I
CD
 MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND
   NOISE AND OPPORTUNITY!
        REDUCTION WITHOUT
 INHIBITION OF MILITARY
       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGIEWCTT]
      AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY Rl
               27 JULY 1973

-------
MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT NOISE AND
   OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDUCTION WITHOUT
        INHIBITION OF MILITARY MISSIONS
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
                         27 JULY 1973
           SIDNEY J. NETHERY, TASK GROUP CHAIRMAN
          This document is the result of an extensive task force effort to gather
          all available data pertinent to the subject discussed herein. It represents
          the interpretation of such data by the task group chairman responsible
          for this specific report. It does not necessarily reflect the official views
          of EPA and does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
                                    »Q«*

-------
                                     PREFACE
    The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to study the adequacy of .current and planned regulatory action
taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the exercise of FAA authority to
abate and control air craft/airport noise.  The study is to be conducted in consultation
with appropriate Federal, state and local agencies and interested persons.  Further,
this study is to include consideration  of additional Federal and state authorities and
measures available to airports and local governments in controlling aircraft noise.  The
resulting report is to be submitted to Congress on or before July 27, 1973.
    The governing provision of the 1972 Act states:
    "Sec. 7(a).  The Administrator,  after consultation with appropriate Federal,  state,
    and local agencies and interested persons, shall conduct a study of the (1) adequacy
    of Federal Aviation Administration flight and operational noise controls; (2) adequacy
    of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together with recommenda-
    tions on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of identi-
    fying and achieving levels  of  cumulative noise exposure around airports; and (4)
    additional measures available to  airport operators and local governments to control
    aircraft noise.   He shall report on such study to the Committee on Interstate and
    Foreign Commerce of the  House  of Representatives  and the Committees on Commerce
    and Public Works of the Senate within nine months after the date of the enactment  of
    this act. "
    Under Section 7(b) of the Act, not earlier than the date  of submission of the report to
Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency  is to:
    "Submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed regulations to provide such
    control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including control and abate-
    ment through the exercise  of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air commerce
    or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is
    necessary to protect the public health and welfare. "
    The study to develop the Section  7(a) report was  carried out through a participatory
and consultive process involving a task force.  That task force  was made up of six task
groups.  The functions of these six task groups were to:
    1.   Consider legal and institutional aspects  of aircraft and  airport noise and the
apportionment of authority between Federal, state, and local governments.
    2.   Consider aircraft and  airport operations including  monitoring, enforcement,
safety,  and costs.

                                        iii

-------
    3.   Consider the characterization of the impact of airport community noise and to
develop a cumulative noise exposure measure.
    4 .   Identify noise source abatement technology, including retrofit, and to conduct
cost analyses.
    5.   Review and analyze present and planned FAA noise regulatory actions and their
consequences regarding aircraft and airport operations.
    6.   Consider military aircraft  and airport noise and opportunities for reduction of
such noise without inhibition of military missions.
    The membership of the task force was enlisted by sending letters of invitation to a
sampling of organizations intended to constitute a representation of the various sectors
of interest.  These organizations included other Federal agencies; organizations repre-
senting state and local governments, environmental and consumer action groups,
professional societies,  pilots, air traffic controllers, airport proprietors, airlines,
users of general aviation aircraft, and aircraft manufacturers. In addition to the  invita-
tion letters,  a press release was distributed concerning the study, and additional persons
or organizations expressing interest were included into the task force.   Written  inputs
from others, including all citizen noise complaint letters received over the period of the
study,  were called to the attention of appropriate task group leaders and placed in the
public master file for reference.
    Task Group 6 of the Environmental Protection Agency Task Force  on Aircraft/
Airport Noise had as its task the considerations of the unique aspects of military air-
craft operations that contribute to the broad national problem of aircraft/airport noise.
    Early  in the course of deliberation of this problem by the task group members it
became apparent that military aircraft operations,  with the exception of supersonic
flight,  offer no problems that are not shared by the civil aviation  industry.   It also
became clear early in the study that potential solutions to the noise problems may in
some cases be unique.
    The impact of noise emanating from military aircraft/aircraft operations can be
lessened by:
    •    Source noise reduction
                                       IV

-------
    •    Imposition of operational constraints/procedures for noise abatement
    •    Land Use Control in the vicinity of airports
SOURCE NOISE REDUCTION
    At the present time, the potential for large source noise reductions for
strategic and tactical military aircraft does not exist.  These high performance
aircraft  cannot accept the performance degradations associated with current source
noise reduction techniques. However, source noise reduction techniques can be
successfully applied to certain military aircraft that operate in the civilian as well
as the military domain, such as light helicopters, transports, tankers, and
patrol aircraft, without imposing excessive performance and weight penalties.
The Department of Defense is  conducting a comprehensive Research and Develop-
ment Program to develop source noise reduction techniques that can be applied to
military aircraft.  This work is described in the first  section of this report.
OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS/PROCEDURES
    Flight operations of military aircraft are for the most part unique. In view of
this, noise abatement procedures which are effective for civil aircraft operations
may not be appropriate for military aircraft.  The potential for military noise
abatement constraints/procedures does exist, however, and is discussed along
with recommendations in the second section of this report.
LAND USE CONTROL IN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORTS
    Since a large majority of military aircraft are high performance aircraft not
presently ammenable to source noise reduction techniques,  land use control is the
single most important method  for lessening the impact of military aircraft noise
on local  communities adjacent to military flying installations.  The Department of
Defense has recognized this to be the case and has recently published an environ-
mental impact statement on the policy necessary for the execution of land use
control in the vicinity of military airports.   A comprehensive discussion of land
use control is described in the third section of this report.

