect major industries. Airports
are major industries.
Details of major accidents such as the recent crash in Sacramento, California,
should be used. Reference should also be made to S. 268 and S. 924 now pending
before the Congress.
Following the policy presentation and adoption, the ordinance should be presented.
It should be explained in detail. Care should be taken to clearly convey the extent of
regulations. Each provision should be supported by factual data. The presentation
should stress the validity of the regulation by presenting back-up data and citing the
sources of the regulation. The presenter should stress the importance of the regu-
lation while conveying to the policy makers and landowners that every attempt was
made to keep regulation to the absolute minimum needed to protect the public and the
continued operation of the installation.
3-47
-------
Above all else the presenter must know his subject well. He must be able to pre-
sent intelligently and be able to rebut skillfully the attacks of the opposition. If not,
the case for the Compatible Use Districts could be lost in the public hearing.
The defense of the ordinance will be minimal if all of the above has been accom-
plished. Where an ordinance is under attack at the local policy level or in the courts,
qualified planners and land use attorneys should be employed. In some communities
there is little or no enforcement of zoning ordinances. Because of this, airport op-
erators must continuously monitor development activity. If violations take place
they should be brought to the attention of local authorities. If nothing is done, the air-
port operator should file suit for compliance.
The Compatible Use District implementation is never complete. Continual moni-
toring and defense is required. Even with a good ordinance or easements, the pro-
gram is only as good as its enforcement. It will only take one crucial mistake to
defeat the whole effort.
SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS OF ZONING
In recent years several zoning innovations have been developed. Planners have
long recognized that zoning can become a straight-jacket when oversimplified. The
result of such simplification is often a rather poor solution to the land use question.
Because traditional zoning is essentially unresponsive to modern problems, planners
have developed supplementary zoning tools.
One of the most successful of these innovations is the planned unit development
(PUD) concept. In its basic form, a planned unit development supersedes the under-
lying zoning for a given area. A plan is submitted and the development scheme is
then negotiated to completion between the developer and the city or county. These
negotiations are governed by pre-identified standards, policies and criteria found in
the zoning ordinance.
There are several significant advantages of the planned unit development. The
concept allows for deviation from specification standards such as setbacks,
3-48
-------
individual lots and other similar zoning provisions. The PUD approach is also a means
by which several land uses (usually separated by conventional zoning) can be mixed in
a totally planned design. The options are many. With adequate guidelines and a good
review process, superior development will result.
The PUD concept can be extremely useful in airport environs planning and zoning.
As was mentioned previously, the Compatible Use District criteria, based solely on
aircraft considerations, sets parameters of development. These parameters allow
different uses in the same area. Through the PUD process, good development can be
accomplished mixing these uses. Conventional zoning does not allow such flexibility.
The result is the possibility of greater economic return for the developer while ful-
filling the Compatible Use District requirements. This is an excellent way to prevent
challenges based on the "taking without due compensation" argument.
The PUD approach is also good where a single ownership falls within two or more
CUDs. Under conventional zoning, part of the property may be restricted to no resi-
dential use while the other may be limited to low density uses. The owner may say
that part of the land has been "taken." Using the PUD approach, it is possible to
allow higher density on the less regulated part of the property while keeping the rest
in open space. The number of units on the developed part could equal the number
possible on the whole tract under conventional residential zoning. An ordinance
approving the PUD would keep the open space in that use.
Experience with planned unit developments indicates that superior development
has been achieved; often with higher developer profits. The PUD approach can in-
crease the number of development options while decreasing the possible legal problems.
The conditional use (CU) concept is somewhat similar to the planned development.
The major difference is scale. Conditional use provisions usually cover smaller areas
and single uses.
Under this concept a given use is allowed in a given area assuming certain pre-
identified conditions are met. The city or county evaluates each case. Noise Reduc-
tion Factors can be implemented by this approach, as well as through the planned
development procedure.
3-49
-------
Use of both the planned unit development and conditional use concepts under cer-
tain circumstances is an extremely useful aid to the effective implementation of the
Compatible Use District system. These procedures allow for the flexibility required
to adopt and effectuate ordinances. In most cases, the development options will be
much more reasonable and thus less vulnerable to legal contest.
There are three other zoning concepts which deserve mention, although they are
less clearly defined and are subject to some legal questions. The first is contract
zoning. It is similar to the PUD and CU procedures. Without detailed guidelines
the possibility of a "spot" zoning charge is likely, however.
Closely related is the procedure of requiring the dedication of easements as a
condition for approval. This process has long been used in the subdivision approval
process for streets and utilities easements. In large scale development it has been
used to obtain school sites. Subject to further research, easement dedication through
PUD, CU, and contract zoning should be considered for Compatible Use District
application.
A final zoning concept concerns the trade or combination of development rights.
In cases where a piece of land is severely restricted, it is possible to combine
development rights with another property and share the profits. Implementation of
this concept through zoning is still the subject of legal discussion but it does offer
some possibilities. Where the community feels strongly about retention of an airport,
this may be an excellent type of voluntary program.
In some states, there is legislation which encourages the preservation of open
space through land registration and tax relief. The owner puts his land under the
program for a given number of years and his tax rate is reduced appropriately.
Where land is taxed at fair market value and speculation has increased values, this
program is particularly helpful. In states having these programs, such as Maine and
Washington, efforts should be made to include the Compatible Use District system.
Another possibility for tax relief is local tax action.
3-50
-------
The supplementary methods discussed above offer excellent possibilities for bet-
ter permanent solutions. There are others such as the many federal grant programs.
Every effort should be made to utilize these methods and procedures although addi-
tional research is required.
ZONING ALTERNATIVES
Zoning is obviously the most practical and the least expensive method of imple-
menting the Compatible Use District concept. Unfortunately, zoning can be changed by
a shift in local politics. In addition, there is always the possibility that an ordinance
maybe successfully challenged in the courts. There are other methods. At airports
where any incompatible land use encroachment is totally unacceptable, other means
should be considered.
Airport operators and planners are well aware of these zoning limitations and,
as a result, have identified other options. The most permanent method is fee pur-
chase of the impact area. This is the approach used for major international airports
being built today. The problem is that between 18, 000 and 20, 000 acres must be pur-
chased. Even in undeveloped areas, the cost is considerable. Acquisition of such
areas near existing airports would be prohibitive.
Because of funding difficulties and political considerations very little hope can be
encouraged for major utilization of this approach. The costs for most airports would
be considerable. Of course, this note of pessimism assumes that the airport would
buy the land and either hold it or use it for airport use.
Outside the military the fee purchase approach is undergoing some rethinking.
Namely, how can one make the situation economically feasible? The answer to buy
and lease or to buy, develop (with compatible use) and sell. A modification would be
to buy and sell with deed restrictions or covenants or to buy and sell while retaining
easements.
3-51
-------
There is little doubt that any of the above would accomplish the desired goals.
It is also likely that a net profit could result. There is precedent for such thoughts,
even for government agencies. The HUD urban renewal program operates on a simi-
lar principle. A blighted area is purchased or condemned and then redeveloped by a
local agency or private developer according to certain standards. The potential exists.
Further research and evaluation needs to be undertaken.
Most airports seem to have limited amounts of fee owned land at the ends of the
runways In some cases, there are other low use fee parcels located in less critical
Compatible Use Districts within the airport proper which could be sold or traded with
deed restrictions or covenants. In such cases, it is only logical to act according to
the CUD priorities and negotiate trades where feasible.
Of all the zoning alternatives, easement acquisition is the most realistic, imme-
diate option. There are many types of easements. For Compatible Use District
application there are essentially three: (1) clearance (2) avigation and (3) restrictive
use.
Clearance easements have been used in approach and clear zones. Near the run-
way, they tend to restrict land use but just a short distance farther away, they have
little effect on the actual use of the land.
r* i
The avigation easement has been discussed favorably by civilian planners.
These easements grant the right to fly over the property and have the effect of pre-
cluding suits based on trespass, damage and nuisance. Although the federal govern-
ment has retained control of navigable airspace, there are situations where "low and
frequent flights" may constitute "taking" or serve as the basis for monetary judgments
for trespass, damage and nuisance. One might suggest that the purchase of avigation
easements is, in effect, admitting that navigable airspace belongs to the land. This
is not necessarily the case. Airspace ownership appears to be a factor of the height
and frequency of the flights. At low altitudes, avigation easements appear to be
appropriate while at higher altitudes they would be unnecessary.
3-52
-------
The restrictive use easement offers the most comprehensive coverage. These
easements actually become private zoning. Strictly speaking, restrictive use ease-
ments are not really easements. In the pure sense, they are legal instruments for
the transfer of a portion of the "bundle of rights," namely, certain development
rights.
The concept of real estate ownership is known as the "bundle of rights." Owner-
ship is normally thought of as fee ownership which includes many other rights. Fee
title is the most marketable. If a portion of these rights are eliminated, the options
are reduced as well as the value.
The above is extremely important for Compatible Use District application. Each
restriction constitutes the purchase of part of the bundle of rights. In a practical sense
the development rights package is already restricted. Land use zoning may have
eliminated all but one type of development right. If that right is purchased in the form
of a restriction, the purchaser has really bought the whole package and might as well
obtain fee ownership. Natural factors such as soil suitability may do the same thing.
If there is no economic demand for the rights not purchased, a similar situation
results.
In view of the above, it is absolutely imperative to purchase only those rights
which are the minimum required to assure compatible land use. Only through
detailed analysis can this be achieved.
It was stated earlier that the ten CUDs can serve as the basis for easement
acquisition. From the airport operators point of view, these districts (or modifica-
tions) identify the minimum requirements.
Easements would class land uses in three categories: (1) acceptable, (2) not
acceptable and (3) acceptable with conditions. If for the sake of simplicity uses ac-
ceptable with conditions are called unacceptable the cost of easement may increase.
Due to local factors, that land use may have been the only use which was economically
feasible. If it is eliminated by easement, the purchaser must pay the price of fee
ownership while obtaining only an easement.
3-53
-------
Easement proposals would cover all CUDs. It is not necessary to obtain all of
them. They are listed in priority sequence for that purpose.
FINDINGS
1. Military airports, like civil airports, represent a national resource which
must be protected.
2. Military and civil airports are being subjected to incompatible urban devel-
opment which is threatening the operational capability and the public interest
which they serve.
3. Incompatible land development near military and civil airports result in ex-
posing people to excessive noise.
4. Any attempt to solve the airport land use (environmental) problem must con-
sider noise exposure, accident exposure and hazards to flight from adjacent
land uses. Solution of the noise problem alone is an inadequate piecemeal
approach.
5. Control of land use development in the airport environs is generally perferable
to the acquisition of property rights which may remove land from the local
tax rolls.
6. The control of incompatible land use adjacent to airports clearly falls within
the police power to zone land for the protection and promotion of the public
health, safety and welfare.
7. In order to properly control land use in the airport environs to the benefit of
all there must be an interchange of information between the community and
the airport operator.
8. Although most states have enacted airport zoning acts most of this legislation
is directed at the control of hazards to flight instead of the protection of
3-54
-------
people. Without legislation which specifically recognizes the requirement
for airport environs compatible land use, realistic solutions cannot be
achieved.
9. The response by local governments to regulate land use in the airport en-
virons has generally been inadequate.
10. Federal legislation covering airport environs land use, similar to the pro-
posed National Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973, is
required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Congress should establish a policy that the effort to solve the problem of
airport land use compatibility be primarily directed toward land use planning
and regulation. Said policy should recognize the utility of limited acquisi-
tion where hazard and corresponding land use restriction would constitute
"taking without due compensation" and the use of economical sound
suppression.
2. The Congress should adopt the following statement of policy:
a. In order to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, com-
fort, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the United States
it is hereby declared that it is necessary to:
i. Guide, control and regulate future growth and development in the
vicinity of airports.
ii. Promote orderly and appropriate use of land in the vicinity of
airports.
iii. Protect the character and stability of existing uses in the vicinity
of airports.
3-55
-------
iv. Prevent the destruction or impairment of the airport and the
public investment therein.
v. Enhance the quality of life in the vicinity of airports,
vi. and protect the general economic welfare by restricting incom-
patible land use in the vicinity of airports.
b. In order to effectuate the purpose of the above it is hereby declared that
it is necessary to:
i. Develop airport environs land use compatibility plans for all
airports.
ii. Implement appropriate legislation and ordinances to implement
said plans.
iii. Restrict or prohibit incompatible land use.
iv. Establish standards of land use compatibility.
v. Prevent the establishment of any land use which would endanger
citizens of the United States or the continued use of an airport.
c. Within the airport environs, there are certain land uses which are de-
clared to be incompatible. These land uses are hereby declared not in
the public interest and therefore shall be restricted and/or prohibited:
i. Uses which release into the air any substance which would im-
pair visibility or otherwise interfere with operation of aircraft,
such as but not limited to steam, dust and smoke.
ii. Uses which produce light emissions, either direct or indirect
(reflective), which would interfere with pilot vision.
iii. Uses which produce electrical emissions which would interfere
with aircraft communications systems or navigational equipment.
3-56
-------
iv. Uses which would attract birds or waterfowl, such as but not
limited to dumping of garbage, maintenance of feeding stations
or the growing of certain vegetation.
v. Uses which violate the height restrictions established by the
Federal Aviation Administration for the airport environs.
d. It is recognized that certain noise levels of varying duration, intensity
and frequency affect both physical and mental health. It is further rec-
ognized that a definite danger to life exists in certain areas adjacent to
airports. Where such conditions exist it is hereby declared inconsistent
with the public health safety and welfare to allow incompatible land use.
e. It is recognized that certain land areas below flight paths in the vicinity
of airports are exposed to significant danger of aircraft accidents.
Therefore it is necessary to limit the density of development and inten-
sity of use.
f. It is recognized that different land uses have varying sensitivities to
noise. Therefore, standards of acceptability based on noise sensitivity
are necessary and a system of noise reduction standards for construc-
tion is required.
g. It is hereby declared that land use planning and regulation in the airport
environs cannot rest solely on aircraft considerations. Therefore, the
allocation of land uses within the airport environs must be further re-
fined by analysis of, but not limited to:
i. Physiographic features
ii. Climate and hydrology
iii. Vegetation
iv. Surface geology
v. Soils characteristics
3-57
-------
vi. Intrinsic land use suitability
vii. Economic and social demand
viii. Land ownership patterns and value.
xi. Existing land use.
x. Cost and availability of public utilities
xi. Cost and availability of transportation
xii. Cost and availability of community facilities.
3. The Congress should enact legislation which would require the states and their
political subdivisions to control the use of land in the vicinity airports. Such
legislation would require compatible land use regulation based on noise ex-
posure, accident exposure to adjacent land uses and hazards to flight from
adjacent land uses. This legislation should include recommended procedures
for settling claims resulting from the compatible land use regulation together
with annual authorizations and appropriations to settle such claims.
4. The Congress should establish the mechanism to:
a. Develop a methology for airport environs land use compatibility planning
based on detailed analysis of, but not limited to:
i. Flight patterns
ii. Flight profiles
iii. Types of aircraft
iv. Magnitude, nature and time of flight operations
v. Accident hazard (occurance, location, impact area)
vi. Aircraft flight characteristics
vii. Noise exposure using noise exposure forecast or a suitable modi-
fication thereof.
3-58
-------
viii. Standards of land use compatibility related to hearing damage,
adverse physiological reactions, psychological disorders and
accident impact hazard.
Said planning methodology would designate areas in terms of compatibil-
ity with aircraft operations including prohibition, acceptability with
density, intensity of use and noise attenuation or reduction standards and
acceptability with no restrictions. Standards for modification or adapta-
tion to local conditions would also be included.
b. Assist state and local governments to develop airport environs land use
compatibility plans, legislation and ordinances.
3-59
-------
REFERENCES
1. DOD Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Air Installation Compatible
Use Zone, Department of Defense, Washington D. C., March 19, 1973.
2. P. A. Shahady, "Department of Defense Noise Research Programs - Source
Noise Abatement Technology, " Department of Defense, Air Force Aero
Propulsion Laboratory, 21 March 1973.
3. P. A. Shahady, "U. S. Air Force Noise Research," presented to EPA
Air craft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 4, 16 May 1973.
4. W. S. Blazowski et al, "The Aircraft Engine and the Environment," Air
Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory, 16 May 1973.
5. R. P. Burns, "Noise Pollution Control in the U. S. Navy," Naval Air
Propulsion Test Center, 16 May 1973.
6. F. H. Schmitz, "Rotary Wing Acoustic Research," Ames Directorate, U. S.
Army Air Mobility R & D Laboratory, 16 May 1973.
7. The Sacramento Union, September 25-26, 1972
8. The San Antonio Light, December 9, 1972
9. The San Antonio Light, December, 1972
10. The San Antonio Express, December 16, 1972
11. The San Antonio Light, February 27, 1973
R-l
-------
12. Arizona, Chapter 15, Senate Bill No. 16, pp 519-527
Arkansas, Chapter 3, 74-301 to 74-319.
Minnesota Chapter 1111, 1969 Session Laws
Mississippi Title 28, 7544-01 to 7545-39
New Mexico, Municipal Code, Article 40, 14-40-1 to 14-40-25
California, California Laws Relating to Aeronautics, Article 6. 5 and
Business Regulations, 5012 to 5022.
Texas - Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes, Article 46e
13. See Effects of Noise on People. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. 20460, December 31, 1971 (NTID300. 7).
14. Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise, AFM 86-5, Department of
the Air Force, 1 October 1964, p 12.
15. Los Angeles Times, 11 January 1973
16. A number of military air bases have closed due to encroachment: Mitchell
Field, Oxnard AFB etc. Others have ceased flying: Chanute AFB, Lowry
AFB, Boiling AFB, etc.
17. Military air fields sometimes employ from 500 to 3,000 employees and may
put more than $100 million annually into the local economy.
18. Laughlin AFB was closed in the late 1940's. Because it was the single
largest employer the impact on the local area was severe.
19. Dollar investments for military air bases can exceed $200 million.
R-2
-------
20. Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973 (S. 268), 93D Congress,
1st Session, p 25
21. A Model Land Use Development Code, Tentative Drafts 1-4, The American
Law Institute, 4025 Chestnut Street, Phila, Pa. 19104
22. Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, p 1
23. Washington Land Use Act H. B. 791, Washington State Legislation, 1973
24. Washington Land Use Act, p 17
25. Washington Land Use Act, p 17
26. Washington Land Use Act, p 55
27. Planning Cities, Frederick H. Bair, Jr., American Society of Planning
Officials, Chicago, 1970 p 356
28. The County Planning and Zoning Act of 1949 (Arizona) (Chapter 58, H. B. No.
35), Section 7
29. Section 19-903, Article 9, "City Planning, Zoning", Nebraska Statutes
30. Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise, p 2
31. Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning Procedures, William J. Galloway,
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. for Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, March 1972, pp 2-3
32. Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning Procedures, p 8
33. California Laws Relating to Aeronautics, Article 6.5, p 396
R-3
-------
34. Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning Procedures, p 6
35. Departmental Circular 1390.2, Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental
Policy, Implementation Responsibilities, and Standards, U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 8/4/71
36. Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning Procedures, p 14
37. HUD Circular 1390.2, 4 Aug 1971, p 8
38. Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, Beland, et al,
for U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Nov 1972
39. a. Noise Exposure Forecasts: Evolution, Evaluation, Extensions and Land
Use Interpretations by William J. Galloway et al, Bolt Beranak and
Newman, Aug 1970.
b. Planning the Airport Environment by Michael J. Meshenberg, ASPO, 1968
c. Cape Kennedy Regional Airport, Melbourne, Florida, Metropolitan
Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy Study, Prepared for U. S. Dept of
Housing and Urban Development by East Florida Regional Planning
Council, 1971
d. Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning Procedures by William J.
Galloway, Bolt Beranek and Newman, March 1972
e. Outdoor Noise and the Metropolitan Environment; Case Study of Los
Angeles with Special Reference to Aircraft by Melville C. Branch, City
of Los Angeles, 1970
f. Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport; A Multidisciplinary Environmental
Study, Volumes 1 and 2, National Academy of Sciences, Jan 1971
R-4
-------
g. Compatible Land Use Planning On and Around Airports, Transportation
Consultants, Inc., Jan 1966
h. Miami International Airport Compatibility Study, Bade County and City
of Miami Planning Departments, Dec 1971
i. Noise Assessment Guidelines by Theodore J. Schultz and Nancy M. McMahn,
U. S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Aug 1971
j. An Airport Environs Plan, The Syracuse, Onondaga County Experience
by William O. Thomas, AIP Planners Notebook, Oct 1971
k. "Multidisciplinary Environmental Analysis: Jamaica Bay and Kennedy
Airport" by Don C. McGrath, Jr., AIP Journal, Jul 1971
40. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone; (AICUZ) Protection of Air Force
Bases Against Urban Encroachment (AF Regulation 87-14 - Draft) Department
of the Air Force, Wash DC, June 29, 1972, p 1
41. Design with Nature, Ian L. McHarg, Natural History Press, Garden City,
New York, 1969
42. Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes, Article 46e, Section 4
43. 379 U. S. 897, 855 Ct 493, 13L Ed 2d 439 (1965) cited by Cheryl J. Kane,
The Legal Implications of Airport Land Assembly, unpublished paper,
Feb 22, 1971, p 9
44. The Legal Implications of Airport Land Assembly, Cheryl J. Kane, unpublished
paper Feb 22, 1971, p 9
45. Duke Law Journal, 1965: 795-6 cited by Kane, p 8
46. U. S. Av 11 (Md Cir Ct 1939) cited by Kane, p 8
R-5
-------
47. U. S. Av 1 (Col Supreme Ct 1948) cited by Kane, p 8
48. Harrell's Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota - Manatee Airport Authority,
111 So. 2d 439 (Fla 1959), cited by Kane, p 9
49. Baggent v. City of Montgomery, cited by Kane, p 9
50. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, Fred Bosselman and David Callies
for the Council on Environmental Quality, U. S. GPO, Wash DC December 15,
1971 p 324
51. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, p 324
52. Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes, Article 46e
53. The County Planning and Zoning Act of 1949 (Arizona)
54. Arizona, Chapter 15, Senate Bill No. 16
55. The County Planning and Zoning Act of 1949 (Arizona), Sec 7
56. (California) Business Regulations, 5012 to 5022.
57. California Laws Relating to Aeronautics, Article 6. 5
58. Chapter 1111, 1969 Session Laws, Minnesota
59. Chapter 1111, 1969 Session Laws, Minnesota, Section 1, Subdivision 1
60. Chapter 1111, 1969 Session Laws, Minnesota, Section 2
61. Planning The Airport Environment, Michael J. Meshenberg, American
Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, 1968, p 27
R-6
-------
Appendix A
TASK GROUP 6 MEMBERSHIP
-------
TASK GROUP 6 MEMBERSHIP
Dr. Sidney J. Nethery (Chairman)
Mr. Lloyd Hinton
Dr. Marjorie W. Evans
1/Lt Terry W. Elkins
Cpt. John C. Mitchell
Mr. Ronald L. McConnell
Mr. James F. Miller
Mr. Charles J. McCall
Mr. Neal Guse
L/C Perry A. Hudel
Mr. Wilmer Garrett
Mr. Roger G. Flynn
Mr. Thomas R. Dashiell
Mr. Frank Carlson
Capt. R. E. Anderson
Mr. Ralph Auldrich
Ms. Raelyn Jans sen
Mr. Brian Tennant
Mr. Leonard J. Obery
1/Lt Gary D. Vest
AIR FORCE
N. O.I.S. E.
Sierra Club
Environmental Protection Agency
IT. S. NAVY
State of Washington
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Airport Operators Council International
Dept. of the Interior
U. S. AIR FORCE
City of Fresno, Ca.
Air Transport Association
Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Interior
U. S. NAVY
U. S. ARMY
Environmental Defense Fund
The Boeing Co.
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
U. S. AIR FORCE
A-l
-------
Appendix B
RESPONSES FROM TASK GROUP MEMBERS
-------
To:
From:
Problem:
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A
SOUND-CONTROLLED•ENVIRONMENT
7 April 1973
Dr. Sidney Nethery, Chairman Task Group 6
Lloyd Hinton/John Tyler
Need to Safeguard Federal Investment in Military
Air Bases.
It is suggested that the problem incurred by
residential development impaetion on military air
bases is more serious than is generally acknowledged.
According to the provision of the Noise Control Act
of 1972, EPA must establish cirteria based on public
health and welfare (PHW) for community exposure to
aircraft noise.
The military cannot look foreward to the
introduction of new aircraft having substantially
lower noise levels. In fact, the revf^e is true.
Traditionally, civil airport operators have considered
noise reduction at the source to be the primary
means of resolving the problem. The military
cannot expect noise reduction at the source other
than through operating proceedures. Therefore^ the
resolution of the military air base noise problem
must eccur^ through land use development controls
or redevelopment.
Following establishment of EPA noise standards
for airports, residents in areas exposed to military
air base noise levels will be entitled to the same
protection as those living near civil airports.
In view of the uniqueness and the magnitude of
the military air base noise problem, the following
recommendation are submitted:
1. DOD conduct survey to determine magnitude
in terms of land area and number of people
exposedQto excessive noise due to air base
operations.
2. DOD prepare and seek adoption of Federal
legislation designed to encourage/require
B-l
-------
state implementation of national comprehen-
sive land use planning having aircraft/airport
noise as criteria.
3. DOD undertake on urgent basis, objective
analysis of aircraft/airport operating JM?
procedures to determine availability of
changes to reduce noise without compromise
of flight safety o^ Emission accomplishment.
4. DOD conve£«e major task force effort similar
to EPA program to implement P.L. 92-574, to
develope necessary inter-governmental and
Federal inter*agency recognition and support
for land use controls and changes.
It is submitted that in the absence of comprehen-
sive controls on urban development in vicinity of
military air bases, it is not possible to allocate
the level of finding needed to purchase or otherwise
control development in noise impacted areas.
B-2
-------
JAMES T. DANAHER
JOHN B. GUNN
MICHAEL KLYNN
CHARLES A. KNELL
MARJORIE W. EVANS
DANAIIKR, GUNN
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF P-3
ORION FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAM AT U.S. NAVAL
AIR STATION, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA
March 7, 1973
Marjorie W. Evans
I. BACKGROUND
II. GEOGRAPHY
III. NOISE IMPACT
IV. SAFETY
V. AIR POLLUTION
VI. SUMMARY
Attachments:
1. Letter from U. S. Navy stating number of P-3 training
flight operations at Moffett Field.
2. Map of area over which training flights occur.
3. Letter from U.S. Navy giving noise data.
4. (a, b) Tables giving noise measurements.
5. Graph displaying noise impact on neighboring areas.
6. (a, b, c) Declarations from affected citizens relative to
adverse impact of Navy training operations.
7. News article relating training of Spanish aviators at
Moffett Field.
B-4
-------
March 7, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF P-3
ORION FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAM AT U.S. NAVAL
AIR STATION, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA
(a) Submitted for inclusion as part of the study being
prepared for the U.S. Navy on the impact of flying operations on
neighboring communities near Moffett Field.
(b) Submitted to Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Force on Military
Aircraft/Airports.
I. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Naval Air Station at Moffett Field, Sunnyvale,
California was a jet aircraft base in the 1950's. There was
public concern at that time over the danger to the public gen-
erated by jet aircraft traffic, (a warranted concern, since in
1960-61 there were five nearby Mof£ett-reiated crashes and one
civilian ground casualty in Mountain View) and the noise impact
of the operations on the neighboring residential communities.
Because of these two concerns the Navy removed the major portion
of the jet activity from Moffett Field upon the construction of
Lemoore Airfield in September, 1961. The base became the Pacific
headquarters of anti-submarine patrol squadrons, which utilize
P-3 Orion four-engine turbo-props. From 1961 to 1968 there was
little hazardous or polluting flying activity by the Navy over
the neighboring residential communities, and opposition to the
presence of the Navy in the community was nearly if not totally
nonexistent.
However, in 1968 the base was established as the
location for crew training in the P-3 aircraft, and this massive
training program brought back the old noise and safety problems
in much more virulent form. A major portion of this program
(from the point of view of the community) involves the flying
of these aircraft on an elliptical path, 'with axes of approxi-
mately four and eight miles, around the field at an altitude
of zero to 1,500 feet making touch-and-go landings on the air-
strip (as well as the associated aircraft warm-up operations).
In general the same plane and crew circles many times, making
a landing and take off in each pass around the field. There
are frequently two to three planes in a pattern, and a fly-over
every one and one-half minutes is common at many residences.
In this way, between 114,000 and 121,000 take-off and landings,
i.e., between 57,000 and 60,500 patterns, are flown per year
(see Attachment 1). Thus, the noise and danger problem removed
from the community in 1961 was rcimposed in 1968 in the form
of a 7-day a week, 18-hours a day (from 6 a.m. to midnight)
noise, air pollution, and safety problem.
B-5
-------
II. GEOGRAPHY
The path followed by the planes in their circling
training flights is shown on the map given as Attachment 2,
where the solid lines delineate what appear to this writer
to be the region of concentration of the flights. Planes have
been observed flying the pattern outside the indicated path,
e.g., at a place marked by a cross. Much of the flight pattern
is over residential areas in the Cities of Los Altos, Mountain
View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale. These residential areas were
largely so zoned and were well established residential areas
in the 1940's and 1950's, with some plots being so zoned as
late as the middle 1960's.
There are thirty-five schools lying under the path
of concentrated flying use, and many more in the larger area over
which planes have been observed. These schools are marked by
circles on Attachment 2
t..
The area of the noise impact extends far beyond the
flight pattern, to a radius of five miles or more. Data is
given on the next section. While a part of this area is water,
(San Francisco Bay) the number of citizens in the noise-impacted
area is 200,000 or more.
III. NOISE IMPACT
Noise measurements were made by the author at
distances of one mile and five miles from the field. Measure-
ments of the noise generated by the P-3's at 100 feet have been
supplied by the Navy (see Attachment 3). The instrument used by
the author was a General Radio Company 1565-A Sound-Level Meter.
The instrument was calibrated at frequent intervals. It has a
range of 38 to 140 dB and has the capability of measuring on A-,
B-, and C-weighted scales.
While it is common practice to measure noise levels on
the A scale on the assumption that low frequencies are less
annoying than high frequencies, in the author's opinion this
scale used alone is not appropriate in the case of the P-3's.
The reason is that these turbo-props have a heavy component of
low frequency sound waves which carry very large distances and
which are extremely annoying to many people. Use of the A-
scale filters out the low frequency component to a considerable
extent, and understates the noise impact from these aircraft.
For these reasons the author's measurements include both A- and
C-weighted measurements. Data are shown in table form (Attachments
4 (a) and 4(b)) and in graph form (Attachment 5). Attachment 4 (a)
gives data for noise levels versus distance for the aircraft.
Attachment 4(b) gives noise levels measured in selected residential
areas.
The graph (Attachment 5) is a semi-log plot of the noise
level versus distance for these aircraft. Superimposed upon the
straight lines which are drawn as an approximation between the B-(
-------
data points are the background levels measured in the absence of
the P-3 noise, with both A scale and C scale values being shown.
The P-3's are seen to impose an average 8 dBA and 18 dBC noise
burden on the community at a distance of two miles from the field,
and a 4 to 22 dBC burden even at five miles. The variation is
probably due to aircraft variation and to meteorology.
It is pertinent to examine the standrads of the communi-
ties to determine if this noise burden, which ranges up to 30
decibels at various parts of the residential area, should be
viewed as a substantial environmental insult.
Northern California communities in general set as a
standard 50 dBA as the maximum tolerable outdoor noise for resi-
dential areas. A Report to the 1971 Legislature on the Subject
of Noise, prepared by the Advisory Committee on Noise authorized
by the California State Assembly under Concurrent Resolution 165,
1970 states that California residents living in suburban residen-
tial areas want a noise level no greater than 40 dBA by day and
30 dBA by night (at page 33). It goes on to state that residents
of suburban residential communities will accept without undue
complaint 40 to 50 dBA during the day and 30 to 40 dBA during
the night ( at page 34).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its Progress
Report of November, 1972 to the President and Congress says
at page 42^; "Areas in which the daytime outdoor median noise
level exceeds the range of 56 to 60 decibels,
catagorized as 'noisy urban1, are not well
suited to detached residential housing."
"Areas in which the daytime outdoor median level
exceeds 66 decibels are not suited to apartment
living unless the buildings are air-conditioned,
so that the windows may be kept closed to enable
conversation indoors. If the outdoor median noise
levels are above 71 decibels, special soundproofing
is necessary to preserve the indoor noise environ-
ment . "
at page 43: "...approximately 22 to 44 million people have
lost part of the utility of their dwellings and
yards to noise from traffic and aircraft on a
continuing basis."
at page 43: "...[N]oise appears to affect at least 80 million
people, or 40 percent of the population. Roughly
one-half of the total impact of noise represents
a potential health hazard (in terms of hearing
impairment alone), and the remaining half repre-
sents an infringement on the ability to converse
in the home."
The Sunnyvale Municipal Code §10-3.402 - Noise or Sounu
-------
residential property line. The Palo Alto Noise Ordinance provides
that no noise at a property lino shall be more than 6 dBA above
the ambient level; the ambient level in Palo Alto residential
neighborhoods is in the range 38 to 40 dBA during the day.
Residents in typical cities of the area have expressed
by citizen action their displeasure over being subjected to noise
of greater than 50 dBA. Thus Los Altos residents along Foothill
Expressway taxed themselves in a noise abatement assessment dis-
trict to build a masonry wall to reduce the impact of traffic noise
from 70 to 50 dBA, some of them paying an assessment as high as
$1,000. In similar vein residents of Woodside (not impacted by
P-3 training flights but a nearby residential community of of
similar character) experiencing commerical jet over-flights
headed to and from San Francisco Airport which subjected them
to noise bursts of 50 to 70 dBA, sued the airport, airlines and
FAA for relief and eventually the overflying routes were modi-
fied to reduce the noise impact.
The data offered in Attachments 4 and 5 show that the
P-3 training flights are imposing an overburden of up to 30 de-
cibels near the flight practice pattern to up to 20 decibels five
miles away. Approximately 340,000 people live in a circle of a
ten-mile radius from Moffett Field with probably more than half
within a five-mile radius. On these people, the training flights
impose this 20 to 30 decibel noise over-burden, where a 6 decibel
burden is the maximum allowed in typical ordinances (e.g., the
Palo Alto ordinance). Viewed in another way the Navy imposes a
level of from 60 up to 80 dBA where a typical ordinance
specifies a maximum level of 50 dBA (the Sunnyvale ordinance).
Clearly, by California residential standards this noise
impact is intolerable. The effect on the residents themselves is
attested in three attached declarations (Attachments 6 (a), 6 (b) ,
6 (c)) of citizens whose homes lie under the pathways of the planes.
The extreme adverse effect of these flights on the peace, security,
and quiet of their homes is attested to by these declarations.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX has provided the
information that complaints about the excessive noise from
Moffett Field's flights were consistenty received by their office
during the month of August, 1971 when they sponsored a noise
complaint telephone line to determine areas with particular
noise problems. Of 385 complaints, sixty protested the noise
from the Moffett Field training flights.
IV. SAFETY
It has become uncomfortably clear in recent months,
particularly after the crash into an Alameda (California) apart-
ment building of a Navy A7 Corsair flying a.- training flight on
February '7, 1973, that the safety of military training flight
operations is not to be taken for granted.
Under the P-3 flight pattern are thousands of residences
and apartment buildir.qs. L":ic.lor this ilicrht ^cittern are more than
-------
thirty-five schools. The planes fly at maximum altitudes of
1,000 to 1,500 feet, and during the landing and take-off phases
must fly even lower. Not only are United States Navy aviators
being trained in these flights but foreign aviators as well
(see Attachment 1, which is a press article describing the
training of Spanish aviators at Moffett Field). Since the
P-3 operations began at Moffett Field, two accidents or in-
cidents involving P-3's have occurred, with no damage to pro-
perty or injuries to civilian population in either case. On
12 April 1968, a P-3 owned and operated by the Australian Royal
Air Force crashed on landing. On 27 May 1972, a Moffett Field
P-3 Orion patrol plane (not flying the circular training pattern)
failed to return and is still missing. This is a relatively
good safety record, but it is obvious that no massive flying
operation, and especially one involving training, is a perfectly
safe operation, and each of the 50,000 to 60,000 flights per
year over this area carries the possibility of disaster for
the civilian population .
V. AIR POLLUTION
Moffett Field is in a part of Santa Clara Valley of
California which has a high susceptibility to extreme air
pollution. For an analysis see Aviation Effect On Air Quality
In The Bay Reaion, prepared for the Regional Airport Systems
Study of the Association of Bay Area Governments by the Bay
Area Air Pollution Control District, February, 1971. At page
II-5 their report indicates that Moffett Field is an area which
has a scale of between IV and V, where the scale has been devised
to rate air pollution potential on the basis of meteorogical re-
straints and projected contaminant emission rates. IV describes
heavy air pollution potential, with State standards for all
contaminants frequently exceeded. V represents severe air
pollution potential, with State standards for all contaminants
frequently exceeded by very substantial amounts. (See page
II-4).
There are 18.7 tons per day of emissions from aircraft
operating at Moffett Field. This figure, was obtained by computation
from Note 3 of Table VI-2. At this rate Moffett Field exceeds
the aircraft emissions of any of the seven Bay Area airports
(San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Alameda, Hamilton, and Travis)
with the exception of San Francisco International Airport . It
emits almost twice as many tons per day of air polluting material
as the civilian nearby San Jose Airport.
Selected quotations from the B.A.A.P.C.D. report dis-
cussing the pollution potential of the area follow:
at page IX-7 : "Pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is
high during the entire year. By virtue of its
location down wind of the major urban centers,
the Valley is a receptor for Bay Area pollutants.
The background level is therefore already high, B_9
aside irc/i.i anv .local contribution. "
-------
at page IX-9: "As a result of the characteristic Valley stability
and lateral mixing contraints, plus one of the high-
est frequencies for the low wind speed range in the
entire Bay Area, the Mountain View area [which adjoins
Moffett Field] has high pollution potential."
That the P-3's contribute substantially to the air pollu-
tion is easily verified by sight. The aircraft trail an oily
residue which not only pollutes the air but contaminates the homes
over which they fly (see Declaration, Appendix 6(b)).
VI. SUMMARY
The serious effects of noise on the health and welfare
of citizens of the United States is now recognised, one of the
recent embodiments of this recognition being in the United States
Noise Control Act of 1972. \Jhat was once argued by noise-makers
to be an acceptable level of noise is now seen to be unacceptable.
The citizens of the five cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale are subjected to a continu-
ouse environmental insult by the training operations at the U.S.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California.
It is no good to argue, as the Navy has on occasion with
respect to :ioffett Field, that the airfield was there before the
residences were. In the first place, the residential areas were
zoned and substantially inhabited before the noisy operations of
the Navy began.
In the second place, it is unreasonable to put the burden
of living with an environmental insult on people who need housing.
If governments, whether local or federal, choose to zone or allow
to be zoned land as residential areas, they are thereby undertaking
the responsibility for assuring that such land is suitable for re-
sidences. The residential zoning is a fact accomplished. Nothing
can undo this except purchase by the federal government of all
homes affected. Since, the cities involved and the federal govern-
ment allowed houses to be built and people to live in them, they
have a responsibility to make the area appropriate for California
living under the standards of similar Northern California communi-
ties.
Since the part of Santa Clara Valley in the area of the
southern end of San Francisco Bay is a critical air pollution zone,
the contribution of the continual flying operations of the Navy
in this area must be regarded unfavorably, and the burden put upon
the polluter to justify his activities. Penalties and restrictions
are now imposed on civilians in California, both on businesses and
on private activities, and further severe restrictions are contem-
plated in order to reduce air pollution to acceptable levels. The
United States Navy must recognize its responsibility to assist in
reducing such pollution by removing the massive flying operation
from this critical area.
Finally, the danger to residents and to school children
B-10
-------
of accidents during training flights is so obvious and so distress-
ing to contemplate as to give one a sense of helplessness and point-
lessness in even calling it to attention. It is entirely inappropri-
ate to conduct a massive flying operation in the very middle of a
residential area. If and when an accident with loss of civilian
lives does occur the failure of the United States Navy and of the
municipalities concerned to recognize the problem when it was there
for all to see and to remedy it before harm was done, will be a
burden on the consciences of these authorities.
For all these reasons, the residents whom the writer
represents respectfully request the United States Navy to move
its flight training operations away from Moffett Field to areas
more suitable for such activities.
MARJORIE W. EVANS
Danaher, Gunn & Klynn
Attorneys At Lav;
2600 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
cc: U. S. Senator Alan Cranston
U. S. Senator John Tunney
U. S. Congressman Paul McCloskey
California Air Resources Board
California Attorney General Evelle J. Younger
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
DEPARTMENT OF THL ™ .
NAVAL AIR STATION
MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 94035 IN REPLY REFER TO:
DEC 7 197$
Harjorle W, Evans
14511 Oe Bell Drive
Los Altos, California 9^022
Dear Mrs, Evans:
V/e have been authorized to provide you with the specific Information con-
cerning aircraft operations at Hoffett Field you requested on August 12,
1970.
The average number of operations, which in this context refers to a landing,
take-off, touch-and-go, or low pass, are as follows:
1953 |9_69 1970
Per weekday 322 312 316
Per Saturday or Sunday 152 135 130
Per month 10,117 9,^37 9,607
Per year 121,^02 113,C'H 115,000
Aircraft in the local traffic pattern remain generally over the cities
of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, and very seldom operate over Palo Alto
or farther north due to possible conflict with traffic in the Palo Alto
Airport traffic area.
Your Interest in the Navy Is appreciated.
Sincerely,
F. T. STEPHENS
Captain, U.S. Navy
Commanding Officer
B-12
-------
\ sr ^v jnouLgJT "'^^' ^'•
A- "x ^A-v. _':'./££=£ ',;••! ;/ , }
••li! '
-------
ATTACliMENT 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
.NAVAL AIR STATION
*OFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 94035
!3~'.??D
F1L3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
OOD:rvb
5720
10 Dcccr.-Ler ID
Mr. John T. O'Halloran
City Kanager
City of Mountain View
hiountain View, California,
Dear Mr. QMIal loran:
The Comranding Officer has asked that v;e reply to your letter re-
questing noise measurement data from MAS Koffett Field.
The sound readings were gathered for us by the SAGES Group of the
Lockheed l\SZ liana cement Association. The measurement of decibels
of the noise generated by a P-3 "Orion" at peak power during take
off is as follows:
"A" scale
"B" scale
"C" scale
98 db
105 db
120/ db
The measurements v;ere obtained at a point approximately 100 fcr.t
fron the source.
l.f we can be of any further assistance please let us know.
Sincerely,
J. ?.. SI-IACXLETQI!
Public Affai rs Officer
By direction of the Commanding Officer
B-14
-------
<8
•^r
EH
U
B
B
4J
14H
«C
a
o
rl
A.
O
43
rl
3
EH
C
0
-rl
rl
O
SH
O
m
0)
u
cO
4J
•H
Q
0)
0)
r}
(U
W
•rl
O
^^
m
3
o
>
G)
^
in
•rl
0
*•—*
m
c
^5
o
S-t
L
u
ro
«
U
ff)
<
^_
cq
rt;
0) 4J
C -H
ro t>
H -H
ft. 4J
U
Q)
U
C
4-J
tfl
•rH
Q
X
0 Q)
M E
OU-H
O.EH
V
4J
Tj
Q
'it?
•^rf
o
CN)
rH
in
o
rH
CO
CTl
U-l
o
0)
^
co
t-<
OJ
0)
o
o
rH
1
1
O -^
ro ro
O (N
r» r-
o *3*
^o vo
rH
in
SH
• 0) :
a >
0 0)
!H K
ft.
5
(1)
!__^
•rl r
g
H
0 0
ro ro
*£> \^)
H H
(N
\
*y -
r-H
H
T in co
1 VO U3 | | CO
m co m <£>
in in
rH
in
^* c^
m in
m i >d< i CN co
"^ ^ ^ ™ "^ "*
UH
MH
O
0) : = r = r
18
B
s
w
<1)
f~~i
"g
in
o o o o o o
o o o ro ro ro
co r-~ oj r^ i — i o
rH O (M O CN rH
H rH H rH
r- (— c~~ r~ CM
\ "v X \ r-
rsj ro : ^r LO vv
(N CM CNJ (N >J3
CO CO CO 00 rH
•
ro
4J
C
Q)
g
»c
u
n5
^J
4~*
rij
E
0
^
MH
C
o
•H
*J
(8
g
rl
O
I+H
C
H
•U >1
4J
UH -r|
0 rH
•H
tP43
C -H
•H in
u w
(8 O
a a
en
Q)
fl) 43
W 4J
o
rH (1)
o o
D
a) -a
43 0
4-) SH
4J
'O C
C -H
t8
x-x
CD tn
U 0)
C 4-1
flj D
4J C
in -H
•H g
•a
CO
0
rH SH
•rl O
g
1 rsj
in
0) SH
43 (U
4-> >
(1) .
4J in
•3 0) rH
X) S3 18
o w
«. »• — ^
w a)
m SH a)
O 0) SH
0) 4J
.M 4J Qj
(8 18 O
4J a, M
cu
d) HH
43<+H S3
O 01
O Q) Q)
1 1 ^ f~)
18
•Ci 4-1 fl)
(1) >
> n ITS
0) C 43
•H CO
rH ^>i
0) tn (3
43 C E
•H
0) T3 CJ
SH C in
(8 (8 G
H 43
[/) Jj
(1) 0)
•H 43 m
4J 4J O
•rl
£* f3 QJ
•rl -rl E
4-> 0
o to w
(8 0)
C 4J
QJ (8 (8
43 ' — 1 .^3
B di 4J
•
4J
43
•rH
W
MH
O
0
0
43
+J
*— '
4J
43
•rl
U)
1H
0
CD
C •
rH *T3
rH
C OJ
•rl -H
14H
•d
H 0)
O 43
•rl 4J
In f3
•rl O
(0
tn
CD tp
43 f3
4-> -rl
rrj
43 rH
4J -H
•rl P
S 43
"O
4J C
in -ri
0) 43
? 0)
43 43
4J
rj Q)
O 43
in
(1) rH
43 p
-P 0
o
o
4J 43
O
•d -H
H 43
01 IS
•rl
MH ^
rl 4J
•rl IW
r8 (8
M
0) O
43 SH
4J-H
18
a
(8 Q>
43 43
4-> 4-1
rl ^1
(1) rH
43 *H
tn SH
•rl (8
43 W
in
4-1 O
tt) U
4) Q)
<4H C
in 4->
(N O
(N C
O
B-15
-------
Hi
P-
ID
(-<
QJ
0
y
PI
t — '
W
rt
0
3
Pi
3
&.
S
P-
pj
PI
I-1
n>
|
(D
Ul
H-
PI
(D
3
rt
P-
PI
M
PI
PJ
fD
Pi
3
(D
PI
h(
)—i
\
U)
\
U)
H
it*.
in
1
1 — '
CO
o
0
pi
M
o
>
rt
0
n
PI
H
P-
Hi
o
1-1
3
P-
PI
O
1
to
•J
to
1
00
o
£»
00
1
in
in
en
a\
1
a\
00
W
(D
ht
k^
Ol
3
P-
3
W
•
3
rt
p-
I— i
p.
PI
3
(D
P>
M
M
<
(D
H
k<^
3
3
ID
Pi
(/}
3"
O
•0
*0
p-
3
^Q
0
(D
3
rt
(D
t-(
PI
rt
vj
\
Ul
\
to
H
U)
to
o
1
M
Ul
tt^
0
W >ti
C P-
3 >C
3 >O
^ t-1*
< 3
PJ
I-1 W
0) M
- ro
3
O (D
PJ 3
M rt
P. o
t"tl t"^
O *<
h^
13 CO
P- O
Pi 3"
•
00
I—I
1
00
u>
00
o
1
in
in
o
1
Ol
o
en
00
I
Ul
W
K
H
»
Jf*
3
p-
3
in
P.
•d
H*
3
a
H*
<
ro
3
ro
PI
h<
«j
\
Ul
\
to
H
to
in
1
I-1
Ul
M
O
CO
C
3
3
^
<
PI
1 — i
(D
0
PI
\~j
p-
H)
0
l-^
3
H-
(U
co Cli
1 td
CD >
0
CO
10 Oi
1 W
10 O
p-
in Ui
to td
Jt*
O\ QJ
U> Cd
O
M
ID
H
^
H
•
in
3
p-
3
Ul
D
PI
ID
1-3
P-
3
ID
t-1
O
n
PJ
rt
p-
0
3
3
O
P-
cn
(D
1
t*
(D
<^
(D
O
P-
(D
rt
td
PI
0
>£J
n
o
C
3
"d
H1
P-
^Q
*^f
ft
Ul
(D
>Q
C
(t)
3
O
•<
O
H)
R-lfi
-------
- \ I \ \
j. . ._ ,
3_
to-, ,'i'l
f ***** \ (--r
B-17
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(a)
DECLARATION
I, *^--?*e!%rs3&l declare:
Since about 1968, navy planes engaged in practicing
touch-and-go landings have been circling over our community at
an average rate of several hundred flights every day. Most of
these fly directly over my house at an altitude of less than
1000 feet. The training has often extended long into the
night — sometimes as late as midnight.
The noise created by one of these Orion planes is
bad, but the noise occurring at thirty-second to two-minute
intervals for an entire day is intolerable. Each plane leaves
trails of black fumes. Each causes TV pictures to roll and
distort. The walls of the house often rattle and vibrate.
Worst of all is the danger of catastrophe. With so many low
level flights every day, a'catastrophic crash seems inevitable.
The path of the planes lies over more than thirty schools.
The effect of these flights is to make life difficult
and unpleasant. One has to stop talking and thinking each tine
a plane passes. Concentration on a mental task is impossible.
Children report that teachers either have to stop talking or
cannot be heard. A full day of flying leaves one nervous,
upset, and frustrated. Other effects are depression of the
value of our property and difficulty in selling houses, an
increase in the pollution of our air, and concern over the
safety of our children.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on this -2.C day of February, 1973, at
1/£ c./t---c;- - C _:~ _/ i California.
B-18
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(b)
where I live, is part of Sunnyvale's
densely populated R-l and R-0 residential areas which are
directly under the training flight pattern used by the Navy
to train pilots to take off and land P-3 Orion four-motored
turbo prop planes. This training flight pattern is also used
on occasion by jet fighters, twin engined observer-type ser-
vice planes as well as by some NASA equipment.
Not only does Moffett Field train its pilots over
this flight pattern but reservists and other pilots use it
to get in required flying time; and now, forty-five pilots
from a foreign country are stationed at Moffett Field to be
trained in the use of P-3 Orions.
When one considers the fact that these planes often
fly low over our houses from mid-morning until dark (and some-
times until nearly midnight) and sometimes at the rate of one
at about every sixty seconds, it is not hard to imagine their
impact on those living below this training flight pattern. As
Sunnyvale is under the descending portion of the pattern, these
planes thunder overhead at far less than 1,000 feet altitude
and when coming at the rate of one every ninute the roar of
one is hardly diminished before the crescendo of the next
shatters the air.
The effect of this noise on the environment of our
neighborhood is, in part, as follows:
As lunch and dinner times are popular training times,
use of our patio for meals is out of the question. Grandchildren
can take no afternoon naps at our house. Conversations in the
yard are impossible when the Orions are flying this residential
flight pattern and if windows and doors are open even telephone
conversations must be interrupted to allow passage of the planes.
Air pollution must be considerably increased when the
Orions are laying down four black exhaust streamers at close
intervals. In forty years of housekeeping my wife has never before
had to contend with such problems as black, gummy deposit on
furniture left behind by the planes. I have a small light
blue station wagon which must be parked on the drive with the
result that the top and the hood are speckled with black tar
most of the time.
The training flight pattern takes in land in Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale on which over thirty schools are
located. Not only does the thunder of these planes interfere
with classes but consider what would happen if human or mechanical
failure resulted in a crash landing by one of the low-flying
planes onto a school building or play yard. The Navy and the
public are indeed fortunate that this has not happened before
now.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Dated: February 11, 1973.
B-19
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(c)
DECLARATION
The Moffett Field training flights fly near or
directly over our home almost daily.
These flights are approximately 1 minute 15 seconds
apart.
These flights often occur in the eveing when our
children are trying to sleep.
The noise on our patio or in our home is very annoying.
Our windows often vibrate from the planes.
Our children's school is often in the direct flight
pattern.
Other schools, parks, libraries, shopping centers and
companies are in the flight pattern as well as thousands of
private dwellings.
The Navy needs to consider the welfare of the people
of this area and relocate their "touch and go" training
flights to a less populated area.
February 1, 1973.
B-20
-------
ATTACHMENT 7
B-21
-------
MARJORIE W. EVANS
LAWYER
Suite 506
2600 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 TELEPHONE (415) 326-1141
2 April 1973
Raelyn Janssen
Environmental Defense Fund
1712 N Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Raelyn:
In accordance with our conversation last Friday I am sending you
this information about difficulties citizens in California are
having with noise generated by military airports and aircraft.
I will appreciate it if you will use this information as you see
fit in connection with the meetings of Task Group VI (Military
Airports/Aircraft) of the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Group.
Two kinds of problems have appeared. The appearance of each sug-
gests that some new institutional control should be set up over the
noise-making activities of military air operations when that activity
impacts civilian areas, and particularly residential areas.
The first problem is the conventional one of noisy air operations
over residential areas. I am sending you a detailed description
of such a situation caused by operations of the U.S. Naval Air
Station at P.offett Field, California. These operations are carried
out over areas which were zoned and occupied by residences long
before the Navy began air operations having even remotely the impact
of the present ones. The problem is that there is no unbiased,
outside authority to consider the citizens' plight. The military
not only makes the noise, but judges the severity of the nuisance
(which it judges in this case to be slight).
The second problem is novel, I believe. Castle Air Force Base, near
Merced, California, has recently published a noise contour map pur- .
porting to describe the noise contours around the Field, which is
used for B-52 flights. The Air Force does not contend in this case
that the air operations are not noisy. To the contrary the citizen
complaint here is that the Air Force has drawn high noise contours
even in areas where the noise was not particularly high. The result
is that HUD Guidelines come into play and much undeveloped land has
been withdrawn from lists of FHA finance permission. The local
peopVbelieve that the Air Force has extended its noise influence
further than its activities actually warrant. In this case, too,
it appears that an unbiased third-party agency is needed to make
noise measurements and determine for a skeptical citizenry just how
far the military control of land development should extend.
Yours truly,
MWE:lw
enc.
B-22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF P-3
ORION FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAM AT,U.S. NAVAL
AIR STATION, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA
March 7, 1973
Marjorie W. Evans
I. BACKGROUND
II. GEOGRAPHY
III. NOISE IMPACT
IV. SAFETY
V. AIR POLLUTION
VI. SUMMARY
Attachments:
1. Letter from U. S. Navy stating number of P-3 training
flight operations at Moffett Field.
2. Map of area over which training flights occur.
3. Letter from U.S. Navy giving noise data.
4. (a, b) Tables giving noise measurements.
5. Graph displaying noise impact on neighboring areas.
6. (a, b, c) Declarations from affected citizens relative to
adverse impact of Navy training operations.
7. News article relating training of Spanish aviators at
Moffett Field.
B-23
-------
March 7, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF P-3
ORION FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAM AT U.S. NAVAL
AIR STATION, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA
(a) Submitted for inclusion as part of the study being
prepared for the U.S. Navy on the impact of flying operations on
neighboring communities near Moffett Field.
(b) Submitted to Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Force on Military
Aircraft/Airports.
I. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Naval Air Station at Moffett Field, Sunnyvale,
California was a jet aircraft base in the 1950"s. There was
public concern at that time over the danger to the public gen-
erated by jet aircraft traffic, (a warranted concern, since in
1960-61 there were five nearby Moffett-related crashes and one
civilian ground casualty in Mountain View) and the noise impact
of the operations on the neighboring residential communities.
Because of these two concerns the Navy removed the major portion
of the jet activity from Moffett Field upon the construction of
Lemoore Airfield in September, 1961. The base became the Pacific
headquarters of anti-submarine patrol squadrons, which utilize
P-3 Orion four-engine turbo-props. From 1961 to 1968 there was
little hazardous or polluting flying activity by the Navy over
the neighboring residential communities, and opposition to the
presence of the Navy in the community was nearly if not totally
nonexistent.
However, in 1968 the base was established as the
location for crew training in the P-3 aircraft, and this massive
training program brought back the old noise and safety problems
in much more virulent form. A major portion of this program
(from the point of view of the community) involves the flying
of these aircraft on an elliptical path, with axes of approxi-
mately four and eight miles, around the field at an altitude
of zero to 1,500 feet making touch-and-go landings on the air-
strip (as well as the associated aircraft warm-up operations).
In general the same plane and crew circles many times, making
a landing and take off in each pass around the field. There
are frequently two to three planes in a pattern, and a fly-over
every one and one-half minutes is common at many residences.
In this way, between 114,000 and 121,000 take-off and landings,
i.e., between 57,000 and 60,500 patterns, are flown per year
(see Attachment 1). Thus, the noise and danger problem removed
from the community in 1961 was reimposed in 1968 in the form
of a 7-day a week, 18-hours a day (from 6 a.m. to midnight)
noise, air pollution, and safety problem.
B-24
-------
II. GEOGRAPHY
The path followed by the planes in their circling
training flights is shown on the map given as Attachment 2,
where the solid lines delineate what appear to this writer
to be the region of concentration of the flights. Planes have
been observed flying the pattern outside the indicated path,
e.g., at a place marked by a cross. Much of the flight pattern
is over residential areas in the Cities of Los Altos, Mountain
View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale. These residential areas were
largely so zoned and were well established residential areas
in the 1940's and 1950's, with some plots being so zoned as
late as the middle 1960's.
There are thirty-five schools lying under the path
of concentrated flying use, and many more in the larger area over
which planes have been observed. These schools are marked by
circles on Attachment 2.
The area of the noise impact extends far beyond the
flight pattern, to a radius, of five miles or more. Data is
given on the next section. While a part of this area is water,
(San Francisco Bay) the number of citizens in the noise-impacted
area is 200,000 or more.
III. NOISE IMPACT
Noise measurements were made by the author at
distances of one mile and five miles from the field. Measure-
ments of the noise generated by the P-3's at 100 feet have been
supplied by the Navy (see Attachment 3). The instrument used by
the author was a General Radio Company 1565-A Sound-Level Meter.
The instrument was calibrated at frequent intervals. It has a
range of 38 to 140 dB and has the capability of measuring on A-,
B-, and C-weighted scales.
While it is common practice to measure noise levels on
the A scale on the assumption that low frequencies are less
annoying than high frequencies, in the author's opinion this
scale used alone is not appropriate in the case of the P-3's.
The reason is that these turbo-props have a heavy component of
low frequency sound waves which carry very large distances and
which are extremely annoying to many people. Use of the A-
scale filters out the low frequency component to a considerable
extent, and understates the noise impact from these aircraft.
For these reasons the author's measurements include both A- and
C-weighted measurements. Data are shown in table form (Attachments
4 (a) and 4(b)) and in graph form (Attachment 5). Attachment 4(a)
gives data for noise levels versus distance for the aircraft.
Attachment 4(b) gives noise levels measured in selected residential
areas.
The graph (Attachment 5) is a semi-log plot of the noise
level versus distance for these aircraft. Superimposed upon the
straight lines which are drawn as an approximation between the
B-25
-------
data points are the background levels measured in the absence of
the P-3 noise, with both A scale and C scale values being shown.
The P-3's are seen to impose an average 8 dBA and 18 dBC noise
burden on the community at a distance of two miles from the field,
and a 4 to 22 dBC burden even at five miles. The variation is
probably due to aircraft variation and to meteorology.
It is pertinent to examine the standrads of the communi-
ties to determine if this noise burden, which ranges up to 30
decibels at various parts of the residential area, should be
viewed as a substantial environmental insult.
Northern California communities in general set as a
standard 50 dBA as the maximum tolerable outdoor noise for resi-
dential areas. A Report to the 1971 Legislature on the Subject
of Noise, prepared by the Advisory Committee on Noise authorized
by the California State Assembly under Concurrent Resolution 165,
1970 states that California residents living in suburban residen-
tial areas want a noise level no greater than 40 dBA by day and
• 30 dBA by night (at page 33) . It goes on to state that residents
of suburban residential communities will accept without undue
complaint 40 to 50 dBA during the day and 30 to 40 dBA during
the night ( at page 34) .
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its Progress
Report of November, 1972 to the President and Congress says
at page 42; "Areas in which the daytime outdoor median noise
level exceeds the range of 56 to 60 decibels,
catagorized as 'noisy urban1 , are not well
suited to detached residential housing."
"Areas in which the daytime outdoor median level
exceeds 66 decibels are not suited to apartment
living unless the buildings are air-conditioned,
so that the windows may be kept closed to enable
conversation indoors. If the outdoor median noise
levels are above 71 decibels, special soundproofing
is necessary to preserve the indoor noise environ-
ment."
at page 43: "...approximately 22 to 44 million people have
lost part of the utility of their dwellings and
yards to noise from traffic and aircraft on a
continuing basis."
at page 43: "...[N]oise appears to affect at least 80 million
people, or 40 percent of the population. Roughly
one-half of the total impact of noise represents
a potential health hazard (in terms of hearing
impairment alone), and the remaining half repre-
sents an infringement on the ability to converse
in the home."
The Sunnyvale Municipal Code §10-3.402 - Noise or Sound
Level provides that noise shall not exceed 50 decibels at any
B-26
-------
residential property line. The Palo Alto Noise Ordinance provides
that no noise at a property line shall be more than 6 dBA above
the ambient level; the ambient level in Palo Alto residential
neighborhoods is in the range 38 to 40 dBA during the day.
Residents in typical cities of the area have expressed
by citizen action their displeasure over being subjected to noise
of greater than 50 dBA. Thus Los Altos residents along Foothill
Expressway taxed themselves in a noise abatement assessment dis-
trict to build a masonry wall to reduce the impact of traffic noise
from 70 to 50 dBA, some of them paying an assessment as high as
$1,000. In similar vein residents of Woodside (not impacted by
P-3 training flights but a nearby residential community of of
similar character) experiencing coinmerical jet over-flights
headed to and from San Francisco Airport which subjected them
to noise bursts of 50 to 70 dBA, sued the airport, airlines and
FAA for relief and eventually the overflying routes were modi-
fied to reduce the noise impact.
The data offered in Attachments 4 and 5 show that the
P-3 training flights are imposing an overburden of up to 30 de-
cibels near the flight practice pattern to up to 20 decibels five
miles away. Approximately 340,000 people live in a circle of a
ten-mile radius from Moffett Field with probably more than half
within a five-mile radius. On these people, the training flights
impose this 20 to 30 decibel noise over-burden, where a 6 decibel
burden is the maximum allowed in typical ordinances (e.g.-, the
Palo Alto ordinance). Viewed in another way the Navy imposes a
level of from 60 up to 80 dBA where a typical ordinance
specifies a maximum level of 50 dBA (the Sunnyvale ordinance).
Clearly, by California residential standards this noise
impact is intolerable. The effect on the residents themselves is
attested in three attached declarations (Attachments 6 (a), 6(b),
6(c)) of citizens whose homes lie under the pathways of the planes.
The extreme adverse effect of these flights on the peace, security,
and quiet of their horr.es is attested to by these declarations.
The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX has provided the
information that complaints about the excessive noise from
Moffett Field's flights were consistenty received by their office
during the month of August, 1971 when they sponsored a noise
complaint telephone line to determine areas with particular
noise problems. Of 385 complaints, sixty protested the noise
from the Moffett Field training flights.
IV. SAFETY
It has become uncomfortably clear in recent months,
particularly after the crash into an Alameda (California) apart-
ment building of a Navy A7 Corsair flying a training flight on
February 7, 1973, that the safety of military training flight
operations is not to be taken for granted.
Under the P-3 flight pattern are thousands of residences
and apartment buildings. Under this flight pattern are more than
B-27
-------
thirty-five schools. The planes fly at maximum altitudes of
1,000 to 1,500 feet, and during the landing and take-off phases
must fly even lower. Not only are United States Navy aviators
being trained in these flights but foreign aviators as well
(see Attachment 7, which is a press article describing the
training of Spanish aviators at Moffett Field). Since the
P-3 operations began at Moffett Field, two accidents or in-
cidents involving P-3's have occurred, with no damage to pro-
perty or injuries to civilian population in either case. On
12 April 1968, a P-3 owned and operated by the Australian Royal
Air Force crashed on landing. On 27 May 1972, a Moffett Field
P-3 Orion patrol plane (not flying the circular training pattern)
failed to return and is still missing. This is a relatively
good safety record, but it is obvious that no massive flying
operation, and especially one involving training, is a perfectly
safe operation, and each of the 50,000 to 60,000 flights per
year over this area carries the possibility of disaster for
the civilian population .
V. AIR POLLUTION
Moffett Field is in a part of Santa Clara Valley of
California which has a high susceptibility to extreme air
pollution. For an analysis see Aviation Effect On Air Quality
In The Bay Region, prepared for the Regional Airport Systems
Study of the Association of Bay Area Governments by the Bay
Area Air Pollution Control District, February, 1971. At page
II-5 their report indicates that Moffett Field is an area which
has a scale of between IV and V, where the scale has been devised
to rate air pollution potential on the basis of meteorogical re-
straints and projected contaminant emission rates. IV describes
heavy air pollution potential, with State standards for all
contaminants frequently exceeded. V represents severe air
pollution potential, with State standards for all contaminants
frequently exceeded by very substantial amounts. (See page
II-4).
There are 18.7 tons per day of emissions from aircraft
operating at Moffett Field. This figure was obtained by computation
from Note 3 of Table VI-2. At this rate Moffett Field exceeds
the aircraft emissions of any of the seven Bay Area airports
(San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Alaneda, Hamilton, and Travis^)
with the exception of San Francisco International Airport . It
emits almost twice as many tons per day of air polluting material
as the civilian nearby San Jose Airport.
Selected quotations from the B.A.A.P.C.D. report dis-
cussing the pollution potential of the area follow:
at page IX-7 : "Pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is
————— high during the entire year. By virtue of its
location down wind of the major urban centers,
the Valley is a receptor for Bay Area pollutants.
The background level is therefore already high,
aside frcn any local contribution."
B-28
-------
at page IX-9; "As a result of the characteristic Valley stability
and lateral mixing contraints, plus one of the high-
est frequencies for the low wind speed range in the
entire Bay Area, the Mountain View area [which adjoins
Moffett Field] has high pollution potential."
'That the P-3's contribute substantially to the air pollu-
tion is easily verified by sight. The aircraft trail an oily
residue which not only pollutes the air but contaminates the homes
over which they fly (see Declaration, Appendix 6 (b)).
VI. SUMMARY
The serious effects of noise on the health and welfare
of citizens of the United States is now recognized, one of the
recent embodiments of this recognition being in the United States
Noise Control Act of 1972. What was once argued by noise-makers
to be an acceptable level of noise is now seen to be unacceptable.
The citizens of the five cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale are subjected to a continu-
ouse environmental insult by the training operations at the U.S.
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field,' California.
It is no good to argue, as the Navy has on occasion with
respect to Moffett Field, that the airfield was there before the
residences were. In the first place, the residential areas were
zoned and substantially inhabited before the noisy operations of
the Navy began.
In the second place, it is unreasonable to put the burden
of living with an environmental insult on people who need housing.
If governments, whether local or federal, choose to zone or allow
to be zoned land as residential areas, they are thereby undertaking
the responsibility for assuring that such land is suitable for re-
sidences. The residential zoning is a fact accomplished. Nothing
can undo this except purchase by the federal government of all
homes affected. Since the cities involved and the federal govern-
ment allowed houses to be built and people to live in them, they
have a responsibility to make the area appropriate for California
living under the standards of similar Northern California communi-
ties.
Since the part of Santa Clara Valley in the area of the
southern end of San Francisco Bay is a critical air pollution zone,
the contribution of the continual flying operations of the Navy
in this area must be regarded unfavorably, and the burden put upon
the polluter to justify his activities. Penalties and restrictions
are now imposed on civilians in California, both on businesses and
On private activities, and further severe restrictions are contem-
plated in order to reduce air pollution to acceptable levels. The
United States Navy must recognize its responsibility to assist in
reducing such pollution by removing the massive flying operation
from this critical area.
Finally, the danger to residents and to school children
B-29
-------
of accidents during training flights is so obvious and so distress-
ing to contemplate as to give one a sense of helplessness and point-
lessness in even calling it to attention. It is entirely inappropri-
ate to conduct a massive flying operation in the very middle of a
residential area. If and when an accident with loss of civilian
lives does occur the failure of the United States Navy and of the
municipalities concerned to recognize the problem when it was there
for all to see and to remedy it before harm was done/ will be a
burden on the consciences of these authorities.
For all these reasons, the residents whom the writer
represents respectfully request the United States Navy to move
its flight training operations away from Moffett Field t"> areas
more suitable for such activities.
// (
aw**
MARJORIE W. EVANS
Danaher, Gunn & Klynn
Attorneys At Law
2600 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
cc: U. S. Senator Alan Cranston
U. S. Senator John Tunney
U. S. Congressman Paul McClosJcey
California Air Resources Board
California Attorney General Evelle J. Younger
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
B-30
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
DEPARTMENT OF THL „„, ,
NAVAL AIR STATION
MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 94035 IN REPLY Htrti* TO:
A:lak
7
Harjorle V. Evans
14511 Oe Bell Drive
Los Altos, California 9**022
Dear Mrs. Evans:
We have been authorized to provide you with the specific information con-
cerning aircraft operations at Hoffett Field you requested on August 12,
1970.
The average number of operations, which in this context refers to a landing,
take-off, touch-and-go, or low pass, are as follows:
I960 1969 1970
Per weekday 322 312 316
Per Saturday or Sunday 1S2 135 130
Per month 10,11? 9,^7 9,60?
Per year 121, 'K)2 113, C&l 115,000
Aircraft in the local traffic pattern remain generally over the cities
of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, and very seldom operate over Palo Alto
or farther north due to possible conflict with traffic in the Palo Alto
Airport traffic area.
Your interest in the Navy Is appreciated.
Sincerely,
F. T. STEPHENS
Captain, U.S. Navy
Commanding Officer
A-6-1
B-31
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
.ATTACHMENT 2 - Map of area over '.
which trainj.no flinht-« „,—„.-
training flights occur.
B-32
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AIR STATION
MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 74035
DEC l; 1371
•!3C.-=D
FllS
IN REPLY flEFCR TO:
OOC:rvb
5720
10 Dcccr.-tcr 1571
Mr. John T. O'Malloran
City t'-anager
City of Mountain View
Mountain View, California,
Dear Mr. O'Halloran:
The Comanding Officer has as!:cd that v:e reply to your letter re-
questing noise measurement data from MAS Hoffett Field.
The sound readings were gathered for us by ths SAGES Croup of Ihe
Lockheed KSC Jianacer.ient Association. The r^asurar.ent of decibels
of the noise generated by a P-3 "Orion" at peak power during take
off is as follows:
"A" scale
«'B" scale
•«C" scale
98 db
105 db
120/ db
The measurements v;ere obtained at a point approximately 100 feet
from the source.
If we can be of any further assistance please let us know.
Sincerely,
~ ~-~y* ' *
J. ?.> SKAC'/vLETuI!
Public Affairs Officer
By direction of the Ccmnanding Officer
ATTACHMENT 3
B-33
-------
id
M
u
O
O
c
o
•H
n
>
§1
o
n
*l— *
CQ
S
V
>
i-l
V
n
O
2
in
•o
•o
c
3
0
\s
0
"3
CQ
V
id
i-i
04
X
o
M
a
a
u
n
<
o
m
r^J
-P
•H
•H
4J
O
"*
0>
o
c
id
4J
m
•»H
o
Q)
,,_)
H
i)
h
*
o
CM
rH
m
o
rH
00
a\
VM
U-l
o
o
id
E-I
4J
O
0
VM
0
o
I-l
1
1
O T
00 00
0 CM
r- r-
O T
VO VO
I-l
id
CO
M
• Q) •
a >
o a)
M Oi
04
3
0)
•H s
E
o o
n co
i-l rH
CM
r*
X
•>* S
r-l
X
I1 in 03
VO CT» ^f p» f* O
1 VO VO | 1 00
CM O N
vo r. r»
(Z
o
p«
O 00
in •-! CM m i*
•P
4J
njj
6
o
M
l|_|
C
O
•H
4J
id
E
o
VH
C
M
O
A
•P >i
4J
•4-1 -H
OH
•H
C-H
•H m
U (0
id o
CU 04
CO
(0
CI A
CQ -P
0
rH <0
0 0
Jj
(1) T3
JG 0
-P M
4-1
•a c
C-H
id
s~*
4) 10
O Cl)
C 4J
0) •
-P CQ
3 0) i-H
A C id
O CO
^^•^ M
m CD
M| ^ ^
"W M CO
O d) W
4) -P
x -p a
n> id o
•P a, w
0.
OO-I
A VH C
0 a)
O 4) O
4* X A
id
•d -P o
cu >
VGA
•H id
•—1 ^1
a) &i id
XI c E
•H
a) -o c to
'•p"H o
O 10 CO
id t)
C 4J
4) (tf
c
•H
rH
c
•H
CO
(d
u
J*
0
•H
J3
^
4J
VM
(0
0
•H
id
U)
n]
c
o
Jj
id
0
0)
0)
id
CO
4J
tn
3
o
£
4J
X!
*^f
CO
*M
o
A
•H 4J
ll f+
•rH O
id
CO
CO tj>
X! C
-P-H
tJ
4J-H
'sxi
*• *o
-P C
01 -H
a) x;
S (!)
4J
3 CO
0X1
(0
•a
0) i-H
A 3
4J O
u
o
4J A
0
•O-H
H X!
c) s
•H
M 4J
id n>
0) U
J3 tj
4-* *r4
n)
c
id a)
J 1 1 1
M ^i
-------
C
•H
U Q,
nj o
DJ Vl
H *
O
d) A
25
C
>n 0
O-H
V4
03 O
0)
•rl CO
U I
c a.
0)
3 '
0)
rl '
•d
rd
•
> M A
CJ « rl
i-5 0) (0
H a)
0) < 2
0}
•H rH V4
O eg o
-P -a
rH C (d
rO 1) 0)
O H3 j^
-H -H >-l
O) U) 1)
EH « O
*W
o
0)
N-P
U
C
0)
.C
0^
•rl
3 rH
en*
0)
CM
•a
c
3
O
^
D.
U
n
•P
0)
-H
3
a
rH
(1)
>
1-4
to
(n
•rt
O
£3
c
0
•H
4J
frj
U
o
0)
g
•rl
£-(
0)
m
a
V)
c
•r4
E
in
*
•H
t7
(11
U
U
ffl n
rQ VO
rtj
CQ d
T3 m
O H
M-l rt
•rl Q)
rH C
(0
O 0)
>
--H
(I) rl
rH D
C
^1*H
c a,
c o<
P -rl
0
rH
n
rH
|
in
CM
fN
rH
CN
...»
1
)-l
ITS
-p
c
Q)
e
a>
rH
M
C
•H
a
a
•H
0)
c
-H
e
^i
•
rH
jy
0)
M
n
j^
1
00
vo
o
vo
1
o
in
in
a\
I
o
00
n
oo
I
rH
OO
<0
•rl
fi
}_4
o
>w
•H
rH
(0
u
K
o
iH
frj
>
^1
C
c
D
o
n
rH
|
O
cs
m
rH
CN
^
js
*
Vl
0)
.p
c
tt)
u
tn
C
•H
a
a
0
A
CO
}_l
r3
Q)
C
c
>1
1 — 1
0)
>
w
u
fT3
0)
c
03
r^
rH
•H
r;
4J
rO
s:
•
U)
c
•rl
c
in
VI
Q)
M
00
vo
1
vo
vo
in
in
i
oo
^*
o
CO
I
CN
r^
CM
p^
1
o
to
tfl
•H
G
^4
o
14-4
•H
rH
113
U
•*
o
-p
rH
<
0
iH
IT3
O
O
OO
rH
1
in
*q«
f^
1
r^
m
rH
(H
Hi
Q)
C
nj
OJ
M
^3
rH
OJ
•H
4-1
C
(U
T3
•rH
Ul
O
1
0)
rH
*o
'O
•H
^
T3
n3
c
0
4J
to
0)
rH
«^J
m
rj
U
rrj
rH
(1)
•rl
M-l
B-35
-------
J
1
7
f
$
•
i
i • '
.
-....-_-•- --.('- - :--HU-- ;-_- :-..:_.. J....-T -:__•_:_. i . . ; •_-:_
ATTACHMENT 5
HT^T~
1 ^1
— --^l -
1 ; j — ;
^(^iffirp5K-a
i 1 —^
lSTAf/
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(a)
DECLARATION
I, HWi"l'Jl-Hnj declare:
Since about 1968, navy planes engaged in practicing
touch-and-go landings have been circling over our community at
an average rate of several hundred flights every day. Most of
these fly directly over my house at an altitude of less than
1000 feet. The training has often extended long into the
night — sometimes as late as midnight.
The noise created by one of these Orion planes is
bad, but the noise occurring at thirty-second to two-minute
intervals for an entire day is intolerable. Each plane leaves
trails of black fumes. Each causes TV pictures to roll and
distort. The walls of the house often rattle and vibrate.
Worst of all is the danger of catastrophe. With so many low
level flights every day, a catastrophic crash seems inevitable.
The path of the planes lies over more than thirty schools.
The effect of these flights is to make life difficult
and unpleasant. One has to stop talking and thinking each time
••a plane passes. Concentration on a mental task is impossible.
Children report that teachers either have to stop talking or
cannot be heard. A full day of flying leaves one nervous,
upset, and frustrated. Other effects are depression of the
value of our property and difficulty in selling houses, an
increase in the pollution of our air, and concern over the
safety of our children.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
. Executed on this £.c day of February, 1973, at
'^ ^r..-.'//t: t./r_ ••<.- - (. .: , , California.
B-37
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(b)
T^"^'"^^^-^'-^ where I live, is part of Sunnyvale's
densely populated R-l and R-0 residential areas which are
directly under the training flight pattern used by the Navy
to train pilots to take off and land P-3 Orion four-motored
turbo prop planes. This training flight pattern is also used
on occasion by jet fighters, twin engined observer-type ser-
vice planes as well as by some NASA equipment.
Not only does Moffett Field train its pilots over
this flight pattern but reservists and other pilots use it
to get in required flying time; and now, forty-five pilots
from a foreign country are stationed at Moffett Field to be
trained in the use of P-3 Orions.
When one considers the fact that these planes often
fly low over our houses from mid-morning until dark (and some-
times until nearly midnight) and sometimes at the rate of one
at about every sixty seconds, it is not hard to imagine their
impact on those living below this training flight pattern. As
Sunnyvale is under the descending portion of the pattern, these
planes thunder overhead at far less than 1,000 feet altitude
and when coming at the rate of one every minute the roar of
one is hardly diminished before the crescendo of the next
shatters the air.
The effect of this noise on the environment of our
neighborhood is, in part, as follows:
As lunch and dinner times are popular training times,
use of our patio for meals is out of the question. Grandchildren
can take no afternoon naps at our house. Conversations in the
yard are impossible when the Orions are flying this residential
flight pattern and if windows and doors are open even telephone
conversations must be interrupted to allow passage of the planes.
Air pollution must be considerably increased when the
Orions are laying down four black exhaust streamers at close
intervals. In forty years of housekeeping my wife has never before
had to contend with such problems as black, gummy deposit on
furniture left behind by the planes. I have a small light
blue station wagon which must be parked on the drive with the
result that the to? and the hood are speckled with black tar
most of the time.
The training flight pattern takes in land in Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale on which over thirty schools are
located. Not only does the thunder of these planes interfere
with classes but consider what would happen if human or mechanical
failure resulted in a crash landing by one of the low-flying
planes onto a school building or play yard. The Navy and the
public are indeed fortunate that this has not happened before
now.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Dated: February 11, 1973.
B-38
-------
ATTACHMENT 6(c)
DECLARATION
The Moffett Field training flights fly near or
directly over our home almost daily.
These flights are approximately 1 minute 15 seconds
apart.
These flights often occur in the eveing when our
children are trying to sleep.
The noise on our patio or in our home is very annoying.
Our windows often vibrate from the planes.
Our children's school is often in the direct flight
pattern.
Other schools, parks, libraries, shopping centers and
companies are in the flight pattern as well as thousands of
private dwellings.
The Navy needs to consider the welfare of the people
of this area and relocate their "touch and go" training
flights to a less populated area.
February 1, 1973.
B-39
-------
.
'• •" ^
pTV*.- f>
i • t'lif/r^
.'• 'U/l...
< • > ^' • 'J$Y
J, ^ J:,':.! a1.
*•-&:• A
r 'V;---.- •...- •1••• • ifrT^i i
> * • • i^w,^') i
r». • .- !,«."\V\// 1
1 1 v_r r
1 1 i , , {
""«==
m
o t~=n
©
b=
n n
m
! iK3 •
w i
:]F!
f^i
!•-> *-^
'&
<~
o
•*
.<
ef
s
•-3
z
CO
J
J^J^
- V • '^'* • ~'*~ -."*•• *"""**"1
i • ^- . . . -. ;'•;-.«,-• • • - ;''.:• •:•-•:••.'-.•••• ;
! \V -'v-.:V'':. ^;;i-- • '• rfc'i'i'l.-.'k:' .
V -•• •'!'.'-'• •' , '••"•" Y^-X'^ • ' : ••• ' '
\ ."W-. W->' "r:s • -;>~—v
i \.- . ;•/'. •" -v*'' . <••• ^.. - " ' "/
1 "*••'/' ~ * » . ^»^w -.."•• ' ' \* • -V-
i \ .-;. .... f .•-: rrr- ;.•'• •• - .-,=•. f^' . •'• -.-••:.•: •" "
n •> - —
* s H
c •= f .-
.9 «> b c.
6 5 «fc
«««.!*
.«> *5 ^ y
^ c, t- -
X Z ~ >-.
) rs £ C —
»-» -^ . ^
i ^ *•* -^
A> "^ ^* ^^
* W fc *
_e • C ...
' - c F =
'^:i' 'v «T- • ' • :^S3;^-'::;-^! |! 11
• -. • v 'y-- - •'• r- . '•. • ^-x _ i? ^^v-j^. *:•:•. 1 ^ | =
: • /V-'i. .-•-•: -'•••-••' ' • .. • *%i"'--.>^-rrv-l-r:*-:~'''.-^ j z « I'S
- . • v'.-': >' .' ' , -Y --• '• ',-^*'*Vl "*' • '" : ' •--.•"••''•"• 7--. "• '"S « K :?
• • '••'.". [•"••' : >'V ;7iJ>^- .r» ••-..-'•••:-: * £ 2-g
• .--•-.••-••.-• i"/,.v .-- •-.••>V±P''.t .•/£.'"•--• -;,.--•;••, "
. • ".' V '•• „• •• . • :.' .'» "-; '.''.. "'V' " •,:-'-.-..'::" ?•'
'•• ^' . • 'V ;. JV'.'::. ' '" ..-' "VS.- '•.;••— ' :"'•--"'-..,;-.- {'
. ' - ' , . "lr!.-;-v: ••"-. •' |1f^'-^"/"J:^v''---\
. '"* • -.,"., ••:.-• -. ..' >.l!->.v-^l; .V^.:
- •• . "-tf.v- • :' /V- ••"••••• ^••.•• ••• ••-^i-- .(>-•-;-.• •-:' ••' >-i, ...Cx
•• :..;;..; .^j~ J^ -v-.._- :-..K.^;->.y
/•"'"• " V: = 'ic- "^ . cC~" ' - •'•"-. :;vV' ft
.»-..•-•-..• . t .- ••- -•-.-;». ;
5 -.-•'•-•- ' /'>'!.""-.• •• '•-.-• -•.•.--,;•: ' . •••
• ,.--~ _ ..'^:-u-"': N "~ ' ' • • .;•- ' •"-•'• ; }
'•' - ,. ':'--: -...-. -. v' .. ' .;•'"•;.'.;.' '"• "V ".-"^-:>^.-
/• .'. .--.-.(-!.'"•--- /, '.-.•"••. ,,^"^:. .'•••- _!'-
i .>.. ;'.'v'- '- '- ;,vs.--_. «. , "- ---.'..v^cjil -v-"
i ••"*»»• ^ ' • • -" • K^^^S^ *fc . -
, ' : -.;-;u.;V^-^ -... i' . .-\; .. ; . >• .;..;• t^S^-?-
... ..|sX" V^;V>^ .- .-,-;.• ; •- ••-.•••;,-: .:;•;,. „•&»•• ^ { -
. : •' w?- .,'~-r- "- " 0- -" v „.- __ •'• \ '-••/. - -c:- -• . i •
. -• •:»,£,;:.•.•„'.• r- - i\- - .. - •.-.••-"^^r— .-*.'. .• ?v •. . *.
:. vv^'v'v -.- . ^. • .-.- . . • - .. •>••-.-._.>•,> 7;---'-'."^'r>-^.
.-•-.':..-jr^- ...-.•;--\vr,.-'--'_jv V- V-^-^^si:^./'
V"W--; -.^.":-:V./>": ••"•^: -•'>Vf^/-.> ••-" "^-5
•^ \ -V -* • . • •'.;•• .j^ ' '•"".. : . '.'• • V'-'.' • -'•
' .*b-r •' •'•/"' •>'.•..'•' ••'" '^Z'-''" • '••:--^r''^="'-v'-^;rV->>y{
• ; ^-i~* • - '•".':- .-'••••--->. •f^'" . o .'•-,.'. ^vi '-'.'--.. '•'"•"-. .-;--V'^
"• 2 73 = g
1 S "S xj
' •- ;- J3 "S
• S b< V
' o « 2:- .1
« 73 'S —
S a ^ s ?
* 0 0 r^
J "^3 O
i D x,
i •»-. r\
j<ȣ
A§! *£=> 111 fitig i:§ a- u si § ii .s 1*11 .1 i~«
tf Lj) ^=3 r = « IIIg?« 9-= s-8 £2 it- g's -fjf£^si= o^ =
Vv Jj » ™ — ~ *• ._. c — — •— /) ,- "r; ti ,7r — * z. - • .ij TO c '™- ••
N^r^sr f+ y £ ~ "£ -• ~ *- ^ c ^-t* .-«:.: .1/1- * \r *• y '"'' "rr ~ **" £ c ~
KIW 5 "0 c «; c « c c. — <* - c *5 £ < ^ .£ 2 t/. .^ < * c" > "" c «» . c § -^
_^ l-H^llf i.= ?! i* :n Jf 2g|MH.^IǤ
• nr*"Uy V^^^ •••••• . ^_^ ~ — ™ ~f —i ^ •— — ^ •— ^~ ^ ., ^_ »• ^ C — «"• ._. ~* • i- - ^^
FFy^ .; oT3£-=-5= = - £ e •== •£ <* - ~ " - « « 1 E a '
VJvJ/| tr*r=3 E^rt^=-i-"'-= 3? ~ g^ .Is5 -. . -^ . 1 t §>C^o=:s
E O ^-liMH^ r^- ll "i- ffif1^ . Is si! l!
" " ""• ^«fc.-
1 " re Z --._"= f_ -f. = - C - " i: "a '•? ~ ^ ~ r -" 5 C, = — . .= a
- K .; —
V* ,
2 — " — 5
> ? :1 "3 "*
• c=a r—^3 - •- jf 5 s '= £ - i £ = ^3 « ., u^-H^fc £«<«.i:«sy«MC-
/r=a C-<^>^ ^i^ = xl"'^ c~ ?'- £ i -=t?. s = cJ5«-.t.-I,' f « I- i -• t = f i 5 ie'i c t «•; = 3
^ S^±«»«253 ffe 1-SS±£ ^-S^.TSl^S^ti^gSglsS-S
If l\ M CJ C " 7 :< ~ « — • . C •>•,— — — ^ - •* "Z •— 1. — • — « _ H ? '— Cf •—
J^ r g E ? 1 ^ ? = S 5 2 5 - 3 t c -i r- x ^ | f i = ^ o « ., | „ g „ ^ - 2 « = c
V CXi=cj U,— <-• r: — • ^ == .= — = ~=:-ie..-5— ^c— c * £ "« « ~
P •= A cc
f-^ ^ Sa!|l£nf1iS!il:l£^Iifli|5|?lfiS!?!£f
B-40
-------
25 KNOB HILL ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033
203 - 633-2835
^National Organization to Insure a GSound-controlled Environment
June 27, 1973
TO: Dr. Sidney J. Nethery, Chairman
Task Group 6
Aircraft/Airport iM'oise Report Study Task Force
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
FROM: Lloyd Hinton, Executive Director, N.O.I.S.E.
SUBJ: Comments and Recommendations for Task Group 6
report to Congress.
In accordance with Mr. Schettino's request during the
Task Force meeting on June 21 and 22, I am submitting
this new response to replace that transmitted to you
April 2, 1973, which is included in Appendix B of the
draft report dated June 1, 1973.
The following comments relate unavoidably to the June 1,
1973 draft report and include recommendations for additional
actions to strengthen the EPA report to the Congress. In
the draft report which is obviously written by DOD rather
than EPA personnel, excessive reliance is placed upon the
value of programs for controls on land use in the vicinity
of military airports while inadequate attention is devoted
to measures for source control. Unaccountably, no attention
is given to current situations existing at a large number
of airports referred to as "joint use" fields. This trend
toward joint civil-military airports will certainly continue.
A second more generalized criticism of the draft report
is the lack of coordination with the reports of the other
task groups. For example, extensive information is con-
tained in the report of Task Group 3 regarding criteria
for compatible development of land in areas exposed to high
levels of aircraft noise. Unfortunately, no reference or
use is made of the information generated by Task Group 3
B-41.
-------
Dr. Sidney J. Uethery June 2?, 1973
Page 2
(Noise Input Characterization), by Task Group 2
(Aircraft/Airport Operations Analysis) or by Task Group
1 (Legal/Institutional Analysis). As in the past the
military is apparently attempting to deal with this
difficult situation on its own, without assistance from
other federal agencies regardless of statutory responsi-
bility to perform such functions. I refer, of course,
to the CAA/FAA/DOT v.'hich have long possessed virtually
exclusive statutory authority to regulate aircraft noise
but have failed to do so.
Undoubtedly, military self reliance as reflected in the
draft report is conditioned upon the abject failure of
the CAA/FAA/UOT to implement any regulations or other
measures for the control of aircraft noise and residential
developments around airports. Recognizing the implications
and severity of the problem, the military has attempted
within means at its disposal or, at least apparent to it,
to preserve the operability of its airoase facilities and
the public investment in them. The Congress should
be unmistakably informed that the primary reason aircraft
noise problems, both civil and military, have escalated is
the deliberate refusal, verging on malfeasance, of the
CAA/FAA/DOT to regulate aircraft noise through all means
available. The CAA/PAA/DOT have failed even to provide
noise exposure data needed by state and local governments
for noise compatible land use planning and development.
It is the concern of many public interest organizations,
including N.O.I.S.E., that there is a lack of objectivity
on the part of the UFA and perhaps the DOD in recognizing
and so reporting to Congress, the historic failure of the
FAA to regulate for aircraft noise control and the con-
sequent need to reorganize federal agency authority.
In direct contradiction to the military position favoring
the provision of cummulative noise exposure date for land
use planning is the FAA refusal to make public such informa-
tion because, as is so often stated by airline and airport
spokesmen, its publication will result in legal liability.
The result of the FAA/ATA/AOCI position of witholding
noise exposure data has been the continued encroachment of
incompatible development in the vicinity of civil and
B-42
-------
Dr. Sidney J. Nethery June 27, 1973
Page 3
military airports. In December 1971, the PAA
Administrator reportedly instructed subordinates not to
provide noise exposure data in terms of NEP units.
Subsequently, the FAA developed and currently subscribes
to the 'aircraft sound descriptive system' (ASDS),
a totally unscientific and useless measure. The FAA
continues to insist on the use of ASDS over the written
ofjactions of HUD, NASA, EPA and even DOT. Documentation
of these objections should be included in the i_;PA report.
Given the magnitude and nature of the problem, it is
incomprehensible that there is yet no comprehensive
systematic federal program to which the military and others
may turn for alleviating the problem. Although Congress
and the President have each in the past mandated so-called
:'interagency! cooperative programs, the FAA/DOT have
successfully subverted their responsibility net only
toward people living in the vicinity of airports but
to the long terra interest of aviation as well.
Since 1952, official reports, without exception, recognized
the dimensions of the aircraft noise problem together with
the measures needed to resolve it. A "systems approach
was always specified. Yet, now in 1973, there is no such
comprehensive plan or strategy advanced by the FAA/DOT
nor is one under active consideration publicly.
With_the passage of the iloise Control Act of 1972
(P. L. 92-574), Congress directed the EPA to look into
aircraft noise problems and report its findings to Congress.
On its own volition, ^PA determined the wisdom of including
'•military aspects" in its report. In its broadest context,
the draft report of Task Group 6 represents the traditional
well intentioned effort on the part of the military to
influence, on an ad hoc basis, state and local governments
to adopt rational controls on urban development in areas
of high aircraft noise exposure. Inspite of its lack of
success, the military deserves public approval for its
efforts to protect the environment of air facility
neighbors.
An example of great merit for dealing with the aircraft
noise problem was provided to Task Group 6 in the
B-43
-------
Dr. Sidney J. /Jethery June 27, 1973
Page
memorandum of Captain H. E. Anderson, U.S.H., dated
3 Hay 1973. Captain Anderson's recommendations for
"uniform noise exposure criteria," "uniform compatible uses
of land' and "a set of recognized legal machinery which
will force t,ie sonirij., issue etc, are remarkably consistant
with basic strategy recommendations contained in the
draft reports of 'Jask Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5« As a participant,
I can attest that these recommendations were arrived at
independently. In essence, it appears Captain Anderson is
recommending airport certification for noise, the only
logical mechanism for comprehensively relating control
of noise at the source to complementary controls on land
use. 1 surest that Captain Anderson's memorandum be made
part of Appendix E of the Task Group 6 chapter of the
EPA report to the Congress.
The recommendations contained on pp. VI -2-8, 9 are
strongly endorsed. The following additional recommend-
ations are offered for ooth EPA and DOD endorsement and
for inclusion in the ^PA report to Congress:
1. reorganize Existing Federal Agency Responsibility
for Aircraft iMoise Control.
Twenty one year's experience attests to the lack of
competence or even a modicum of Incentive on the
part of the CAA/FAA/DOT to deal effectively with the
aircraft noise problem.
Recommendations. Task Group 6 recommend the
following legislative chances:
a) Establish EPA as lead agency responsible for air-
craft noise standards based on public health
and welfare criteria.
b) Establish NASA as lead agency for development and
certification of aircraft noise and exhaust emmission
controls according to economic reasonableness,
technical practicality and safety considerations.
c) Relegate P.AA to role of enforcement of regulations
proposed to it by EPA for airport certification
and by HASA for hardware and operational technology.
B-44
-------
Dr. Sidney J. riethery June 27, 1973
Page 5
d) Authorize HUD to establish mandatory national
guidelines for urban development in airport
communities.
2. Military Airbase Noise Exposure Analysis and Im-
plementation Plan.
The following assumptions are given:
a) Citizens living in the vicinity of military airbases
are entitled to environmental protection equal to
that of residents near civil airports.
b) Together with civil airport operators the military
is obligated to limit noise nuisance to a
detenrdnable level and to inform affected communities
thereof.
c) The Congress does/will not desire to assume
unlimited federal liability for noise damages
at military air bases after requisite public
health and welfare standards are established for
civil airports a.nd civil aircraft noise levels
have been reduced by application of acoustic
technology.
d) The Congress does not desire the continued
expenditure of federal funds which
encourage noise incompatible urban development
in the environs of military and civil airports.
e) Mandatory regulations (i.e., decertification of air
service), economic incentives (i.e., planning and
development grants and/or low interest loans
to assist effecting land use controls and change)
and economic sanctions (i.e., witholding of
federal funds to states and localities) are all
necessary to obtain controls on urban development
around airports.
B-45
-------
Dr. Sidney J. Nethery June 27, 1973
Page 6
f) A comprehensive compliance/implementation plan
based on uniform national standards and guide-
lines is needed at all airports whether civil or
military if they are ever to be protected broin
encroachment by noise incompatible urbanization.
3. EPA/DOD Task Force for Military Aircraft/Airbase
iloise Control and Compatible Land use.
The military aircraft noise situation differs sufficiently
from the civil case that a nev: task force effort similar
to that accomplished by LPA under oec. 7, P. L. 92--
57^, should immediately be initiated. Unquestionably,
both LPA and DOD have adequate authority.
Re commendation. LPA assume lead ar;ency responsibility
for task force leadership with express DOD concurrence.
4. National Land Use Policy Act
iiPA and DOD recommend to the Congress legislation to
amend the recently enacted Land Use Policy and Planning
Assistance Act of 1973 (formerly S. 268) to incorporate
economic incentives beyond mere planning assistance
funds, providing for severe financial sanctions
against states and localities for failure to control
development to protect the public investment in
aviation facilities.
5. Operating Procedures to Reduce Aircraft Noise.
Contrary to-the notion often expressed by some
aviation operations "experts1', the use of flight pro-
cedures which result in significant noise reductions
does not derogate safety. The conclusions of the
attached report of the Boeing Co., ''Effects of Aircraft
Operation on Community Noise," dated June 1971»
authoritatively document the benefits available
through operating procedures. While military aircraft
are different, procedural changes are relevant.
Recommendation. LPA recommend to DOD the analysis and
iiriplemantation of noise control procedures with
acoustic measurements, for eash aircraft type operated
in significant numbers. Preferential rum/ay utilization
and other airport aids also have applicability on
a service wide basis.
B-46
-------
Dr. Sidney J. --:ethery June 27 j l.?7!
Fa-co 7
military Assistance in hoise Control Technology Development
Throughout the development of aeronautics in this
country military requirements have funded research ancl
development henefltiir; civil aviation. This application
siiould be r^
mendatlpn. -PA request that Congress authorize
up to id"] (ten percent) of cost of certain categories
of Military rc.;erplant and airframe development be
allocated to noise and exhaust ends si on reduction.
One final recommendation is not for transnittal to the
Congress. It relates to the coi/ijinin"; of the separate
issues of aircraft noise and aviation safety in the araft
report. Lxtenslve personal experience in dealing i;lth
citizens' complaints and v/ith local officials concerned
with aircraft noise has confirmed, the undesirability of
relating noise abatement to flight safety.
Re c 9jy^pjJati_on • All reference to aircraft accidents
actual and potential be omitted from the final report
of Task Group 6 and not used a,
-------
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION
ON COMMUNITY NOISE
by
M.C.GREGOIRE
and
J. M.STRECKENBACH
&/10UP
June 1971
B-48
-------
EFFrCTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION ON COMMUNITY NOISE
M. C. Grrgoirc and J. M. Succornhach
Thr Uocing Company
Commercial Airplane Group
Sralllc. Washington
ABSTRACT
Several means of reducing community noise through
changes in airplane operations are discussed and specific exam-
ples given Tlic discussion i% divided into Iwo general areas of
respon-.ibsh'.y: feg'i'j'or} 'Judges af '"•.••. !i"g !r 'ffic in Mu- airport
vicinity and operational or proccdurjl changes- jvjiljblc to the
airlines Hie Kilter category is further divided into tliose
procedures current!) optional to the pilot .ind aiihne and tliov.:
that cjn be nude available through jupl.uie system modificj-
lions. Flight profiles for specific jrpl.ines at specific airports are
included, along with the noise reductions available. System bloA
diagrams and actual (light data arc provided when available. It is
concluded that significant reductions in community noise can be
attained through operating chances, without affecting safely, and
at low cost. Recommendations are made for a course of action to
define and implement feasible techniques.
INTRODUCTION
Public pressure i\ increasing daily against the airlines, the
airframe and engine manufacturers, and local airport authorities
to reduce aircraft-generated noise in airport communities. Three
general :ireos of community noise improvement have been and
continue to be studied to sohe this ever-increasing problem. The
three areas can be summarized as:
1) Reduction of ll'c noise at its source by quieting the
engine installations on the aircraft
2) Changes in land utilization in airport communities
3} Changes in operational procedures m the vicinity of
airports
The first of these areas has been the subject of extensive
••tnrestigation by industry and government agencies for several
years. Recent enactment of Federal Air Regulations, Part 36. by
the Federal Aviation Administration has estabhsli£d jioisc_cr|teria
for the design and_eertification of ne>v aircraft not_previou.sly
certificated. Although not the subject of this paper, considerable
V/ork'now'being done in industry and government programs is
related to examining means of retrofitting the existing fleet of
COmiTK'rcial fanjet transport aircraft to significantly reduce their
community noise levels. As would be expected, the magnitude of
noise reduction .'ttamed is closely reLteJ to technical feasibility
and to the economics of airplane modification and operation.
To summarize the second area, it will only be staled here
that both Federal and local agencies are continuing to study the
possibilities of community noise relief through better land
Utilization. Such studies encompass the subjects of improved
planning for new airports, lightened building ..odes and zoning
lestrictions, and revised land utilization around existing airports.
Obviously, as in Hie case of retrofitting the current licet with
quieter engine insijllations. economics is an important and
unavoidable consideration in land.utilization studies.
The third area, noiu'-ab.iteincnt operating procedures, is
discussed as the main topic of this paper.
NOISE REDUCTION THROUGH
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
A potential for significant relief of the community noise
problem at relatively low cost lies in several areas of airplane
operation in the vicinity of .m ports. In l%o. Osi.ar UaU.c ol Iho
FAA presented a paper tlul disv.u-.svd several aspcv-ls of-jir Ualliv
control and flight procedures as related to reducing community
noise.v ' Some of the general areas discussed by Mr. Bakko aM
covered in this paper, with the added benefit of several >v.irs*
study and actual flight testing conducted since his paper.
Examples arc presented for specific aircraft in an attempt to add
emphasis to Ihc feasibility of several methods of reducing
community noise.
Recommendations of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) lelative to safety considerations in estab-
lishing noise abatement operating procedures1"' are recognized u>
typical constraints in the discussions that follow.
Potential arras of-noise reduction through operating pro-
cedures fall roughly into two categories' (I) Federal or local jir
regulations and (2) operating procedures that are or may be made
available to the airlines.
Regulatory
• Holding and maneuver
altitudes
« Optimized traffic
patterns
• Glide slope
Glide slope
intercept altitude
Operational
• Delayed flap and
gear extension
• Two-segment
anoroaches
• Flap position
for landing
• Takeoff
procedures
As will be discussed later, any consideration of these potentials
for noise relict must include their relationship to safety, airplane
performance constraints, aircraft modification requirements.
pilot acceptance, the geography of the specific airport, and the
economic aspects of the change.
Regulatory Changes
In general, any action ta«.en to increase the height of
aircraft over a community will reduce noise in the community.
Many complaints in the past have been based on aircraft flying at
low altitude for miles over the community during landing
approach. The FAA "keep 'em high" order.1-'1 released on
September 19. 1970. has community noise reduction as one ol"
its purposes. Approach and departure handling of commercial
jets at many airports are already reflecting the benefits of lliiv.
order. Specific quantitative examples of implementation ofsucll
procedures will be shown later in this paper.
B-49
-------
Holding .ind Mnncmer Altitudes. 1 he (milling ui IMJIICIKCI
'N over \uluirli.iii .ne.is ate vlio\vu in ligme I Hi have a
si/caMe cll-.\l i'n ii" • uiuK-r the aiurjM The cs.imi'lc \lu)\vn is
hascd on J 727-200 ai'i'tane. at a landing xxcighl o!" 150.000 Ib.
Hcsidcs Ilio notsc-icduUion hcnelib of iiKieasing the altitude,
aililili>m.il benefit* csist in x-lcclinn of airplane configuration
U'.g.. flaps atul landing gear!. As illiutr.ili.-J, in the 7cro-flap.
pear-up conliguraliori. J noise reduction of 9 LI'NdU* results
I'roin increasing Ilio altitude Ironi I500lo 300011. A\oiJ:ng fljp
and gear extension uniil really icqiiircd. combined wilh the.
1500-ft altitude increase, gives noise reductions of as nuuh as 16
EPNilU.
100
0 I 2 3 4 & 6
ALTITUDE (1000 FT)
Figure I. £ffect of Holding or Maneuver Altitudes on Noise
It is apparent from this thai, in any cases where holding or
maneuver altitudes can be raised and clean configurations
maintained within constraints established by trjffic require-
ment*, definite reductions in community noise ejn be realized at
lilllc or no cost.
Optimized Traffic Patterns. The noise benefits available
through optimizing traffic patterns are mainly related to routing
of arriving and departing aircraft oxer nonsen^iiiic areas of the
community. Tlii<; is being done at many aiport> now, in some
cases at the expense of traffic lundling llexibilny. Rerouting of
traffic in the JFK Intcrnjiional Airpor; arej in New York to
avoid flying over densely populated arejs has severely restricted
.the traffic handling flexibility of thai airport, but there is no
questioning the direct benefit of such action to the noisc-
sensitivo public.
Glide Slope. Standard plidc slopes at airports throughout
the world have been generally establiih.-d on the basis of safety.
pilot acceptance, and airplane performance capabilities. This
should not preclude j further look at elide slope chanpes as a
potential area for noise abatement, as lone as these same factors
arc kept in mind. The easiest point of departure for discussing
fclide slope change* starts with the tact th.it .V glide slopes are
generally accepted and are standard at many airports today.
llowetcr, approximate!) 30 "c of present glide dopes at major
United States airports are as low as 2.5*.
Numerous actual test flights have been conducted by
Northwest Airlines'41 on 707. 727, and 747 aircraft a; glide
slopes on the order of 1/2" above'the ILS slope. These flights
hate demoiisl'atcii appioach noise reductions of I to S I'NdU.
depending on the airplane type and microphone location. The
flights liuxe been mniliti.lc.1 In viv.ully riivni.ili.liiM;' lite u-ln-
1'iiee uirpl.ine synilml ,nul llie Ilirlil >lin.Mm ii.iiiin.iiul li.n\. MI
that the jirpl.tne lollnweil .1 p.illi ulinu- tli\- II S /Mile •*\>\\>\ I IK ve
flights luxe (leiiioiiNir.itetl thai i.iiMng »lnle \lnpcs is «oith> ul
lonsidcijlioil as j iuihC'al>alv.MU'llt .idlDil.
Analyses conthictiil by Hoeing uciicr.ill> cuiilnm the *siiiili-
wcst Airlines flight dal.i. 1'igure 2 illuMr.ites (he Ir.ulcs Ivi\xeen
glide slope angle ami noise for the 727-200 .nrpl.ine.il \arinu\
distances from the runway threshold Noise reJui lions on tin-
order ol 5 to 7 TPNilU are shuun lor a 1° nurc.isc in glide slope.
Similar benefits are j\.ul.il>le wiih other .urcr;ifl.
2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD INMIJ
Figure 2. [f';:t cf ILS Gli?c tlopt on f.'ois?
Another way of looking at the noise benefits of higher elide
slopes is the change in lomimmil), area in square miles subjected
to a given noise level. Figure 3, again using the 727-200 airplane
as an example, shovxs the area in the community uiuler the
approach path subjected to a noise lex el of ')0 LI'N'dB or higher
as a function of glide slope angle. Note that a change from 2.5* to
3.5° glide slope will result in nearly a 70',c reduction in the
community area subjected to the reference noise level. Tim can
be related to 70Cf of the population in a residential area.
The foregoing discussion has related to small changes in
glide slope that we believe could be implemented at relatively
low cost at all airport^ without degrading salety.** They represent
changes that appear to be well witlnn the region of acceptjnetr by
most airline pilots fl> ing current-generation jet transport aircralt.
Precedence has been established and demonstrated by the 3.22*
ILS gliJe slope at SJM Du-go liiteni.ilion.il and by hundreds ol'jet
landings per week-lor several wars on the 3.5* ILS glide slope on
runway 27L at Berlin's Tempelhof Airport. To our knowledge.
no landing accidents have- occurred af Tempelhol that could be
attributed to the glide slope angle. 1'ilot a^ceplaiuc of 3.5* glide
slopes, without need lor changes in approach teJiiiii|uv». lus
been indicated bx the Air Line Pilots' Association.'-*'
•The I.PN'dB noise unit incorporates adjustments for the
iubjectixe cfl«v's of aircraft noise on humans., iiu'luilinc
corrections for tone and dur-lion. a\ defined in Federal Air
Regulations. I'art .U.. Jjted Nou-mhcr J. 1969.
••For Category II landings. F\A \dvi>oiy Ciruilar 120-2^.
dated September 25. l°70. spe\.ilie> a 3* ma\imum phde slope.
Reconsideration uf this limitation may be lustil'ied in the
future in light of community noise bcnelils ol uureascd giu!e
slope angles.
B-50
-------
Inrnho'd
9OlPNilll conloux
DISTANCE FROM CENTERUNE (NMI)
0.0 p
o
OS*—
0.5 r
/\ 1
L
0.5 L
<
_. . . ,_~ -»
Are** 100 m mi
.....
5.2 tq mi
1 1-1 1 1 1 ._ ' 1 1 1 t II
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
figure 3. Worse Footprint Comparisons of Var/oui Glide Slope Angtet
Future development of the currently planned microwave
scanning-beam guidance system will provide additional noise-
reduction cjp.ibilily in Ilie areas of traffic patterns and £hde
slopes. Such a system will provide pilots with programmed,
curved, precision fhghtpalh guidance data in both citation ,ind
azimuth, permitting steeper descents ai;d avoidance of residential
communities.
Glide Slope Intercept Altitude. The effect on community
noise of glide slope hori/ontal intercept altitude is illustrated in
figure 4. Here again, using the 727-200 in a simplified example,
the airplane is 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISTANCE FKOM THRESHOLD (NMII
Figure 4. Cffcct of Horuonal Intercept Altitude on Community Noise
has been instituted for noise control. V>'e have constructed the
illustration using a 727-200 airplane, following our understanding
of typical Love Field npproaclics by these t\vo arrh.il routes,
including vectors to final approach course. Although the ground
tracks for the tv-o approaches arc different, their respective
altitudes ,ibo\e the community serve to compare the differences
in noise levels under the fhghtpath attributed to low versus high
profiles. Similar noise benefits can K' shown for any jet transport
approaching Love Field on these profiles.
110
CD
O
z
80
\
k
0 4 8 12 16 20
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD INMII
Figure 5. C fleet of Increased Altitude on None >n Dallai Lo«e Field
Artivtl Houtet
24
Another example of v\hal hipjier intercept altitudes will do
for community noise is shown in ligure 6. Here a 707O20B
Now let us take a situation in which the noise abatement jirpl.me is shown at VJMOUS rilercept altitudes approa^-hini; the
principles of the \-,\\ order have been implemented ut a maior 2.7.S* ILS glide slope on J|-'K run\\a> 22L in New York City.
^: i- _• i— ... - .. . ,..,..., Again, js in the U.iilas illusirjiinn. it is seen that iinplenv:ntatioii
airpon. I i^urc S shov>« two ^riivji puiliU-s mli.i Love I iciu.
D.illas. Tex.i». HSIIIU runwjy \}{.. The llridgepori Two jmv.il was »•• ...f..». ^......Ui. ...
in use prior U> Auv:u»l 20. I'J70. Since then the Holly One arrival reliel at minimal cost.
.
of lupher jliitudes mer the <.omniiinil> proudcs
B-51
-------
4 8 12 16 .20 24
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD [NMII
Figure S. Effect ol Increased Altitude on Noise in New York-JFK
Arrival Routes
Airline Operational Changes
The foregoing discussion has shown some of the community
noive benefits attainable through changes in Federal and local
regulations related to ho!Ji:i- aiti'.u-lev trafhe patterns, glide
slopes, and pliJ1.1 slope intercept altitude*. Now let tis look at
some of the procedural option* available tor that can po*»ibly be
made available) to the airline* for reducing community noise,
separate from regulatory chances. In *o:ne cases, as will be
discussed, equipment modification ma> be necessary or deniable
to permit certain procedures without aiKVTMTcftvcts on safety or
pilot acceptance.
Delayed Flap and Gear Extension. Noise in the community.
can be reduced by delav ing landing flap a nil gear extension until
close to the runway threshold. Figure 7 compares two eases for a
727-200 airplane. Note that, for several miles over the com-
munity, the delayed fl.ip and pear extension reduces the noise on
the order .of 7 H'NJB. This option is available to the airlines
without airplane mollification. The minimum distance from the
threshold at which landing .flaps and gear are extended i* subject
to pilot discietion but can be considerably closer in than is often
practiced, with no effect on safety.
Whatever (he distance from the threshold iiuy be for the
above technique, using current airplane systems, the distance can
be reduced even further if sufficient s> stems automation is
provided to avoid increasing pilot workload or dceiadmp safely.
To gain the maximum noise benelil Irom dclaved llap and pear
extension, the procedure mu*l be capable of maintainmp reduced
thrust levels until the airplane is beyond the noise-sensitive area.
f.jt., probabl) less than I mm Irom the threshold.
Figure 8 sho^s ll.ai. using ihe same profiles as in figure 7
but delaying extension of landing (laps until ilo*cr in and with
the aid of \\stems jiito:iuiii>n. the noise reduction under Ihe
Diglitpath continues to uitliin less than I mm from the lunvva)
threshold.
120
1234567
•DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMIJ
Figure 7. Noise Reduction by Delayed Flap and Gear Extension
1234567
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMD
Figure 8. Noise Reduction by Delayed Flao ind Gear Extention-
Auiomited Approach
Fijiun- 9 (.-oinparci iln- noiw li-voN of figiuv* 7 jnd 8 by
nu';ins of iioiii.- fooipnni voniouii. Tlic contour lor ll>ini! down
Ihc fliilo ilopo with 4f/° lbp\ ;nul ucar do\\n lu» jn ciivlox-J
cninnuinii> jr-.-j of 5.2 v| 1111 b> Ji.-'j^ini! I'Moiuion ot lljp> jnd
g.'jr. lln* urcj is M'cn In reduce by (i-l'r or 12'i. dvpciuliM£ un
wlicilicr tin: prohlcs of ligurvs 7 or 8 arc iiicd,.
As prcviotivly bi.nod. di'Liymt' lljp and pour oMcn^iou to j>
lato as ilinun in lifiirc 8 requires iiillk n/nt ^ysiciu iiiojilicjlioiii
to u\uid iiK'K'JMiiu pilnl ^orklo.iJ or (Ji^rjdiiii: ulcl). "I'lio
Unoinp Toiniuiiy IKIS improviM-d j clox'J-!oop sy>(oin tlul liokK
!•< lilOii- pii:ucllMi-% A cloy.'J limp ^\^t^.•|ll II Oil'.1 rlijl ||;|\ j
pi.i.'i.r'.t.A'il vliodul.1 but li.it UK- iiili.'rciil lo^ie jiul U\\ll>Jvk !•>
lor tc(ii IMS tu.vn
B-52
-------
Q
1234(678
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 9. rJoi;c Footprint Comptritons of Delayed Flip tnd Gur Appro&ha
operated in a flipht simulator and flipht tcMcd on tin; company-
owned 727-200. The components of the system, shown in the
block diagram of figure 10, consist of:
1) Autothrotllcs
2) Elcctrohydraulic flow valves
3) Flap position transmitter
4) Control panel
5) Autofbp coupler
6) Autothrottle computer
7) Visual landing aid sight and computer
8) Central air dj'.a computer
5)
6)
7)
8)
As 1 1 10 airiil.inc passes llnnut'li :ip|>io\iin.iU-ly I .'I)U II
ulxnv (he rnnwjy, (ho >y%icni is lnjin'fvil.
UoiitJiiilv ;i vpccd roituition lli.il is
'I'1-' Hiiutllc.
Tito ultitucK'
«u.x>ni|iliklK-J l>y
Tlic fljps Jf'J controlled by uirspcod and extend us
speed ii rcdiHvd.
When n:ips rejcli the fmjl desired poiition and the
airspeed i\ uiihin 5 kn of Ilie Inul ^peed vet on llic
bup, tlie throttle!, jdvjnce jiituni.iticjlly to arrest ihe
deee!er.itimi. At l!n- point, l!:e asrpl.ino ii ;i(>«>in 200 I'l
above liie runv.ay. The jir%pecd then stjbili/o* jnd is
constant until Lindinp fljre is, initialed.
Throiipliout the ;iut»nap approjeh, lieeuu->e of speed pro-
grammins. the airplane's body atlitiule remains constant. Tlio
sample fliplit profile, fitiure II, dcmonstr.iies (he aiitom.iiic fl.ip
maniiEement experienced with the Boeing flight lest jirpljno.
Tliis particular profile was flown without use of the autopilot by
manually following the instrument cues.
~ 20.000
;> 15,000
5 10,000
fc 5.000
z n
r
~7~
1
i
^s^
\
\
\
s'O
^^^
^
^"
o
UJ
180
120
FLAPSETTIN<
(DEC)
' - --» VI CJ J
_±0 0 0 C
'
'^^
'*"— -
-^
"~~— f
-34 1133
) M 40 30 20 10 0 50 40
COORDINATION TIME (HR-MIN-SEC)
Fiyun 11. Autoflap Approach-727-200 Flight Test
Figurt 10. Autoflap Schemaiic-Approxh Modi
The procedure that has been the most successful follows:
I) The pilot establishes approach confipuration- flaps IS".
(car down, alti.tude above 1500 ft, and airspeed equal
to V
,cf
55 kn.
2) Prior to intercepting the fjide slope, the Jutofbp
system is trmed by selecting llu- LAND mode on the
control panel.
3) The Dap handle is (hen moved to the desired final flap
icltirt?, and Ihv corr-%l:i'.ik-d to reduce t'u» amount even
further.) At the poml whore fl.ip> are full down and speed i> Vfcj-
+ 5 kn. Ihruit r<.-i|iured to hold sijo phile slope (about 21.000 ll»)
is applied automjlically. The remjinder of the approach is Down
normally.
In view of (hr substantial noivc reduction shown in fipurc 8,
this concept merits further development.
B-53
-------
UJ
I
Twu-Segmeul Appm.iches. Sigmlicant reductions in com- u-
uumil) muse lesult (mm intercepting the I'M'.I! glide slope liuni .1 g
sleep descent, say (.1*. as compared In I1> ing the glide slope Irom —
many miles out. I igure 12 lomparcs the upprn.uli profiles and '£
coirespondmg community noise levels ol a 727-200 airplane ^
following a norr.ul (3°) glide slope, and the same airplane
performing a two-segment approach with steep descent to Ihc
glide slope. Hap jnd gear conliguralions arc the sjme in both
profiles, so the noise benefits shown are related only to
deferences in airplane descent singles. Note that the transition is
made al 1000 fl .iliittide (about 3 nnu from the threshold* 1 1 his
will give the pilot adequate lime to siabili/c on the glide slope
without revisions to the current airplane systems.
120
234567
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 13. Two Segment Approach with Close-In Transition
tzu
_no
m
O
o.
1 ri 100
UJ
14
O
* DO
80
\
">
^
^^
r5
~^i^__
VJ
5EPNdB
-^
•v
^-v
^Jl
I
<4
-95EPP
"^^
JdS
01234567
DISTANCE FRCM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 12. Tn-o-Sty.v.ent Approach
DISTANCE FROMCENTERLINE (NMI)
p P P P P °
tr O ' • 5. J >q mi
J, -^ Two ttcm«nt ipproach
'j - ^— -***^ Arj» - 2 5 Iq mi
|- J^!^* Wllh li-'toltarii
» HI '" ' ' An* • 1 4 »q mt
| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
the steep descent sejMr.cni to the plide slope closer to Hie airport,
the noise benefit to the community improM-s. as shown in figure
13. This illustrjtion uses the same airplsnc conl'ipur.itioiis as
shown in figure 1 2, but transition from 6* to 3* slopes is initiated
at 250 ft altitude, less tlun a mile from the threshold. Figure 13
'shows noise reductions on the order of 5 to 13 EPN'dB at
distances of 1 to 6 nmi from the runway threshold. These arc
sipnifieanl reductions, certainly of a magnitude readily discern-
able to residents living under the approach Ili^htpath of the
airplane.
Figure \4 compares the noise footprint contours of the
above two-scf nient approaches wuh a normal 3° phdo slopo. Note
the significant noise benefit of a 73'7 area reduction in the
contour for the close-in transition of figure 13.
Regarding the feasibility of operating on such a profile, let
US discuss means of accomplishing this steep descent with i.lo-..e-in
transition within limits of s-ilcty and pilot acceptance.
Simulator development and flight tcssinp of the Boeing
model 367-80 {707/KC-I35 prototype), conducted in l%8
under th* N-\SVB"einc: mvesiip.iiion ol" noise abatement landing
approaches^)IS) demonstrated that two-segment approaches
*Bolt, Rcranelv, and N'ewnun. Inc. ' considered two-wymont
approaches in their WO study, with transition from 0* to 3*
llopcsat 3 nmi Iroin (lie threshold.
0 1 1 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 14. Noite Footprint Comparisons of Two-Segment Approaches
with close-in transition are feasible. Tim investigation was flown
Dt Oakland International Airport using the evistinc glide slopo of
2.65* and steep djsccnl of 6" with inrer^epl altitudes of 250 and
400 ft. The research airplane was equipped with improvements
over current jet transports, including a modified flight director.
an aulothroltle, and stability augmentation that improved
longitudinal and lateral dircclioiijl handling qualities. The lest
profiles were flown by one airline pilot. si\ \:\\ pilots, and four
NASA pilots under simulated instrument conditions.
The conclusions reached were that two-segment profiles
could be flown in a modified jet transport with the same
precision as a coiuention.il instrument approach without a
significant increase in pilot workload and with a bicmficanl
reduction in community noise.
Adoption of such procedures for airline use would require
further development and tests to establish (ho requirements anil
operational limitations of IwK-sevMiient appioaches in an
environment inure rcprc\onl.itno ul airline operation-, and under
conditions di' combined adverse weather and airplane
or guidance ladures
B-54
-------
FV>p Selling Effect* on Apprnacli Noise. Another source of
noiu' tediKlirn is llic pilot option of fljp position
u'kction durir/f ;'pproaih and laiidiiij* V.'c have prubabty 2!!
cxpvrie'Hvil acliul llif.hli in vAlui.li landing flaps weic drj-,i',cd for
nuny mites over J (evidential Community prior to intercepting
lhev i-Jidepath. Fif.vre 15 compares two approaches for Ilie
727-200 in llic sjme profile but at different fbp positions. It
shows that, at (In Mine Altitude, there is a noiv: diffcrcr.ee of
from 3 to 7.6 I'.PNdti txtwccn these two cases As a comparison,
a 707-320B or C landing at 25* flaps is nbout 3 to -1 EPNdit
-
^"""~
,_«*£-
r i,^
r »
10"
~-
Uo.™
\
L4CPNdO
|
Vvj
N
i—O
IPNdO
"^
^
\
-J
<0°
ISEPNc
\S°
n.0>
a
II. ni ~
3 2 4 G 8 10 12 14 1
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 1C. Combined EtlKii of Flaps, Altitude, ind Glide Slop*
On Approach fJo/ie
120
110
CO
O
uJ 100
Ul
O
2 00
60
| — 3
^
EPNdB
^
s
P
^^^vP
3 EPMJB
j
i
D 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 15. E//Kt of Flap Setliny on Approach Noise
If we now combine the above flap options with (he effects
of intercept altitude and moderate change in glide slope discussed
earlier, we have the picture shown in figure 16, showing
significantly greater noise reductions than in figure 15.
Both of these profiles are within the limits of current
airplane capability and operating procedures and we believe
would not require any special equipniem or techniques.
Now let us include the capab,lilies available through the
approach system automation discussed in connection with
delayed flap and fear extension and with steep, two-segment
descents. Modifying the figure 16 profiles to include these
capabilities as well as a 3.5° glide slope, we arme at figure 17,
which represents the total potenii.il noise reduction available
through adop'.ion of approach nouc abatement regulations and
procedures and development of appropriate equipment.
Noise Abatement Ta^ecff Procedures. Many takeoff profile
choices can be, and have been, investigated lor reduction of
community nois:. The most obvious, involving o:i!y the choice
between takeoff power all the way versus power cutback at some
acceptable altitude, is rccofiu/cd as a means of reducing noise in
the close-in community.
Mr. Dul-kc ' compared several takeoff procedures proposed
by llic FAA. by llic Air Line I'lloti' A^oi'iaiioo. and itjndard
- 2
X
0
TiU
S
iioo
Ck.
01
U)
geo
z
70
I
.r
i\
-XI
EPNdB
^
fvll EPN
M
V
\
r1
r t
d9 ^
s.
X
J
\!
~ n —
I
I7EPN
40°f
da
15°
i»ot
Flaoi
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Fi}ure 17. Approach fJoiff Reduction Potential Through Combination of
AViV Techniques
operating practices of five major airlines. Some of thei
procedures, monitored in actual day-to-day operation"; at JF!
International Airport, demonstrated noise reductions over th
community on the order of -4 to 7.5 PNdli. Such reductions ai
to be cncouraped. Studies :t Uoeinp liave pcnvrally coiilir;ne
these findings. Nuise-.ibjieinenl takeolf procedures can b
performed ell-\!:\c!\ vMlli vutiu.iv jil preseni-vl"j> }<. \ lrJII\,H>
aircraft williotit nodilication oi u.e .nr^uii. uiin mi clievi n
soTeiy. and mill jillle elle>.t (in_jyiloi v.oik.loaU. be^oiul tlu
lechnu|uis invoUin(; some automation and capable ol c\i;
greater noise benefits are believed within easy reach. DISCUi cases is to the level thai would numt.u:i lev
B-55
-------
!) HEIGHT (1000 FT
§ g o
o
£110
UJ
5
2100
90
^_
-— '
J
-1
^S
*ZZZZ
^— 1
^ir
3i
. -i ^;
1
^
^
-*»
^^-^
^a~-
1 CPNd
1
5 8 10 12 )4 16 18 20
)
emus
[: '
&
O
i
130
5120
Q
a
— 110
UJ
L/l
O
zio:
22 24 90
~r— • '
-JW—-
v
^^
^—
«
d
iJ
• i
• • ^
r Ho
,
^^
^^
1
-
___. .
1 i
i —
ISC
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
fnaa
C1, LHVi-j
^ —
22 2-
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (1CGOFT)
Figure '£. Comparison of Two Takeoff Profiles-Minuil Fbp RelrKlion
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (TOOO FT)
Figure 19. Companion of Two TiteoH Piofila-Auromatcd Fljp fttmctiort
fliglil willt one cnpine inoperative, liolh airpl.Tnes tnkc off \\ith
25° flaps. One numtains this flap selling ihrouplioist clunboul,
whereas the other, aflcr accelorjling lo V-i + 10 kn, retrjcts flaps
to 15°. Nolc that the 15° climbout permits a steeper iliinb
pradicnt (|O\UT noise at takeoff power) ;md cutback to lower
thrust (oiK'-en?me-out level flijlit tluust for I 5s instcjJ of 25°).
resulting in lower noise jt'tcr cutback due to both greater nHitudi
and lower thrust. Ir. the ejse illustrated, the noise rejuctions are
1 EPNdB and 4 FPNdB bo!on1 and after cutback, respectively.
This procedure is optional to pilots, requires no airplane
modifications, and is similar to oper.itions being used at the
present time by certain airlines Comparable noise reductions
\vcro cxrcrirnceri by N'A.S^ di-nrp. 1968 noise abatement
takcoffs^1 of the Ames CV-990 airpljne at Wallops Station.
An improvement in the noise picture of figure 18 is
attainable by incorporating an automated fljp s>Mem, permitting
speed-controlled programming of fljps during climbout. figure
19 illustrates such a procedure, in which, in one case, the fljps
are programmed to 10° after a 25° takeoff, and in (lie other case,
the fbps arc 25° all the wjy. Figure 20 shows J reduction of 507'o
in the land area enclosed by the 90 EPNdB footprint contour for
the autoflap profile.
The additional noise benefit of this procedure seems lo
justify further imcsiiejtion of means by which it can be accepted
as routine. The closed-loop system mentioned earlier, but in a
takeoff mode, lias been simulator tested and flight tested by
Boeing. The system is shown m the block di.tgram, figure 21, jnd
consist* of d simplification of the approach mode.
The takeoff procedure is simple, utilising the following:
1) Pilot selects the takeoff flap position.
2) He then arms the autoflap system by selecting the
TAKI10IT mode on the control panel.
3) The flap handle is moved to the po>ition to which I ho
flaps will be retracted.
4) The flaps do not move until an cleclrohydraulic
transfer valve is opened.
5) The transfer valve will rot open until the foltov.-ing
conditions are satisfied.
a) Airspeed must exceed V-> + 10 kn for the takeoff
flaps.
b) Landing gear inuvt be up and doors closed.
6) When the above conditions are met, the flaps retract at
the normal rate to the position selected previously
7) When this position is reached, the airplane establishes
best climb profile.
90 CPNOB contou'l
J5*IUpt
AutOfllfH
Art* • 70.1 tq mi
I
SO 100
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE {1000 FT)
Figure 30. Hone Footprint Compiritoni of Tikfotl Pioliltl
tso
B-56
-------
5) Dcljyiii|!
Figure 2t. Auto flip Schematic- Tikeoll Mode
The system also lus the op.ibility of sousing horizontal
distance. This information is obt.iincd from the aulothrottle
accclerometcr, \\hieh uses double integration to compute tlie
horizonl.il distance. The computed distance then is compared to
a reference disuni.e. and, if exceeded.a light will be illuminated
in the cockpit to jlert the pilot to inilutc noise-abatement thrust
cutback procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the foregoing discussion and on the results
of testing conducted by NASA, (lie FAA, the aircraft industry,
and the airlines, th- following general conclusions are drawn:
1) Significant reductions in community noise can be
attained through early adoption of readily available.
regulatory and procedural operations changes in the
vicinity of airports. Such changes can be mads at little
cost, would require no r^srikubr increase in pilot skill
or pilot workload, and are not considered to have any
effect on safety.
2) Further noise reduction benefits are a\ailable through
certain additional operating procedures requiring
development of techniques and equipment modifica-
tions to avoid increasing pilot workload.
These 'conclusions were generally supported in an April
1971 paper,''' presented by the Air Line Pilots' Association at
the; FAA National Aviation System Planning Review Conference.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the potential community noise benefits to be
gained through noise abatement operating procedures, a two-
phase positive course of action to define and implement feasible
techniques is recommended. We suggest that such 3 program be
conducted under FAA sponsorship as an industry cooperative
effort, with A1A, ATA, and ALPA working together as a team.
Phase 1 would entail early implementation of regulatory and
Operational procedures I'.ut can be accomplished Jt liltle cost
and with little or no equipment modification. Typically, they
include:
4) I'.st.iblislnni! minimum :'luK slope liori/nnl.il iiltc
N i>! 3t)00 It oi liii-lu i o\oi tin- tcir.iin
n ol Liiulinj1 Fl:ips :iml gear as
6) Using reduced kinding H.ip seltingi wlu-ncviT oii
conditions porinit (j| llu' espouse of son)..' iniri';i\c in
landing speeds :md Ijnding field lengths)
7)
Uiing segmented l.ikeoff profiles ;id.ipljblc to c;ich
airplane type, specifics of such profiles to be woikcd
out coopei.ituely by the ::i:li:ii'*. the !::aM'.!f:ict'Ki.-i<.
:
out coop
and the I:AA
Phase II would include development of additional noise
nbatemcnt piocedurcs. discussed in tin-, paper, iciiuinn;: jnpl.uie
jnd/oi ground equipment modilicjtion to preilude deluding
s-ifety or increasing pilot workload. The program should eoiiMder
all U.S. subsonic turbojet-powered commercial transport aircuft
as candidates. ' Participating AIA companies would develop
techniques ,md rcl.iU'd equipment modifications for lhe;r respec-
tive models and flight lest the procedures using ccmp.my, I-'AA,
and nirhne/ALPA pilots. It would be desirable to standardize
procedures, to the extent permitted by individual airplane
characteristics, to simplify adoption by the airlines.
Firm technical data \vould be derived to form a basis for
maximum exploitation of the noise-.'ibjtcincnt benefits of regula-
tory and operational changes, including appropriate ground and
airborne systems modifications. The program should dim toward
ensuring adequate s.ifety; attaining worthwhile noise reflection;
eliminating those procedures determined not feasible or north-
while; and gaining FAA, airline, and pilot acceptance.
- It is further recommended tlut applicable air refutations.
such as FAR, Part 36, be niuiliiicu iuc.1; that cnjcm.gc.'ii-- nl jM
incentive is -given to noise abjtemcnt through operating pro-
cedures. This should be an inherent p;>rt of the o\erall cffoit to
reduce community annoyance.
REFERENCES
I. Oscar Uakkc, "Air Traffic Control and Flight Procedures,"
paper included in a report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel,
Alleviation of Jcl Aircraft A'oisc AVar Airports. Office of
Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President,
March 1966.
2. 1CAO letter AN 1/546-70/32. app. A, annex 16. ateh.C,
"Guidance Material Relating to Safety Considerations m the
Establishment of Aircraft N'oise Abatement Operating Pro-
cedures," March 19, 1970.
3. Arrival and Dc/'cirnirc llanrJUns; of l/igli-reri'oriiuiice Air-
planes. FAA order 71 10.22, September 19, 1970.
4. William S. Mk-ronymus, "New Landing Method Aimed at
Reduction in Approach None," .-lr;a//o/i Week. M.iroh 1,
1971, pp. 46 and 47.
1) Establishing minimum holding pattern and maneuver
altitudes of 3000 ft or higher uvcr the terrain
2) Routing traffic over low population densities to (lie
extent feasible
3) Raising all glide ilopes to a minimum of .''*. with 3 J*
being p,i«rn serious cunsidcMiion
program should include the results of the FAA-sponsored
iue..surciiK-nl prii^r.ur, c;:rr,-u:!v Ivm;: miuluct-.-J b\ I'ydro-
*pjio Kesi-.irch Corpora 11. MI.'' ' I .uir diil'eient .iiipl.i.io jre
IKMIIP ji->.led t») noise ine.i>ureiuenls \\!ule tl\ ing j \.iriety
of noisc-.ibjlenii-nl jpproach jnd l.ikeiill' prolilos.
-------
5. C.ipl.i'm KnK'il N. Koikwdl iGi.iirnuit. N'nisc Ab.ilomcnl
("untnu'itce, Air I.KH'» 1'iltil*' AwKulionl, "Airport Nui\c
;nul Aiur.ill Operation*." paper ^resented ;il Iho I AA
N.Mioiul Avutuiii System rijiimiit: Keucw ('onlcrenctf,
Washington. D.C.. April 2'). IV7I.
(<. I). I-'. Bishop unil R. D. lloranjcff. AVi/sc A'v/
Cunnmrs fur Ainrvfi .S'oin.- TraJi-ujf Simlie* ui Three Mu/nr
Airi>uiti. Fin.il Report l-AA-NO-70-7, Contr.ict FA
(.RWA-1900. Boll. Ucr.iiu-k. and Newman. Inc., July 1970.
7. Cl.ironi.-c C. Flora. Calmd K. L. Kricclibjuni. und Wjync
V/ilhch, A night IniTsnaaiivii of S^lcnf, Dndnpftt for
Reducing Pilot Wijil.ltt.iJ and IiniToiiiiR Trailing Acmracy
During i\oi\f-.-l Ihi/cnii'iil Landing ,\i>i>r«.nli<."<. NASA I'ii'.al
Report CR-U:7. Contrjct NAS :-4200. Tlic Bocinc
Company, Owlohcr 1969.
8, Hervey C. Quigk-y. C. Tlionus Snydcr. Cinmctt B. Fry, Leo
J. Power, and Robert C. Innis of Amcb Research Center; and
\V. Latham Copeljnd. Langley Research Center. Flight and
Simulation ln\'csli£iition of Methods fur l»ii>lenieiitin%
i\'ni\e-Abvlciin-nt Landing Ai'iiruJiiies. NASA Technical
Note TN-D-S7S I.May 1970.
9. M. Rodney Pt-i'ry and lleintz Erzbcrpcr, .Voist1 Measurement
Evaluation of TjkenfJ and Appruui.li Prtijiles Optimised for
Noise Abatement. NASA Technical Note TN U-6IM6. March
1971.
10. Opcratiunal Procedures h'uiie Reduction Program. FAA
contract awarded to Hydrospace Research Corporation.
Prof.ram procured under FAA RFP WASR-1-0:36,
November 16, I970. Sclieduled for completion (final report
draft) on July 1, 1971.
B-58
-------
Si
Parti
Cosponsoring organizations:
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Transportation
Proceedings published by:
SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, INC.
Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10001
B-59
-------
Aircraft Noise as a
Continuing National Problem
Lloyd Hinton
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Mmneapolis-St. Paul
THIS PAPER IS INTENDED to present the
views of noise impacted airport communi-
ty residents who, while seriously annoy-
ed, in the majority are moderate in
their complaint and deserve relief. The
assignment was to "discuss the problem
of noise created by airports as seen
from the citizen's point of view."(l)*
While airport community resi-
dents may prefer that this paper take
a more rancorous approach to describe
their opinion of aircraft noise, ex-
perience has shown that a more objective
approach is required. It should be ob-
vious even to industry attorneys that
the problem cannot be assessed on the
basis of the number of complaint calls
nor the amount of damages paid as a
result of legal actions. It must be
assumed that all desire the end of the
aircraft noise problem. Admittedly,
*Numbers in parentheses designate
References at end of paper.
there are different reasons and indeed
differing views of what constitutes the
problem i.e., exposure to aircraft noise
per se or exposure to aircraft noise
complaints and law suits.
It is not intended here that
the causes of the aircraft noise problem
be analyzed, rather that, viable recom-
mendations for short and long term im-
provements be provided for discussion
and hopefully, early implementation.
Because the SAE is a professional so-
ciety of technical people, it is not
usual that papers prepared under its
auspices deal primarily as does this
one with social/political rather than
technical issues. However, a small
part of the technical information which
is available is referenced to sustain
the argument that feasible means for
significantly alleviating aircraft noise
have long been available if only respon-
sible governmental officials had con-
sidered the problem of sufficient impor-
tance.
ABSTRACT-
The history of the aircraft
noise problem is presented using many
references to particularly important
studies. Emphasis is placed upon the
similarity of expert opinions during
twenty years of research for measures
needed to resolve the problem. While
objectivity is sought — the common de-
nominator of the aircraft noise issue
is controversy — the author is repre-
senting the views of noise impacted
airport community residents who cannot
comprehend the lack of progress in air-
craft noise abatement. This lack of
progress has persisted in spite of gen-
eral agreement on measures needed and
is the basis of a call for the reallo-
cation of authority among federal agen-
cies having responsibility both for the
regulation of aviation and for the plan-
ning and development of urban areas —
including airports — with environmental
protection as basic criterion.
B-60
-------
EARLY RECOGNITION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
PROBLEM
In February, 1952, President
Truman appointed the President's Air-
port Commission with General James H.
Doolittle as Chairman and Mr. Charles
F. Home, Civil Aeronautics Administra-
tion Administrator, and Dr. Jerome C.
Hunsaker, Head, Department of Aeronauti-
cal Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, as members.
In his directive of appoint-
ment, President Truman said in part:
"In view of these developments I
feel that the nation's policy of air-
port location and use should be re-
studied. We need a study that is
both objective and realistic. That
is what I want your commission to do.
In undertaking this survey several
major considerations should be kept
in mind. On the one'hand, provision
must be made for the safety, welfare
and peace of mind of the people liv-
ing in close proximity to airports.
on the other hand, recognition must
be given both to the requirements of
national defense and to the impor-
tance of a progressive and efficient
aviation industry in our national
economy."
Characteristic of President
Truman, he concluded his charge as fol-
lows:
"Because of the urgency of the
problem, I hope you will be able to
give me your final recommendations
within ninety days Arrangements
will be made to meet the expenses of
your commission out of the Emergency
Fund for the President."
In its letter of transmittal
of "The Report of the President's Air->
port Commission,"(2) dated May 16, 19^2,
the Commission stated:
"In addition, we have obtained the
views of civic associations repre-
senting people who live in the vici-
nity of airports but are not other-
wise related to the aviation indus-
try. Some of these groups were out-
spoken in their desire to be relieved
entirely of the nuisance and exposure
to potential hazard resulting from
aircraft operations in their vicini-
ty. The majority were more moderate
in their views. Recognizing that
aeronautics is an essential element
' of our national economy, they asked
only that all possible steps be
taken to minimize nuisance and haz-
ard."
Throughout its report the
commission emphasized that community
exposure to aircraft noise constituted
a serious national problem and recom-
mended strong measures to deal with it.
The following quotations are taken from
pages 8,9 and 10:
"...the problem of control of the
use of the land in approach zones
becomes more difficult because of
the large area involved. For rea-
sons shown elsewhere in this report,
it would be desirable to protect
approaches to dominent runways for
a distance of at least two miles
beyond the runway extensions ("at
least one-half mile beyond the end
of the dominent runways. These areas
should be incorporated within the
boundaries of the airport.")
"Where it is not economically
feasible to purchase such tracts of
land so that absolute control of
their use could be maintained, re-
liance must be placed on zoning laws
to protect both the aircraft using
the airport from obstructions to
flight .and the people on the ground
from hazard and noise."
"Traditionally the power to control
the use of land rests with the states
and may be delegated to counties and
local communities. The federal go-
vernment should, however, propose
model airport protective legislation
for enactment by the states, and
should help where practicable toward
reaching a satisfactory solution of
this type of zoning problem."
"...It is further suggested that the
federal government commit no funds
for new airport construction unless
the state, or other local authority,
gives reasonable assurance that the
air approaches to the airport will
be protected in accordance with the
recommendations made herein. The
land under the approaches should not
be put to any use which might later
serve as a basis for an effective
argument that the space above should
not be used by aircraft."
"Future residents should not be
given any grounds for claims that
aircraft approaching or departing
B-61
-------
136
Lloyd Hinton
from the airport, or which may be
involved in accidents, create a
nuisance which entitles them to an
injunction to recover damages or to
demand that the airport be closed."
"Local zoning authorities should
employ their powers to prohibit
further development which will inter-
fere with appropriate use of existing
airports. Here also availability of
federal funds should be dependent
upon such local action."
The following quotations are
also taken from the Report of the Presi-
dent's Airport Commission (p. 12-13)
under the heading "Nuisance Factors":
"Some excuse may be found for
failure to have forseen the rapid
rate of aeronautical progress in
designing airports in the past, but
it is to be regretted that more con-
sideration was not given to the com-
fort and welfare of people living
on the ground in the vicinity of
airports. To be sure, many settled
near an airport after it was in
operation, with little realization
of the potential nuisance and haz-
ard. The public cannot be expected,
however, to anticipate technical
developments and it should be in-
formed and protected by the respon-
sible authorities."
"The public deserves a clear ex-
planation of necessary airport pro-
cedures accompanied by valid assur-
ances that everything possible is
being done to alleviate both noise
and hazard. The public will under-
stand and accept this necessity if
it is assured that, within the limit
of safe operation, the holding areas
are selected so that the stacks will
not be a source of nuisance. Also
where operators are making a sincere
effort to reduce engine run-up noise
by controlled ground procedure and
by the provision of proper acousti-
cal treatment, and are avoiding
take-offs over inhabited areas,
reasonable people can be persuaded
to tolerate some noise as a part of
the cost of living in this age of
technology. Operators, pilots and
airport controllers must be indoc-
trinated to consider -the people on
the ground and make every effort
consistent with safe flying practice
to reduce hazard and noise."
The purpose in quoting exten-
sively from the commission's report is
to establish an authoritative back-
ground for comparing today's airport
noise problem and recommendations for
its solution with the same problem as
it was defined twenty years ago. The
report is understood to be out of
print and no longer available from the
Government Printing Office.
EARLY CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST
From September 1959 to Decem-
ber 1962, subcommittees of the U, S.
House of Representatives Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce conduct-
ed -a series of hearings at major airport
locations. The report(3) entitled "Air-
craft Noise Problems," describes in some
750 pages most aspects of the "problem"
per se but unfortunately the hearings
failed to result in legislation. The
list of names of those testifying reads
like the "Who's Who" of airport communi-
ty leaders, their Congressional repre-
sentatives and aviation industry offi-
cials concerned with aircraft noise.
EPA AND NASA INTEREST IN AIRCRAFT NOISE
The views expressed during
1959-62 are remarkably similar to those
expressed in testimony during public
hearings conducted by the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency during
1971.
In accordance with the Noise
Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970
together with Title IV of the Clean Air
Act of 1970, the EPA issued the "Report
to the President and Congress on Noise"
(4) dated 31 December 1971. In the
report, the EPA concluded that the
"Application of available technology
is lagging because of inadequate social,
economic or governmental pressures for
noise abatement." Further, "...there
must be a balance between application
of technology to noise sources and the
other measures required in controlling
the total noise environment, such as
land use planning and regulation of
source use." The report also states
that there exists adequate authority
under such legislation as the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, appli-
cable to all federal agencies for the
B-62
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
137
exercise of control of noise from many
sources including aircraft. However,
unless such control is exercised, re-
sidual" (the lower level boundary that
is exceeded approximately 90% of the
time) community noise levels are ex-
pected to rise by 4 dBA by the year
2000. This requires more than a dou-
bling of sound energy and is in spite
of the fact that new aircraft and pre-
sumably other vehicles and machinery
will be individually less noisy. The
reason is that increased numbers will
tend to keep total exposure levels
growing.
In its assessment of the mag-
nitude of the problem associated with
aircraft noise, the EPA estimates that
some 2000 square miles were .impacted in
1970 with approximately 3300 square
miles by the year 2000. Additional
documentation on the scale of the prob-
lem from the standpoint of numbers of
people exposed to aircraft noise was
provided recently by the NASA. Accord-
ing to a report in the Aviation Daily
(5) NASA Ames Research Center has data
indicating that in 1968 an area of 1300
square miles containing 15 million
people was subjected to a Noise Expo-
sure Forecast (NEP) level of 30 or
greater. This was an increase from
100 square miles and one million people
in 1958 and that without corrective
action, it is estimated to be 1,800
square miles and 24 million people in
1978. It is important to note here
that there is agreement among some
federal agencies upon not only the
magnitude of the aircraft noise problem
but upon the use of the NEF as a unit
of cumulative noise exposure. Further,
that above the 30 NEF level, residen-
tial use is unacceptable and that
effective measures to reduce community
exposure to aircraft noise are avail-
able for immediate implementation.
BOEING COMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
INDIVIDUAL AIRLINE PROGRAMS
In June 1971, Boeing Company
employees presented a paper entitled
"Effects of Aircraft Operation on Com-
munity Noise"(6). At the concluding EPA
public hearing on noise pollution in
Washington, D. C., November 10, 1971,
Boeing representatives officially re-
stated the company's position regarding
the applicability of operating proce-
dures to significantly reduce community
noise as follows:
"1. Significant reductions in commu-
nity noise can be attained through
early adoption of readily available
regulatory and procedural operations
changes in the vicinity of airports.
Such changes can be made at little
(or 'nominal') cost, would require
no particular increase in pilot skill
or pilot workload, and are not con-
sidered to have any effect on safety.
"2. Further noise reduction benefits
are available through certain addi-
tional operating procedures requiring
development of techniques and equip-
ment modifications to avoid increasing
pilot workload."
Boeing also recommended that
mandatory noise abatement operating pro-
cedures "be an inherent part of the over-
all effort to reduce community annoyance.
In August and September 1971,
under contract with NASA-Ames Research
Center, American Airlines conducted an
investigation(7) of a two segment ap-
proach procedure using area navigation
equipment, having three dimensional
capability, and other instrumentation.
The noise benefits were reported tenta-
tively to be on the order of 17-18 dB
to a point 1.3 n.m. from touchdown. The
final report on this program has not yet
been made public. Figure (1) is an
unofficial instrument approach proce-
dure plate describing the two-segment
approach procedure employed in flight
tests using Stockton California airport
and ILS. (Note: glide slope angle set
at two degrees, thirty minutes.)
Some time ago. North Central
and Northwest, the two home based air-
lines at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
International Airport, recognized the
benefits available to airport community
residents through the adoption of rela-
tively simple operating procedures which
cost the company essentially nothing.
Flight Standards Bulletin No. 3-70
(Appendix A) of Northwest describes in
particularly clear terms the "why" and
the how of an excellent noise abatement
takeoff procedure. It should be noted
that NWA sets no arbitrary limitation
on deck angle and that a range of actual
weights used on takeoff determines the
target thrust reduction EPR rather than
B-63
-------
138
Lloyd Hinton
AMERICAN AIRLINES
FLYING OPERATIONS
JULYI-TI
Fig. 1 - Instrument Approach Pro-
cedure plate (unofficial) showing
two segment approach using area
navigation and instrument landing
system (ILS)
STOCKTON H»«r I2O.3 122.89
857*
Ooparturt
Vor. I7*E
Ground
I2I.9
OS 331.4
STOCKTON .CALIf:
STOCKTON METRO
RNAV/ILS
TWO SEGMENT
APPROACH
MSA
56O*-O»O* - 180* - ZTO*-36O*
39OO'|3700' | SIOO' I 20OO'
-*-n 202.3VIS4 |
3000'
NOTE- Bock count umiMaol*.
TOZ Rwy 29R 29'
APT 29 0 0 8 1.3 3.4
PULL UP: turn LEFT to 20OO f««l en iOO*. Inttrctpt ond eroe«d outbound on SCK VOR R-251 to BYRON
IHr(ISODMEorSACVORR-l57)ondhold EASTon SCK VOR R-231, RIGHT turnt. ( Minimum artltudtto
comm«nc« turn 429')
DM 229'(2001
FULL ILS
OH 279'(2501
V4
Kts
OS. 2*30'
LOM to MAP S.4
60
263
524
CIRCLE-TOH.AND
— MDA
580'(531')-2
80
353
403
100
442
3 14
120
930
242
140
618
2 19
160
707
2-02
Air Carrier J*ti. SFL of MIRL out-not l*n ttwn V4.
assuming every takeoff is made at maxi-
mum gross weight.
Captain Paul Soderlind, Direc-
tor, Flight Operations-Technical, North-
west, has developed a simple modification
to the flight director computer helping
the pilot to keep the aircraft above the
ILS glide slope. Refering to this tech-
nique as the "High Flight Director"
•approach, Captain Soderlind described
it in a letter to Administrator Shaffer
in November 1970. Implementation of the
HFD requires FAA recertification of the
flight director. Its use results in
noise reductions measured under the
approach path on the order of 3 to 6 dB.-
It may be of interest to take
note of Senator Warren G. Magnuson's
letter of July 26, 1971, to Administra-
tor Shaffer. As a token of response to
increased pressure from noise afflicted
constituents living near the Seattle-1
Tacoma International Airport Senator
Magnuson said, "I am tired Of promises
both from the Agency and from the air-
lines. Unless there is a prompt attempt
to prescribe and enforce 'voluntary'
noise abatement procedures, I will begin
steps designed to ease the situation by
other methods." Let us hope that Sena-
tor Magnuson's "other methods" would be
as helpful to all other airport commu-
nity residents as well.
HUD CONTRIBUTION TO THE IANAP
Certainly the most significant
accomplishments to date on the part of
the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatemen.t
Program have resulted through the parti-
B-64
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
139
cipation of the U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Under
the chairmanship of Richard H. Broun,
Director, Environmental Planning Divi-
sion of HUD, the Land Use/Airports Study
Panel of the IANAP has reviewed studies
sponsored by HUD which have resulted in
important policy decisions and actions
at headquarters and field levels.
Departmental Circular 1390.2
(8) dated August 4, 1971, established
for the first time a federal requirement
for aircraft noise exposure policies and
standards. It should be noted that NASA
and HUD, together with recognized tech-
nical experts including those at FAA
headquarters, believe that cumulative
noise exposure expressed in units such
as NEF, CNR, the British NNI, the German
"Q" scale and others, is the most valid
method of measuring aircraft noise from
the standpoint of assessing the magni-
tude of the problem at any airport com-
munity location. This is necessary for
comprehensive airport/community planning
using aircraft noise exposure, not; mere-
ly individual noise level (EPNL), as an
environmental factor to be accounted
for.
In May 1970, HUD published
its first environmental planning paper
entitled "Airport Environs: Land Use
Controls"(9). The document summarizes
in part:
"The comprehensive planning pro-
cess for compatible land use and air-
port development is directed toward
achieving an optimum relationship
between an airport and its environs.
As such planning for compatible land
use in the airport environs and plan-
ning for the airport itself should
be integral parts of an areawide com-
prehensive planning program whereby
airport policies and programs are
coordinated with objectives, policies
and programs for the area in which
the airport is located."
BRITISH POSITION
A recent report(10) of the
official Noise Advisory Council in Eng-
land concluded:
" It is essential that planning
for airport operation and expansion
and for future local land use devel-
opment should proceed hand-in-hand;
for property development, a form of
zoning based on predicted air traffic
noise contours (ed. The Council also
recommended elsewhere in its report
the use of the Noise and Number Index
—NNI) and the sizes of populations
likely to be affected is necessary;
complimentary control over airport
operation and expansion is the other
necessary side of the picture and
standards and policies should be
consistent across the counter under
Ministerial guidance; account should
be taken of the noise implications
of airports in the devising of re-
gional strategies."
DOT/FAA CONTRIBUTIONS TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
ABATEMENT
It is rumored that last Decem-
ber, Administrator Shaffer instructed
FAA personnel that no longer would the
FAA support for use internally by HUD
or others, the NEF, the most recently
developed unit of cumulative noise expo-
sure. At a public meeting of the Minne-
apolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports
Commission on February 7, 1972, Mr. Ed
Sellman of the FAA's Office of Environ-
mental Quality gave a presentation using
viewgraphs in which he described noise
levels of various aircraft in terms of
contours of equal noisiness, i.e. EPNL,
without reference to the NEF. This in
itself would not merit criticism. How-
ever, noise levels produced by different
current aircraft were compared. Mr.
Sellman appeared to exaggerate the noise
reductions obtained with newer aircraft.
Since there was no printed handout it
is necessary to refer to memory for an
example. The 100 EPNL contour for the
Boeing 747B on takeoff was shown to
enclose an area approximately one fifth
or 80% less than that of the 747A model
at equivalent weights and pilot proce-
dures which'include thrust cutback prior
to reaching the measurement point. The
point is that the FAA could be trying to
minimize the noise problem to be expect-
ed in the future. This tactic is con-
sistent with the FAA's previous public
statements regarding the impact of jet
aircraft noise.
Administrator Shaffer should
be required to publically respond to
the following questions:
1. Whether or not he has instructed
FAA personnel to cease using the NEF.
If so, why?
B-65
-------
140
Lloyd Hinton
2. Is the FAA deliberately attempt-
ing to mislead the public by making
false comparisons between noise
levels produced by current aircraft
as well as in projections of future
aircraft noise levels?
Before jets were introduced
in commercial service in November 1959,
the public was told by the FAA that
these new aircraft would produce no more
noise than current piston types. Accord
ingly, the Port of New York Authority
based its 112 PNdB standard on maximum
noise levels generated by Lockheed Con-
stellation and Douglas DC-7 type air-
craft. Thus, the limit had nothing to
do with community acceptability or to
total community noise exposure. Resi-
dents in the vicinity of PNYA airports
in common with those of other major
airport communities, experienced not
only a greater and far more annoying
source of noise but an ever continuing
escalation of exposure due to increased
operations.
Mr. Thomas K. Jordan, Chief
of Transport Development, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, has pre-
pared "A Proposal for Creating Compati-
ble Environments in the Vicinity of
Municipal Airports for the Benefit of
the Public Welfare."(11) Writing as
a consultant to the Office of Aviation
Policy and Plans (AV-1) FAA, Mr. .Jordan
stated that "the concern over airport
neighborhood environments and need to
resolve the conflicts in the pr.otection
of public welfare may prove to be the
most significant and beneficial develop-
ment for the full and unrestricted use
of the air space for transport that has
taken place." Mr. Jordan also offered
"principles for a model act...for con-
sideration as one approach to state
legislation that is vitally necessary
for the beneficial development of the
environment in airport neighborhoods."
Such "principles" include making state
aeronautics agencies responsible for
airport environmental compatibility,
establishment of required zoning, etc.
It should be recalled that
Mr. Jordan is an official of a state
aeronautics agency and may therefore
wish to see a single purpose aviation
agency retain control over the situation
although the actions he calls for are
certainly needed regardless of who
accomplishes them.
In a recent letter(12) to the
Chairman of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
Airports Commission, Administrator
Shaffer ignores environmental problems
facing the Commission as he states:
"We fully expect Wold-Chamberlain
to be retained within your metro
system and this nation's airport
system and that it continue to serve
as a major airport to accommodate
the demand of your region's commer-
cial aeronautical requirements."
This should be compared to the statement
(13) of Mr. Benjamin G. Griggs, Jr.,
Vice President and Assistant to the Pres-
ident, Northwest Airlines, Inc., regard-
ing the need for developing a new air-
port to replace the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul International Airport (Wold-Cham-
berlain Field). On February 9, 1972, he
said, "If there is a necessity to move
aircraft operations from Wold-Chamber-
lain, it is only because of the noise/
ecology problem." Further, "The only
solution to the noise/ecology problem
may be the closing of Wold-Chamberlain
and the construction of a new larger
airport with appropriate zoning protect-
ion around it."
According to the Aviation Daily
of 16 February 1972, Mr. Shaffer told
the Wings Club of New York that "air-
craft noise won't be an issue by 1978."
It was just this sort of prediction in
the past which has led to the present
predicament. There are few technical
experts who would agree with Shaffer's
prediction which appears to be based on
political rather than technical con-
siderations.
With the apparent exception
of Administrator Shaffer, there is al-
most universal agreement upon the valid-
ity of using some index of cumulative
noise exposure. In the case of the NEF
there is the further agreement that the
standard of acceptability for residen-
tial areas should be less than 30, as
both HUD and NASA have indicated. Ex-
perts do acknowledge, however, that
neither the NEF nor any of the other
indices of cumulative exposure is per-
fect. There is also a high degree of
correlation among these indices when
they are plotted on a common graph.
Certainly one cannot argue that land
use planning itself is a more exact
science, one for which a given noise
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
141
exposure will always be either accept—
able or unacceptable.
The entire public, including
those who regularly use the scheduled
air carriers and who are subjected to
airport and airways congestion as well
as those who seldom if ever fly but
live in areas of excessive exposure to
noise from commercial and private air-
craft, is entitled to truthfulness,
decisions and action on the part of
governmental agencies.
The Interagency Aircraft Noise
Abatement Program (IANAP) was establish-
ed in 1965, originally under the aus-
pices of the President's Office of
Science and Technology (OST). In its
report entitled "Alleviation of Jet
Aircraft Noise Near Airports" (14),
dated March 1966, a panel of the nation's
experts known as the Program Evaluation
and Development Committee (PEDC), made
the recommendations summarized below:
Recommendation 1: Determine on an
urgent basis how the jet aircraft
noise problem is likely to develop.
Recommendation 2: "A high level gov-
ernmental task force...be established
to undertake, on an urgent basis, an
overall 'systems' type analysis of
the jet aircraft noise problem...in
order to formulate programs, suitable
for federal sponsorship, which might
be undertaken to improve greatly the
capabilities of those communities to
cope with...jet aircraft noise..."
Further, that "Adequate guidelines
for 'small' airports must be provided
in order to avoid the development of
new problems during the next decade...
this 'preventative' planning will
assure large savings in the future."
Recommendation 3. Conduct a Govern-
ment study to determine "applicable
economic facts and relationships, and
of public policy issues which must
be formulated and/or applied in order
to provide the needed cost allocation
rationale."
Recommendation 4. The FAA and/or NASA
develop noise evaluation techniques
and standards to be used by airport
operators and others and be "compat-
ible with international noise rating
schemes aimed at preventing nuisance
or detriment to public health."
Recommendation 5. Determine relative
costs to diminish generated noise in
terms of R & D, procurement, and
direct and indirect operating costs.
Recommendation 6. The FAA should
undertake detailed studies to deter-
mine safety factors, guidance and
control instrumentation needs, air
traffic control procedures, etc.
Recommendation 7. The FAA should
determine (ed. and presumably require
the use of) optimum operating proce-
dures for noise reduction.
Recommendation 8. The federal govern-
ment should influence real estate
development near airports to either
"anticipate or ameliorate community
aircraft noise problems."
In August 1967, leadership of
the federal aircraft noise abatement
program was transferred from OST to DOT.
With the exception of the work of HUD
which chairs the Land Use/Airports Study
Panel referred to above and perhaps the
FAA's aircraft type certification for
noise, a program specifically required
by Congress, there is little else for
which the IANAP can be credited for re-
ducing community exposure to aircraft
noise.
In the published conclusions
of the SAE/DOT Conference o.n Aircraft
and the Environment(15) held in Washing-
ton D.C. F.ebruary 8-10, 1971, officials
in the DOT Office of Noise Abatement
(coordinator of the IANAP) recommended
essentially only more study with one
notable exception. Recommendation 10
said, "The Federal Government should
act immediately to preempt all facets
of the airport/aircraft noise problem.
The FAA should take definite actions
with respect to operational noise abate-
ment procedures."
Here we have at least one call
for action on the part of an aviation
regulatory agency^ in this case the DOT.
It would seem then that if the DOT tells
the FAA it must "take definite actions"
etc., the FAA would do so. However, in
this case the FAA has not done so. How-
ever, let's look briefly at the question
of federal preemption. In testifying(16)
at the EPA public hearing in Washington
D. C. November 10, 1971, Michael M. Ber-
ger described the FAA legal position
on the preemption issue as "schizo-
phrenic." Mr. Berger claims, "The FAA
has successfully been playing games with
the federal courts and the millions of
citizens around the nation who are ad-
versely affected by airport noise. The
B-67
-------
142
Lloyd Hinton
games have as their object the achieve-
ment of the ultimate in bureaucratic
buck-passing — do whatever is necessary
to avoid facing the problem."
In the summary of this testi-
mony, Mr. Berger concluded that, "Gov-
ernment at the administrative (ed. FAA)
level has abdicated. There has been
no step taken by the Federal Government
that has provided one decibel of relief.
The new regulations (ed. noise certi-
fication) will not bring relief, if at
all, for a decade. If one wants to see
the epitomization of stalling, buck-
passing and bureaucratic obeissance to
regulators to those they are supposed
to regulate, here is a case in point."
CONCLUSIONS
It must be obvious today to
even the most cynical anti-environmen-
talist that public opposition to airport
noise will continue to increase with
increasing total exposure even though
new aircraft types are individually
quieter. Fortunately, the public is
becoming more knowledgeable about means
available to reduce noise thanks to the
enlightenment of the Boeing Company and
other primary manufacturers who have
long realized that the aircraft noise
problem must be faced if they were to
continue to find markets for their pro-
ducts.
The unfortunate demise of the
U. S. SST, the cessation or delay of
the Everglades Palmdale and other major
airport developments, must surely have
alerted aviation leaders at least to
the serious credibility gap existing
between them and the public.
The public has become blase
about technological achievement. If one
doubts this, check the Nielsen ratings
for the last Apollo flight. The public
is now "turned on" on environemntal
improvement.
Since President Truman's Com-
mission issued its report in 1952, we
have witnessed twenty years of non-
action on the part of aviation regula-
tory agencies in meeting statutory(17)
and moral obligations to the public.
It must be concluded that it is not an
individual or group which is at fault,
but the system itself. Administrator
Shaffer should not be blamed any more
than his predecessors including Mr.
Home. Both of these administrators
publicly acknowledged that community
exposure to aircraft noise was a serious
problem. It must be concluded that air-
craft noise is only a problem to CAA/FAA
administrators as it constrains their
primary purpose,that of promoting air
transportation.
Since air transportation is
indeed essential, it follows that the
constraints imposed upon the develop-
ment of new airport facilities and air-
craft by public opposition to noise and
sonic boom must be dealt with in the
most effective and expeditious manner.
This does not seem likely to occur
even with air transportation suffering
ever-increasing constraints unless the
present federal administrative organi-
zation of regulatory responsibility is
changed.
In its "Report to the Presi-
dent and Congress on Noise"(4) dated
December 31, 1971, the EPA concluded
after public hearings throughout the
country and after receiving testimony
from many witnesses, that the "Appli-
cation of available technology is lag-
ging because of inadequate social, econ-
omic or governmental pressures for
noise abatement." Further, that existing
legislation provides a basis for noise
control associated with both planned
and existing federal activities." While
it is undoubtedly true that adequate
authority exists for the FAA to effec-
tively control community exposure to
aircraft noise, there is clearly great
negative motivation to use such authori-
ty, hence the need for organizational
change.
According to a report(18) on
conclusions reached recently by the
Airlines & Aircraft Sub-Council of the
National Industrial Pollution Control
Council, major changes in the govern-
ment's approach to aircraft noise re-
duction are needed,, The Council,
headed by C.C. Tillinghast, with C. A.
Moore representing airport operators,
recommended that "a single agency be
given responsibility" for developing
noise measurement standards and regula-
tions, etc. Significantly, the FAA
was not recommended as the single agency.
If we have learned anything
in dealing with the aircraft noise prob-
lem since 1952, we know that a reorgani-
zation of administrative responsibili-
B-68
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
143
ties is necessary — for the public as
well as aviation's benefit.
It should be pointed out that
the administration's Noise Control Act
of 1971, part of the President's 1971
Environmental Program(19), would involve
the EPA in only a limited manner in
that:
"(C) If at any time the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection
Agency has re.ason to believe that
an existing standard, rule, or regu-
lation under this section does not
protect the public from aircraft
noise or sonic boom to the maximum
extent that is consistent with the
consideration listed in subsection
(D) of this section, he may request
the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to review
and report to him on the advisability
of revising such standard, rule, or
regulation, etc." (underlining sup-
plied)
Even this weak language was
diluted in House of Representative's
action in committee(20) and floor
action on February 29, 1972, in passing
H.R. 11021 following aviation interest's
urging(21). Aviation's supporters still
fail to heed the public's message.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to overcome existing
difficiencies. the Congress is urged
to enact legislation for two purposes —
one a short term and the other a long
term measure — to accomplish immediate
alleviation while working for the early
resolution of the aircraft noise problem
as follows:
A. Short term — require the FAA
to immediately implement conclusion
#1 of the Boeing Co. Report(6) and,
together with NASA and industry, de-
velop equipment needed for the imple-
mentation of conclusion #2 on an
urgent basis. The FAA should also
be required to render a report to
Congress at the end of this and suc-
ceeding years on the status of these
efforts.
B. Long term — authorize the EPA
to develop and coordinate the imple-
mentation of national "guidelines"
for maximum aircraft noise exposure
impact in all airport communities
within the United States based upon
current and predicted operations.
These guidelines would be established
by the EPA after consultation with
FAA, NASA, HUD, HEW, Department of
Interior, etc. for a range of com-
patible land use programs. Such
guidelines would establish geograph-
ical boundaries for noise exposure
contours at all airports upon which
federal funds have been expended
based on:
1. predicted passenger and
flight traffic;
2. possible changes in air-
craft and aircraft operations
based on existing and known
technology; and
3. land use in the airport
environs and possible changes
in land use.
The EPA would also be required
to provide technical assistance to the
operator of any airport who requests
such assistance in meeting established
guidelines. An annual report to the
Congress would be required.
Note: Minnesota has set an example for
state recognition of -responsi-
bility for the concurrent protect-
ion of airport facilities and the
community environment. This was
recognized by the FAA and the Air-
port Operators Council Internation-
al in the joint document, "Planning
the Metropolitan Airport System,"
dated May 1970(22). Chapter 1111,
1969 Minnesota Session Laws, re-
ferred to as the "Airport Zoning
Act"(23), empowers a generalist
regional planning agency to estab-
lish mandatory guidelines for the
control of zoning, building code
ordinances, official maps and
subdivision regulations within
five (5) miles of any new major
airport. Aircraft noise abatement
is, of course, specifically iden-
tified as the purpose.
It is submitted that only by
substituting a generalist planning/
environmental agency (EPA) for the
single-purpose functional district (FAA/
DOT) agency, can current and future
problems constraining the growth of
aviation be overcome. It is perhaps
paradoxical that, in their dedicated
efforts to promote aviation„ the CAA/
FAA/DOT are in fact responsible for the
B-69
-------
144
Lloyd Hinton
current decline in public support. Since
the FAA/DOT is manifestly unable to
"change its spots" a restructuring of
responsibility is necessary.
REFERENCES
1. Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
letter to Lloyd Hinton, December 2, 1971.
2. Report of the President's Airport
Commission, "The Airport and Its Neigh-
bors," U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., May 16, 1952.
3. "Aircraft Noise Problems," a report
of hearings before subcommittees of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
(86th and 87th Congresses), September 7,
1959; February 23, April 20, 21, 1960;
April 12, 1961; July 17, 18, December 4,
5 and 6, 1962; U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 1963.
4. "Report to the President and Con-
gress on Noise," U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
December 31, 1971.
5. "Ames Researcher Reviews Cost of
Noise and Congestion," Aviation Daily,
page 134, Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.,
Washington, D.C. 20005, January 25,
1972.
6. M.C. Gregoire and J.M. Streckenbach,
"The Effects of Aircraft Operation on
Community Noise," The Boeing Company
Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle,
Washington, June 1971.
7. "Evaluation of Three Dimensional
Area Navigation for Jet Transport Noise
Abatement, a 30-day Flight Test of Modi-
fied Boeing 720B at Moffett Field and
Stockton Airport, California," American
Airlines and NASA-Ames Research Center,
American Airlines, Inc., New York, N.Y.
10017, 15 July 1971.
8. Departmental Circular 1390.2, "Noise
Abatement and Control: Departmental
Policy, Implementation Responsibilities
and Standards," U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development, Washington,
D.C., August 4, 1971.
9. Environmental Planning Paper, "Air-
port Environs: Land Use Controls," En-
vironmental Planning Division, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, Washington, D.C. 20410, May 1970.
10. "Aircraft Noise: Flight Routeing
Near Airports," Report of The Noise
Advisory Council, Her Majesty's Station-
ery Office, London, England, 1971,
p. 23.
11. Thomas K. Jordan, P.E., "A Proposal
for Creating Compatible Environments in
the vicinity of Municipal Airports for
the Benefit of the Public Welfare,"
Office of Aviation Policy and Plans
(AV-1), Federal Aviation Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash-
ington, D.C., 20590, April 1, 1971,
p. 10.
12. John H. Shaffer, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration, letter
to Lawrence M. Hall, Chairman, Minnea-
polis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports
Commission, January 18, 1972.
13. Benjamin G. Griggs, Jr., Vice &ce,
President, Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
statement before special meeting of the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan
Airports Commission with airline repre-
sentatives to consider "Future Planning
and Airport Development to Accommodate
the Needs of Air Transportation in the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan
Area," Saint Paul, Minnesota 55111,
February 9, 1972.
14. "Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise
Near Airports," a Report of the Jet Air-
craft Noise Panel, Office of Science and
Technology, Executive Office of the
President, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, March
1966.
15. "Conference on Aircraft and the
Environment," sponsored jointly by the
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
and the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C., February 8-10,
1971, p. 97. Proceedings published by
the Society of Automotive Engineers
Inc., Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,
N.Y..10001, 1971.
16. Michael M. Berger, "Games the FAA
B-70
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
Plays," Testimony before public hear-
ings conducted by the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., November 10, 1971.
Note: Mr. Berger is associated with
Fadem and Kanner, 8383 Wilshire Boule-
vard, Beverly Hills, California 90211.
17. Federal regulatory acts having
clauses relating to aviation develop-
ment and environmental protection.
a. Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(49 U.S.C., Sec. 307 (c))
b. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966 (Public Law 89-670)
c. Federal Airport Act of 1964
(49 U.S.C., Sec. 1110, 1431 (4))
known as the "FAAP" act.
d. "An Act for the Control and
Abatement of Aircraft Noise and
Sonic Boom," (Public Law 90-411)
enacted 21 July 1968.
e. National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (Public Law 91-190)
f. Airport and Airways Development
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-258)
g. Noise Pollution and Abatement Act
of 1970 (Public Law 91-604, Sec. 402
(c))
18. "Change in Noise Reduction Approach
Urged," Aviation Week & Space Technol-
ogy, McGraw-Hill, Inc., March 6, 1972,
p. 25.
19. "The President's 1971 Environment-
al Program," compiled by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, March
1971, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, B.C. 20402.
20. Report No. 92-842, The Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
U.S. House of Representatives 92nd
Congress, 2nd Session, February 19,
1972.
21. Congressional Record, U.S. House
of Representatives, February 29, 1972,
pp. H. 1507, H. 1539.
22. "Planning the Metropolitan Air-
port System," the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Airport.Opera-
tor ' s Council International, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402, May 1970, Appendix F.
23. "New Major Airport; Airport Devel-
opment Area," Sec. 1, Subd. 1, Metro-
politan Council; Land Use Criteria "and
Guidelines," Chapter 1111, 1969 Session
Laws, Minnesota.
B-71
-------
146
Lloyd Hinton
APPENDIX
NORTHWEST AIRLINES. INC.
October 5. 1970
Flight Standards Bulletin No. 3-70
TO: ALL FLIGHT CREWS
FROM DIRECTOR OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS-TECHNICAL
SUBJECT. REVISED STANDARD NWA TAKE-OFF
General
"From my observations in the New York Area—at the
departure position in the New York Common IFR
Room—I noted after a few hours of attentive
observance, and for several days thereafter, that one
major airline (Northwest Orient Airlines) exhibited
the most consistent and operationally most efficient
climb management It became notably apparent to
me that Northwest departures consistently required
only a minimum of control coordination, since they
attained specified altitudes at the expected places;
concurrently, their occupancy of airspace and alti-
tudes during depa-*. • climbs appeared to be
noticeably less than M-,at of other carriers.
My interest having been aroused, \ re-routed my
return trip . and stopped over in Minneapolis on
August 16th {to visit) Northwest Orient Airlines,
Here I found, upon perusal of NWA flight-test
data and pifots' handbook material, that the climb
practices of NWA aircraft which 1 had observed in
the NY CIR with the aid of alphanumeric ground-
speed and altitude readouts are not attributable to
random pilots' judgement or inclination, as cur-
rently practiced in general, but are the result of a
rational engineering approach, systematic flight
tests, and "the promulgation of practicable instruc-
tions to pilots."
FSB No. 3-70
-3-
October 5. 1970
—Make initial climb at V2+H) (no change from prior procedure).
—At 1000' above airport level, lower the nose and accelerate to
allow flap retraction The onjy change here is in the start-of-
zcceleration altitude, from 1236' to 1000' Flap retraction
speeds and procedures remain exactly as before.
-As the speed approaches 2E-RO FLAP MANEUVER and the
flaps approach zc-o, lower Lhe nose to maintain V^p while
gradually reoucmg to QUIET EIPR Continue climb at or
slightly above VZF.
—After passing through 3000' above airport level, gradually
apply normal CLi.VlB thrust, accelerate to 250K and continue
as m the past
The "Why" Of The Revised Procedure
There are only two ways—as taf es procedures ere concerned—
to reduce noise (1) increase the distance between the noise
source and the listener, and (2) reduce noise at the source. Our
prior procedure did everything that could be done about the
first, the revised procedure will also do the same for the second.
Why \/2+10? The distance between noise source and listener wi
be at a max,mum only when the highest practicable climb angle
is used. N/2+10 meets this objective admirably white still pro-
viding adequate maneuver, gust, an;i shear margins for alt but
unusual cases. A detailed discussion of V*2+10 is contained in
FSB No 1-67 which you should reread at an early date.
Why a thrust reduction? Once you have accomplished the first
objective (increasing the distance}, you can do only one other
thing to reduce noise—reduce tne thrust. The farther you
reduce it the quieter you will be, but there is a reasonsble
level below which you should net go QUIET EPR is this. It
was chosen to provide the required final segment climb gradient
with an engine out. With all engines operating this will produce
FSB No. 3-70
October 5. 1970
These words, *rom a letter to the FAA Administrator, are those of
a private aviation consultant The project he was engaged in when
the observations were made was unknown to NWA, and the com-
ments were given entirely on his own initiative.
His comments demonstrate two things. Thai.
-the standard NWA take-off procedures are sound and
effective, and
-pilot discipline m following the procedures is good.
Although we knew this long before the above comments appeared.
it is gratifying to have it discovered by an "outsider", and solely
as a result of comparing our performance with that of others.
The standsrd NWA take-off procedure was developed m 1960 for
our first jet operation Although noise was a relatively small
factor then, it was realized that it would become more and more
important as time went on Because of this, the desire to mini-
mize noise played an important part in the design of the
original procedure It is interesting to note that this procedure,
developed over ten years ago, has given Northwest the best take-
off anti noise record in the industry.
Although the procedure has been effective in reducing noise,
it did not include a thrust reduction to any level lower than
normal climb So that we will be doing everything possible
to further reduce take-off noise, the thrust reduction procedure
we have used on the 747 is being extended to all other NWA jet
types.
The revised procedure is set down below with reasons for eich
step then being discussed m some detail.
The Procedure
The procedure applies only to the all-engines case, and u as
follows, see Figure 1.
FSB No. 3-70
October 5, 1970
a rate of climb of obout 1000 FPM in the typical case. If an
engine fails while it QUIET EPR. you will still have an adequate
climb rate (about 350 FPM), even if you do not advance the
;nrjst (it the engme fai'ure occurred before reducing to QUIET
EPR, you would not make the reduction).
Why 3000' AGL for normal CLIMB thrust application? When the
airplane hds reached this height, noise on the ground will be mini-
mal, and it is then reasonable to apply CLIMB thrust.
Flymg_The Revised Profile
The following will he!p in flying the profile.
1. Although the initial climb is unchanged from the prior pro-
cedure, these tmngs should be emphasized:
-Be sure rotation is started M (not after) VR, Late rotation
badly degrades performance.
-Rotate Cont.nuously to chart V2+10 pitch attitude. Although
airspeed must be monitored, pitch attitude should be the
primary guide If other things are within reasonable limits,
maintaining the proper chart pitch attitude will result in an
I AS very close to the desired value.
2. When the nose is lowered at 1000', lower it to one half the
initial (V2*10) pucn attitude plus 1° That is, if the V2+10
pitch attitude was 18°, lowe-' the nose to 10° at 1000'.
This provides an optimum balance between acceleration and
climb for the flap retraction segment
3 Reduction to QUIET EPR should be started slightly before
VZF ^n^ the zero flop conjuration are reached. Only
experience will teach you tne ootimum point As the thrust
rcdjction is sorted, the noseihauld be lowered to the QUIET
EPR climb altitude This w fNM^ays be the same for a given ^
airplane type regardless of weigrn It will be 7° nose up for
botn the 727/1 ano /2, 8° for the 320B/C, and 9° for the
7203 It will be up to 1° less in a turn, the amount depend-
ing upon bank angle.
B-72
-------
Aircraft Noise - Continuing National Problem
147
FSB No. 3-70
-5-
October 5, 1970
4. It is better to start the thrust reduction a little too late rather
than early The ideal is to reach QUIET EPR at the same
time the flaps reach 0°, and the IAS reaches V£F to N/ZF+IQ-
Maintaining art IAS slightly above V£F ts desirable during the
QUIET EPR segment since speed stability will be belter and
speed easier to hold.
5. Do not hurry applying normal CL1M3 thrust after passing
through 3000' AGL. Maintain the same pitch attitude used
during the QUIET EPR segment This will normally be an
optimum attitude for accelerating to 250K When 250K u
reached, the nose will then have to be raised slightly to main-
tain 250
When The QUIET EPR Take-Off Procedure Is To Be Used
The above procedure, thrust reduction and all, is the standard NWA
takeoff procedure for all norms! jet take-offs, regardless of location.
The only allowable exceptions are as follows.
The QUIET EPR segment shall be skipped only:
1. When compliance with a SlO or other traffic clearance requires
a higher climb rate (this will be rare).
2. 11 significant wind shear or turbulence is forecast, expected, or
encountered below 3000'.
3. When taking off at night or under reduced ceiling and visi-
bility conditions at mountain stations such as BTM, MSO. HLN,
or BZN, or taking off east at HNL or ANC, etc. When there
is any doubt about terrain or obstruction clearance, the QUIET
EPR segment should be skipped.
Now the above are not to be stretched into "escape clauses" letting
you skip the QUIET EPR segment at other times It of course
should be skipped at any time other conditions (e.g., emergency)
make it desirable to-do so. But other than the above, such •
cases should be rare. The procedure is specifically applicable to
all stations whether there appears to be a local noise problem or
FS8 No. 3-70
-6-
October 5, 1970
not You may annoy fewer people ta'ong off NW at BIS than YOU
do at MSP, but they have just as much right to their solitude as
anyone else.
A minor exception to the basic orocedL,re is necessary at DCA be-
cause of the fixed FAA reduce-thrust pomts. The procedure used
at DCA should be exactly as spelled out above, except tnat thrust
reduction must be started at 2 DME ("Memorial Bridge) on north
take-offs, and 3 DME (Marbury Point/Goose Island) on south take-
orfs Further, normal climb thrust is not to be applied until
reaching the 10 mile DME arc In other words, the DCA procedure
remains as before except (1) the start of-acceleration altitude will
be 1000' instead of 1200', (2) QUIET EPR is used instead of
1.50, and (3) normal climb thrust is reapplied at the 10 DME arc,
The QUIET EPR tables will be incorporated in the TAKE-OFF
numbers cards for al) airplanes in an early revision. Meanwhile
it will be necessary to carry at least Figure 1 from this FSB so
you will have the QUIET EPR values available.
The above revised standard jet take-off procedure is the result of
many efforts including many flight test take-offs. The ALPA
Safety Committee has participated in its formulations, and fully
supports the procedure as established.
With the new procedure, we can say in good conscience—and
what's more we can ojove—that we have done everything humanly
possible m developing cockpit procedures to reduce take-off noise.
The procedure is simple, effective, safe. But a procedure is no
good unless it is^ojlowetj. You will be expected to follow it
religiously. Our community neighbors deserve it. And further,
if we do not do everything reasonably possible to reduce noise,
it will sooner or later hit us where it hurts. Both you and me.
Paul A. Soderlmd, Director
Flight Ope rations-Technical
PAS/mm«
Attachment - Figure 1
B-73
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
200 STOVALL STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22332
3 May 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR DR. S. J. NETHERY, CHAIRMAN OF THE NOISE
STUDY GROUP FOR MILITARY AIRCRAFT
1. In compliance with your request to submit my thoughts on the land
planning aspects of noise pollution around military airports, the following
very rough outline is provided.
2. We have, as I see it, a three part problem. First, we must deter-
mine some uniform exposure criteria for noise and some uniform compat-
ible uses of land that are consistent with this uniform exposure criteria.
Secondly, we must have a uniform application of this criteria in deter-
mining the zones of excess noise exposure and appropriate compatible
uses within these zones. I think that the first of the problems outlined
above is being rapidly solved by empirical methods and should be avail-
able in the very near future. The second problem is not so far along in
solution but neither is it a difficult one to overcome. Both the Air Force
and the Navy have developed a technique for study of the noise problem as
it concerns land use which pretty much follows the sequence of a noise
study, a safety study, a plot of the various defined noise and safety zones
and then within this plot the logical and reasonable development of a
rationale for compatible uses to suit the unique situation to be found at
each different air base.
3. I would like to devote most of my thoughts therefore to the third and
missing vital link •which is a set of recognized legal machinery which •will
force the zoning issue and implement the uniform application of noise
criteria. We have given this considerable thought and there does appear
to be a logical and rational way to insure implementation of compatible
use zone studies once they are completed. First of all, I think that this
could reasonably and logically be a part of any National Land Planning
Act passed by Congress and could be cast in the role of a model land
planning procedure which the states are encouraged to use under the Land
Planning Act. The funding requirement which would be a part of the tech-
nique could be a continuing part of the National Land Planning Act and
could flow from j.uthorizations and appropriations on an annual basis.
4. Here is the way that I would cast a scenario for such a model airport
land planning criteria. The first step would be to prepare a noise pol-
lution abatement study under a set of uniform exposure criteria and ap-
plications which could be spelled out in the National Land Planning Act
B-74
-------
and which would no doubt be very similar to the types of studies now being
initiated by the Air Force and Navy. Once this prescribed study was com-
pleted, it would then be filed mandatorily with the local planning organiza-
tion and the local zoning organization. These elements would be required
to give public notice and have public hearings on all aspects of this study
for the expressed purpose of determining the technical adequacy of the
study. In other words, the study would not be open to criticism or change
from the standpoint of whether or not a compatible use requirement
existed but would be subjected to very critical review as to the proper ap-
plication of exposure criteria and compatible use criteria to this particular
situation. After these public hearings were completed and as in the case
of an Environmental Impact Statement, there would be a required waiting
period to insure all interested parties the opportunity for written input
after which the zoning board would approve of the plan as developed or as
modified on the basis of evidence as presented and at this point under the
law implement a mandatory rezoning of all lands affected by the study.
Now this would certainly not change lands on which non-compatible uses
have already been constructed. It would, however, stop any further re-
zoning of these lands at some future date into some other non-compatible
use and it certainly will hold encroachment in its tracks at whatever
degree of non-compatible development existed at the time of the manda-
tory rezoning. At this point in the legal manipulations, it is painfully
obvious that many land owners in the affected areas would be damaged
and should have some recourse under the law to obtain satisfaction for
these damages. This could be provided for under the National Land
Planning model law with either the establishment of an impartial commis-
sion to hear complaints and determine equitable settlements or by tasking
under the law an existing State Court system to hear the cases and deter-
mine equitable settlements. The settlements would then, of course, be
paid out of authorizations and appropriations available annually under the
National Land Planning Act.
5. It is recognized that this is a precedent setting approach, however, it
is patterned after the series of things which happens in a situation where
we make our study and present it to a local zoning board who in turn
rezone on this basis. The aggrieved and all injured land owners then
drag us into court and sue on the basis of inverse condemnation and if
they win, a settlement is made and we then own rights on the land and
they have been duly compensated and this is where we wanted to get in the
first place. What I am proposing is a means to formalize thesei steps.
6. In addition, I am attaching a paper prepared by our planners working
in this arena which will provide you with additional background data which
B-75
-------
you may or may not already have. The charts showing the interrelation-
ship of the various Governmental bodies to the land use problem are of
considerable interest.
Respectfully,
R. E. ANDERSON
Attachment
3
B-76
-------
Land Use Policy and Planning
In the Vicinity of Military Air Installations
(Air Installation Compatible Use Zone)
I. Background.
a. Toward the later parts of the 1950's and extending into the
1960's the detrimental effects of urban encroachment on military
air installations became increasingly evident. There have been
repeated warnings. There have been attempts at assisting the local
community when possible, in developing a rational zoning system.
There have been persistent efforts by the Armed Services to improve
air installations /community relations. Large amounts of public
information concernefkasifch the hazards and noise associated with
military aircraft operations have been disseminated. To date,
little heed has been taken, especially with regard to residential
developing. On some installations there has been a deleterious
effect on operations by curtailment of flight operations, changes
in traffic patterns and revisions to operational procedures. Mission
degradation has been the result of these factors.
b. Although the U.S. Congress expressed interest in the
regulation of land use in the vicinity of airports, including the
encouragement of local authorities to utilize zoning powers, via a
B-77
-------
1964 amendment to the Federal Airport Act, this was not applicable
to Military Air Installation. Land regulation in the vicinity of
military air installations can be effected via the direct acquisition
of property or through various other methods. Encompassed in
land regulation are police powers which provides a legal basis for
the enactment of building and housing codes and zoning laws.
Under police powers, therefore, is the power vested in a State to,
enter alia, promote the public welfare. In varying degrees, the
States have delegated this power to local jurisdictions. It should
be noted that police powers contain the right to regulate an
individual's rights in property, and would be done so without com-
pensation to the individual, if its enactment would be considered as
reasonable and fairly related to the public health, safety, and the
general welfare (within the constraints indicated local jurisdictions
would therefore have the authority to issue zoning regulations).
While zoning is utilized primarily as a preventive mechanization,
it has little value in changing uses in already developed areas.
c. There have been numerous instances where individuals and/
or organized groups of citizens have complained about the noise being
generated by aircraft located at military installations. Complaints
have ranged from telephone calls at one end of the spectrum to
B-78
-------
organized legal action at the other. Analysis of these actions
indicate that aircraft noise effects the local community by,
enter alia, disruption of sleep and rest, interruption of telephone
calls and conversation, and interference with television reception.
Other major factors that have a decided influence on community
response to military aircraft noise is the normal community back-
ground noise level (varying from the relative quiet of a residential
area to the clamor of an industrial area), the frequency of flights,
the duration of the noise, the time frame and season of the year.
Studies have been conducted which provide substantial evidence
that-a relationship does exist between noise levels and interference
with speech and loss of hearing. Studies are continuing on the
effects on sleep and possible physiological impairments.
II. Current Status.
a. During the 1940-44 time frame a model Zoning Enabling
Act was drafted. The model act was designed to grant local com-
munities the authority to adjust airport zoning regulations applicable
only for airport hazard areas. The 1944 model act does not, how-
ever, directly grant local communities the right to zone for land use
compatible with aircraft noise, or in fact, to preclude such com-
patible land uses.
-3-
B-79
-------
b. As expressed in a recent HUD Publication "The most
important program for achieving compatibility between aircraft
noise and the environment are the comprehensive Planning
Assistance Program of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Airport Planning Grant Program of the
Federal Aviation Administration. " Regretably these programs
have had little, if any, effect on resolving problems around
military air installations.
c. To date, the only instrument, and at this point in time it
is only in the proposal state, that would initiate some type of
Department of Defense policy for providing for the development of
a compatible use program for military air installations, is DODINST
4165. XX, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones,
III. Comments.
a. Every military aircraft that flies makes noise; however,
flying with larger, more powerful, and faster military aircraft is
considered absolutely essential to the defense posture of the United
States. Therefore, it is essential that communities located con-
tigious to military air installations understand that noise eminating
from military aircraft must be faced up to.
b. From a total systems approach to the problem of aircraft
noise, the importance of determining the type of air operations
B-80
-------
rests with the fact that a significant decrease in noise level would
occur at that where a takeoff thrust reduction is made, whereas
all other changes in nois.e level would occur more gradually. This
may suggest that a logical point (the thrust reduction) does exist
7 for establishment of a dividing line in any future compatible land
use and/or zone planning, since a step from very high takeoff
power noise levels to lower climb power noise levels occurs.
IV. Conclusion.
a. Modern society has to come to recognize the social and
i
economic benefits of military aviation operations as essential to
the defense posture of the United States.
, b. Military aircraft operations do adversely affect the
environment around air installations with noise and soot, inflicting
social and, sometimes, economic costs on communities near these
I
installations.
c. That noise exposure should be reduced to the practical
minimum because it both degrades our environment and inhibits
the development of the community at large.
d. Compatible land use, coupled with the development of
complementary zoning and building codes,, appears to be the most
promising means of reducing peoples' exposure to noise around
military air installations. Military air installations are places of
B-81
-------
work for a large number of civilians living in the area. Land
values adjacent to these installations have risen tremendously.
Both of these factors, plus the growing needs of industry arid
studies indicating that in many cases construction of family
residences is a tax drain on the community (revenue needs for
local government would be much greater with more intensive
residential development), suggest that holding lands for agricul-
t ure, industrial and commercial buildings would represent a
more productive use of land near military air installations than
would housing developments.
e. In light of the WHO definition, aircraft noises radiating
into communities in the vicinity of military air installations can
be considered a potentially harmful to health for a number of reasons
noted herein. Therefore, public powers vested in a State to promote
the public welfare would be applicable to the situation and therefore
the right to regulate, an individual's property would be inherent in
this power. Present data would seem to clearly support subjective
and experimental reports that auditory stimuli, including jet
aircraft noise, can be reflected in an individual's sleep pattern.
Further, present results indicate that these effects can outlast the
•
stimuli. The facts tend to indicate that an individual can be
B-82
-------
temporarily affected and this effect is detrimental to, at least,
certain performances. The. World Health Organization (WHO)
ITS
definwbes health as a state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being--not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity.
f. Noise problem eminating from military aircraft can be
broken into three component parts:
(1) The source, in this case, military aircraft;
(2) The path along which the noise travels, and
finally;
(3) The receiver, in this case, the human ear.
It should be noted that although the noise problem is composed
of three separate and distinct components they must be considered
as an indivisable system in the development of a balanced, overall
program for resolution. In this regard possible aircraft noise
abatement strategies (tasks and strategies) have been provided in
Table I.
g. There is a definite need to establish noise zones based
upon an evaluation of current and/or expected future noise environ-
ment arising from flight operations at military air installations.
The daily noise exposure should be calculated by the Noise Exposure
B-83
-------
Forecast method or corresponding equivalent, or by any other
system to be recommended by the Environmental Protection
Agency, as a preferred method for calculating noise exposure
in the United States. There is a tolerance on the accuracy of
NEF contour lines but, they generally portray a fairly reliable
montage of gradually decreasing noise exposure as they are
crossed going away from the runway. A number of significant
factors may be present which require adjustments to or selection
of different contours in the development of compatible land use
planning and in the development and application of building code
requirements. The following could be the definitions of five
distinct noise zone boundaries:
(1) Insensitive Noise Zone--an insensitive noise zone
is hereby established as that area that commences at the outermost
boundary of the military air installation and extends outward thereof
to a contour indicating an equal noise exposure forecast of 40 as
calculated by the Noise Exposure Forecast rating method.
(2) Moderately Insensitive Noise Zonc--a moderately
insensitive noise zone is hereby established as an area that com-
mences at a contour indicating equal noise exposure of 40 and extends
beyond the ai.r installation to a contour indicating equal noise
exposure of 35 as calculated by the Noise Exposure Forecast Method.
B-84
-------
(3) Moderately Sensitive Noise Zone--a moderately
sensitive noise zone is hereby established as an area that com-
mences at a contour indicating equal noise exposure of 35 and
extends outward beyond the air installation to a contour indicating
equal noise exposure of 30 as calculated by the Noise Exposure
Forecast Method.
(4) Sensitive Noise Zone--a sensitive noise zone is
hereby established as an area that commences at a contour
indicating equal noise exposure of 30 and extends outward beyond
the air installation to a contour indicating equal noise exposure of
25 as calculated by the Noise Exposure Forecast method.
(5) Very Sensitive Noise Zone — a very sensitive noise
zone is hereby established as an area that commences at a contour
indicating equal noise exposure of 25 as calculated by the Noise
Exposure Forecast method and extends outward beyond the air
installation to encompass all land with lower noise exposure than
that of the specified contour.
h. The established noise zone boundaries, in conjunction with
a proposed Air Installation Zoning Map would be reviewed by the
appropriate authority and revised as necessary to accomplish the
aims of the still to be enacted "Land Use Policy and Planning
Assistance Act of 1973 (II. R. 2942) and DOD Instruction 4165. XX,
B-85
-------
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone. A review of the docu-
ments in question should take into account the following, as well
as such other additional factors as the municipal authority deems
desirable.
(1) Forecasts of operations for the following five and
ten year period provided by the military air installations.
(2) Noise exposure maps prepared with cooperation of
the military air installation.
(3) Technological changes occurring since the previous
review which are likely to result in changes in aircraft types,
modes of operations or noise output.
(4) Measurements of the noise environment based upon
information obtained by any noise monitoring system maintained by
the municipality and the military air installation.
i. Notwithstanding, the provisions of DODINST 4165. XX,
AICUZ, the activities and land uses that should be permitted or
restricted in the five noise zones indicated above should be as
provided in Table 2. The Noise Land Reduction values contained
in the table would be the minimum noise level reductions required
for all occupied rooms in enclosed facilities as the land in question.
In addition, no use could be made of land within any zone, in such
a manner as to create electrical interference with radio com-
munication between the military air installation and aircraft, make
B-86
-------
it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and
others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the airport,
impair visibility in the vicinity of the air installation or other-
wise endanger landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
It is evident that the military air installation/community
compatibility or rather incompatibility problem is the final
result of interrelating actions between two separate and distinct
sets of economic agents. The first, are the factors which
created the existing utilization of land in the vicinity of the
installation. The second are those agents which established the
level of flight activity. It has already been established that
residential and related land uses in the vicinity of an air installation
are incompatible with high levels of flight operations at the in-
stallation. Since it must be assumed that there is a need to
develop knowledge of the extent of air installation/community,
some measure should be developed to gauge the situation of
various air installations. Accordingly, an approach should be
developed containing an index of incompatible use in the vicinity
of the installation (as for example, a land use index, noise
pollution potential index and encroachment potential index—along
the lines presented by Back and Sterling as a paper 'Classification
of Airport Environs by Airport/Community Land Use Compatibility",
dated 28 January 1972).
B-87
-------
j. Since as Charles C. Schempeler ("Airport Planning
and the Environment, Airport World, IV, March 1971) points
out "there is a multiplicity of private decision-making
entities, each making decisions on the basis of self-interest"
and from these conflicts evolves a reciprocally destructive
interrelationship where all relevant factors are not considered
by a highly fragmented decision-making apparatus. It is
u */ 1 i
therefore necessary that a T^rtifi eH centrally guided operation
be developed that can provide the guidance, backed by sufficient
o
finding, to motivate the nation as a whole to resolve the problem
of compatible land use planning in the vicinity of military air
installations. The passage of federal legislation, as a part of
an overall land use policy would be appropriate.
B-88
-------
U. Recommendation
H.R. Bill 29^2 should be modified so as to specifically provide
for the development of land use compatibility in the vicinity of military
air installations. Further, that additional functions be assigned to the
National Advisory Board on Land Use Policy (sec 203), that of directing
and management of the development of a "Model Airport Noise Zoning Ordinance
and Building Code" to be proposed for utilization by the States And
Federal Government.
B-89
-------
Ti IE
AIRCRAFT 1101SE PROELS4
SOURCE
(ORIGIN)
r>
DESIGN
- Reduction of
noise at the
source
Improved air-
craft performance
Research and Dev-
elopment of quiet
ehgines
PATH
(TIUuISMISSION)
TASKS
OPERATIONS
Uininu.se noise by
optimum/cafe
operational pro-
cedures
- STRATEGIES -
-v-
Preferential run-
ways
Take-offs config-
ured for minimum
noise
Approaches config-
ured for nini:suri
noise
Increased holding
and maneuver alt- (
itudcs j
RECEIVER
(KUMAII RESPONSES)
PEOPLE
Development of com-
patible land use
Develop criteria
on Human response
to noise
Land use planning
(cor.prehensive and
regional)
Koisc Measurement
Standards
Zoning
Koise Acceptability
Standards
Acquisition of land
surrounding Air - In
stallations by con-
demnation
Acquisition of
noicc eascr-.cnts
Sound insu3.ation 01'
structures (ex-
poct. fo.ctor or
through building
codes)
Source: Modifiicd version of ch.'xrt appearing in James F. Vtoodall,
Noicc frnrprcccion IVo^ran," in Jot Aircraft Jloise Panel, A13.ryjjition of
Jet /.ircraft •'•)i::o !.r;:'.r Ai.rport-.ri; A »1'722±!£> »rashinr;ton, u.C., u__";.cii 01*
Science tmd Tuciinolojjy, Executive Office oi' the i'recidcnt, 19^> P- ^3f •
^ IIOISE ARATK-mirr STRATAGIEG
B-90
-------
PI
i>
M >^\
H 0
v> A
X •»
U &H
CO W
t: z
tH •— '
W
>H > ^
hJ r-l O
W H -(
,J W /^
w > m
H M to
< H 1
K IH O
W CO CO
C Z [JM
O W W
s w a
co
Z
O
N
W ^^
CO WO
M > CO
O IH 1
z H m
IH CS
W CO (n
co Z W
o w z
CO v^
x>
•n
W H CO EK
PS Z W
w w z
> CO ^
*
CO
w
CO
C3
1
CO
w
IH
H
IH
M
H
U
<
Tl
01
^
O
iH
*£
4-1
O
Z
Tl
01
o
rH
rH
tJ
" Z
•H
B A
U 4J
01 -H
PH ?
in
CM
•o
01 PS
4-1 J
4-1 5
•rl
B J3
VJ *-*
0) -H
PH S
Tl
01
4-1
4-1
•H
g
01
PH
Tl
01
4J
4-1
1
01
PH
Residential (2), Educational
and Institutional (3)
Tl
S
o
-4.
rH
•<£
4-1
O
•K
Tl
01
g
rH
rH
<
4J
O
f5
in
CO
T3 ."
Ol PM
4J J
4J g
•H
B A
)-j 4J
01 -H
PH '§
O
CO
Tl
01 \T\
4-1 i -]
S f.
r-l 4J
01 -rl
PH S
Tl
01
4-1
4-1
g
01
PH
1
j Auditoriums, Concert Halls
!
Tl
01
s
o
rH
<3
4J
O
z
Tl
01
O
rH
rH
<£
4-1
O
Z
Tl
IU
•H
tH
<
O
!3
Tl
0)
>
O
rH
rH
<
4-1
O
z
•a
01
4J
4J
01
PH
to
rH
rH
01
Si
CO
! Outdoor Amphitheaters, Music
o
TJ CO
tu pj
i ' J
u z
•H
B^
01 -rl
PH 1*
in
CM
Tl
oi t4
4-1 ,-J
4-1 Z
•H
01 -H
PH »
•o
01
4J
4J
•H
§
H
01
PH
Tl
01
4-1
4J
01
PH
•O
01
4-1
4J
g
01
PH
iH 10
nl 4J
•H C
O Rl
r-l )-l
Tl 01 3
CSnJ
3 1 4J
i Offices, Personal, Business
! Proffessional Services, Co:
1 Retail Movie Theaters, Res
j W
m
to
tJ
tu pj
t» 2
*H
a 43
IH 4J
0) -rl
PH S
O
to
XI
oi pS
4J J
4lJ S
•rl
gJ3
4J
41 -H
PH 1*
in
^Nj
Tl
0) PS
4-1 I-J
4J g
•rl
B 4:
I-l 4J
01 -H
PH S
T)
01
4J
4-1
g
01
PH
T)
01
4J
4J
g
01
PH
10
rH
01'
4-1
S
to
rH
01
4-1
O.
K
00
a
•H
00
•o
o
4J
c
Cl
to
B
to
M
H
Tl
01
\f
q
r-j
^
4J
O
Z
•O
g
O
rH
rH
<;
4J
O
Z
Tl
01
4-1
4-1
•H
g
H
01
PH
Tl
01
4-1
4-1
•rl
g
01
PH
•O
01
4J
4J
•H
g
01
PH
to
4-1
U
o
p.
CO
rH
o
4-1
to
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spect
•o
01
3
o
^
rH
^jj
4J
O
X
•o
1
iH
rH
*£
4J
O
Z
Tl
01
4J
4J
•H
g
H
01
PH
Tl
01
4J
4J
•rl
g
01
PH
•8
4J
4J
•rl
01
PH
to
^
U
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Pa:
Tl
01
^j
,P
•H
g
01
PH
T)
01
4J
U
•H
S
rH
01
PH
Tl
O
4J
4-1
•rl
g
H
01
PH
Tl
O
4J
4J
•H
g
01
PH
Tl
01
4J
u
•H
g
01
PH
^-^
m
x^^
*
to
- 01
Golf Courses, Driving Ranges
j Water-Recreation, Cemeteri'
Tl
01
4-1
4J
•H
Q
rH
01
PH
•O
01
4J
4-1
•H
g
0>
1*
•a
0.
4-J
iJ
-H
g
01
PH
Tl
01
«U)
4J
>H
g
01
PH
t>
01
4-1
4J
•H
01
PH
60 Tl
c a
•a -H to
0) rH
4J 3 a
O4-1O
Commercial-Wholesale and Sele
Retail, Industrial/Manufac
Transportation Communicati
Utilities (6)
i
•o
01 •
f Tl
O 01
— J 11
H 4-1
•*lj T-l
4, g
O Ol
Z PH
TJ Tl
01 01
4-1 4-1
4J 4J
•rl TH.
g' g
91 01
PH PH
•0 Tl
01 01
4J 4-1
4-1 4-1
01 01
PH PH
T) Tl
01 01
4J 4J
4-1 4-1
6 B
n G
01 0)
PH PH
Tl Tl
01 O
4-1 4J
4J 4J
•H -H
e e
n Pi
01 01
PH PH
Animal-related services (7)
Agricultural (8)
i
in
01
0)
•c
§
TI
ID
U
Ol
U
a
M-I
o
TI
0)
•o
to
0)
01
to
c
o
ID
a)
t/i
-K
-------
NOTES (Accompanying Table 2)
(1) Single family detached, duplex, mobile home parks.
(2) Triplex, fourplex, apartment houses, multi-family dwellings,
rooming houses, boarding houses, old persons homes, sorority
and fraternity houses, dormatories, boarding schools, convalescent
homes.
(3) School classrooms, libraries, churches, hospitals
(A) Professional and financial offices, banks, savings and loan
associations, mortgage bankers, insurance offices, real estate
offices, architects, engineers, attorneys'at law, decorators,
medical and dental clinics and labs, funeral homes and mortuaries,
retail stores, clothing stores, department stores, food and dairy
markets, cafes, restaurants (enclosed and drive-in), cafeterias,
barber shops, beauty shops, new and use care sales, country clubs.
(5) Includes swimming pools, shooting ranges, miniature golf courses
(6) Includes
Auto salvage & wrecking yards
Industrial metal and waste salvage yards
Manufacturing facilities
Gasoline service stations
Ambulance services
Automotive repair garages
Public storage garages
Taxi dispatch offices
Automobile washing stations
Lumber yards
.Warehousing
Motor freight terminals
Railway passenger and freight stations
Airport services
(7) Includes animal grooming services, dog kennels veterinarians and
veterinarian hospitals.
(8) Includes farms, orchards, nurseries, greenhouses.
B-92
-------
C?*SL
-~ s->
o
Ui !
^2. -J i
2 12!
.^V7
cor
yiy
oog
QOH
o
LU
. C/7
O
s~ur^
•^- *—, i
L-iJ. ^
_i T^
LuH
J
?
"
i i
! -H +
Q_
VL
(.•>
O
e
oa
;i t it
',! 0
. .
•* '
-I 14>
V\ Ci
0
O -~; /-I x *^
S-i; 'H fe. s
;i H
o a
to
O I
^
•5
ii ^
Ii 2
0 -3
11
kj
Q
^
J-
•f
B-93
-------
United States Department of the Interior
DJ REPLY REFER TO:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.G. 20240
JUN 2 0 1973
Dr. Sidney Netherey, Chairman
Task Group 6, Air craft /Airport Noise
Report Study
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building Wo. 2, Em. 1107
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Dear Dr. Netherey:
As a participant in the Task Group 6 study of Military Aspects, we
would like to take this opportunity to submit information for inclusion
in the Group ' s final report .
1. Sonic Booms . Sonic booms caused by military aircraft have been
a matter of grave concern to the National Park Service for more than
ten years . Sonic booms have inflicted damage upon natural and cultural
features in a number of areas within the National Park System. Among
some of the noteworthy effects of sonic booms have been:
a. Precipitated rock slide which demolished prehistoric Indian
ruin, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona. 1966.
b. Caused geologic formation to fracture and slide, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Utah. 1966.
c. Caused large rock to fall onto trail, Yosemite National Park,
California. 1971.
d. Frightened sooty tern colony with resultant heavy mortality
to incubating eggs, Fort Jefferson National Monument, Florida.
e. Caused roof damage to prehistoric Indian ruin, Navaho National
Monument, Arizona. 1971.
f . Widened crack in wall of fort ruins, Fort Union National
Monument, New Mexico. 1971.
g. Caused large rock slide onto road, Mesa Verde National Park,
Colorado . 1968 .
h. Damaged wall to restored ruins, Fort Laramie National Historic
Site, Wyoming. 1971.
B-94
-------
Aside from the physical damage to protected features, sonic booms
also cause considerable annoyance to visitors who in seeking a wilder-
ness experience come to the national parks for tranquility and escape
from pressures of the modern world. Numerous letters of complaint
have been sent to park officials noting the obvious concern of visitors
against this disturbance.
In late 1971 a conference was held with representatives of the Air
Force to discuss ways of diminishing the unacceptable and injurious
effects of sonic booms over national parks and monuments. At that
time the Air Force advised that a number of changes were being made
in the flight patterns of the SB-71, the craft which accounted for
over 70 percent of supersonic activity in the US. The Air Force
requested and was furnished a list of biologically and geologically
sensitive areas for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing sonic over-
flights where possible. This list included:
Florida Everglades National Park
Fort Jefferson National Monument
New Mexico Chaco Canyon National Monument
Aztec Ruin National Monument
Gran Quivera National Monument
Arizona Canyon de Chelly National Monument
Wupatki National Monument
Navaho National Monument
Utah Rainbow Bridge National Monument
Natural Bridges National Monument
Arches National Monument
Bryce Canyon National Monument
California Death Valley National Monument
Colorado Mesa Verde National Park
Additional yeoman's service by the Air Force is recognized when they
published USAF Regulation 55-3^ on February 1^, 1972, which prohibits
overflights of all national parks unless a specific waiver is requested
from Headquarters USAF. As Attachment No. 1 indicates, although not
all records are available the general impression is that an overall
reduction of recorded sonic booms of thirty to fifty percent has occurred
since re-routing of SB-71 overflights and implementation of AF Regulation
55-3^.
However, while there has been a marked diminution of sonic boom activity,
there appears to be areas of concern where further discussions with the
Air Force might prove fruitful. Death Valley National Monument, Nevada
and California, continues to report an unacceptable rate of supersonic
activity.
B-95
-------
Window damage in public buildings still occurs and while there is
no positive evidence, it is suspected that the recent collaspe of
several mine tunnels is attributable to sonic boom disturbance.
Due to the vast number of mine tunnels existing in Death Valley there
is a genuine concern for park visitor safety.
2. Low-Level Flights. Another area of military activity which is
another concern to the National Park Service is low-level flight. In
this instance military aircraft intrude on the tranquility of national
parks more so than causing physical damage to natural and cultural
features. Such areas as Death Valley National Monument and Grand
Canyon National Park are used extensively as sites for training missions
and maneuvers. These and other areas due to their remoteness and
unique terrain setting offer ideal training environments for low-level
activities. However, this military mission is in direct conflict with
that of the National Park Service's attempt to maintain natural con-
ditions, ecologically and environmentally, and including sight and
sound. In addition there is an obvious safety hazard to the park
visitor, civilian and official aircraft, and wildlife of the area as
a result of this activity.
Death Valley National Monument has another unique feature (the floor
of Death Valley lies more .than 280 feet below sea level) which appears
attractive to some military pilots. It is considered to be a novel
accomplishment by both Air Force and Navy pilots to join the ranks of
"below-sea-level club" in both sub- and supersonic aircraft. Reports
of military aircraft flying as low as 50 feet above the salt pan are
not uncommon. It is inconceivable that this sort of activity serves
any military purpose and any reduction or elimination would compromise
operational flexibility.
Recently, some areas, notably Death Valley National Monument, Grand
Canyon National Park and Lake Mead National Recreation Area are
reporting an increase in the number of sonic booms and low-flying
aircraft since January 1973. Perhaps this increase is related in
some way to the decrease in Vietnam activities and represents a
return to more stateside operations .
Contacts by park officials with nearby military officials in response
to individual complaints about sonic booms or low- level flights have
been cordial and some progress has been made in certain instances.
Infractions continue to occur, however. The National Park Service
recognizes the military's obligation of providing and insuring the
country's continued national security and is convinced that an effective
solution can be found without compromising both agencies ' duties . We
look forward to working closely with the military in this matter of
further eliminating or reducing certain objectionable activities.
Sincerely,
Neal G. Guse, Jr.
B-96
-------
flj
w ^
n oj
O P^
•o
O C
•rl O
£ -H
O 4^
(1)
fil «•
O
r-I
tj
v •)
b
C-i
a
f-i
ir
, c
c
44 N
f I
,N
^
c|.
o
o o
o
o
00
11
0) I
il°l
H
•c-lj I
03' '
-PI I
00
o
o
0)
«
o
IT
Id
H
o o o
c| I c
C/] CO
o
o1
OJ
«l
OH
O Ol
' .' I 'I
U
o o
O O C'
HO
•s1 '
H
'gO H
oJ
00
O H CM
CM V£> H
Jo| -t|o|
N
00
O CM
(O|
a
M
H
Id
I <
[CM
>1H
Vl
-p
o
G
CO
tj
?H
o
o
(U
Is!
Pi
ir
LO
CV
IT;
r-i
i.)
1
r-I
I'J
.: V
0
s :
o
i i
«j
a
o
•H
I
0)
Tj
ri O
^J 0
•0 Tj
;i $
' | ^*
CJ,«
o -1
X^4
C-«
~*
EJ °
0 "
•H-H
C *•
5
s
j^
rt
r .
•H
li
o
f-*
o
•rl
8 p JV
•$ - «> f".
a) o ^ i :
:- -r; P ••
is ^ 'r1 ^
•Pi
O
H ri
Tj'd
> ^1
o
.C 'H
.1 > *rH
rj f'4
T/ r-'< T)
t3 OJ
OJ 1 -H 0?
" • 51 §
QJ M ^| tj
^ ; -H ^-> -H
PI
5^5 0$
«-d
-i £
U lj
«"
B-97
-------