-------
                                CONTENTS
Section                                                                  Page

1   SOURCE NOISE REDUCTION                                          1-1
        Introduction                                                     1-1
        Current Research and Development                                1-2
        Proposed Department of Defense Goals                             1-3
        Recommendations                                                1-5

2   OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE/CONSTRAINTS TO ABATE
    AIRCRAFT NOISE                                                    2-1
        Airport Environs                                                 2-1
        Low Altitude Operations                                          2-3
        Supersonic Flight                                                2-5
            Operations by Aircraft of Limited Supersonic Requirement       2-5
            Operations by Aircraft Conducting Sustained
            Supersonic Activities                                         2-6
            Air Force Regulation of Supersonic  Flight Activities             2-6
        Current Programs                                                2-8
        Recommendations                                                2-8

3   LAND USE CONTROL IN THE VICINITY OF  AIRPORTS                  3-1
        Overview                                                        3-1
        Introduction                                                     3-2
        The Case for Airport Environs Land Use Control                    3-4
            The Legal Basis                                              3-4
            The Practical Basis                                          3-8
            The Legislative Basis                                        3-9
        The Airport Environs Policy  Plan                                  3-11
            Policy Formulation and Content                                3-12
        Defining the Airport Operations "Footprint" Basic
        Data Requirements                                               3-16
            The Noise "Footprint"                                        3-22
            The Aircraft Operations  "Footprint"                           3-28
        The Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan                  3-29
            Land Use Compatibility Standards                              3-31
        Implementing the Plan                                            3-39
            The Land Use Plan                                           3-40
            Zoning                                                      3-41
            Zoning Legislation                                            3-43
            Implementation Strategy                                       3-45
            Supplementary Methods of Zoning                              3-48
            Zoning Alternatives                                          3-51
        Findings                                                        3-54
        Recommendations                                                3-55

    REFERENCES                                                       R-l

    APPENDICES
        A - Task Group Membership                                       A-l
        B - Responses from Task Group Members                          B-l
                                     VII

-------
Table

1-1
1-2
                                LIST OF TABLES
Department of Defense Noise Research Programs
Proposed Department of Defense Military Aircraft Noise
Reduction Goals
Page

1-7

1-8
                             LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

3-1     Flight Patterns
3-2     Flight Profiles
3-3     Composite Noise Rating Map
3-4     Accident Hazard Zones
3-5     Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan
3-6     Airport Environs Land Use Compatibility Plan
3-7     Land Use Compatibility Matrix
                                                                Page

                                                                3-18
                                                                3-19
                                                                3-25
                                                                3-27
                                                                3-30
                                                                3-36
                                                                3-37
                                      viii

-------
                                    SECTION 1
                            SOURCE NOISE REDUCTION

    Aircraft noise is a problem of considerable concern to the military services.
High noise levels are detrimental to personnel,  contribute to structural failures,  and
degrade the general community environment.  The military services recognized this
hazard early in the 1950's and initiated extensive noise control programs.  Compre-
hensive bioacoustic  research efforts were conducted in order to assess the effects
of high noise levels on personnel.  As a result of these programs, allowable noise
exposure limits were developed.  Ear protection devices were issued to all personnel
exposed to excessive noise, and hearing conservation programs were initiated.
These early bioacoustic research efforts formed the basis for much of the current
work  on subjective response to aircraft noise.
    With the advent of the jet engine, the problem of acoustically induced fatigue in
aircraft structures became more predominant.   In response to this problem, exten-
sive capabilities for  sonic fatigue research were developed.   Sonic fatigue reduction
techniques and effective noise suppression panels for interior noise control were
developed.  Very little effort was directed toward reducing the source  of the noise,
since at that time all aircraft noise reduction techniques were accompanied by
intolerable performance, weight, and cost penalties.  However, the military services
have conducted comprehensive research and development programs on  source  noise
generation and reduction.
    The most elusive problem is community annoyance.  In order to partially  allevi-
ate this problem, the military services initiated programs to develop effective ground
run-up suppression equipment.  This effort, together with a limited noise abatement
operational constraint program and a major program of land use planning, represented
the military's principal weapons against noise pollution.  These efforts are now being
expanded and, in addition, new efforts are being initiated to reduce military aircraft
noise  at the source.
CURRENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    The Army, Navy and Air Force  are conducting a number of aircraft noise con-
trol research and development programs.  Army efforts emphasize helicopter noise
                                        1-1

-------
generation, propagation, and reduction.  The Navy is concentrating on the develop-
ment of new ground run-up suppression techniques and assessments of the noise
environments of aircraft carriers.  The most extensive research and development
efforts within the Department of Defense to control aircraft noise are being con-
ducted by the Air Force.  These efforts include the areas of bio and psycho acoustics,
propulsion and aircraft acoustics,  and aircraft noise measurement.  Specific details
concerning the Defense Department's aircraft noise research programs are presented
in References 2 to 6. A brief summary of these programs are provided in Table 1-1.
Much of the technology developed under these programs is applicable to the solution
of both military and commercial noise problems.  Therefore, the Department of
Defense is conducting several noise research efforts jointly with other agencies of
the federal government, including the Department of Transportation, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Some of the current noise abatement techniques that can be applied to reduce
aircraft/engine noise include:
    •   New quieter engine designs with components and engine cycles designed
        for lower noise.
    •   Exhaust silencers for reciprocating and turbine engines.
    •   Acoustically treated nacelles and ducts.
    •   Noise suppression for  on-board auxiliary power units.
    •   Rotor and propeller aerodynamics for reduced noise.
    •   Noise suppression for  mechanical components such as helicopter gear boxes.
    •   Vehicle aerodynamics  to allow for steeper ascent and descent, and reduc-
        tion in time required for ascent/descent.
    However, before any of these techniques can be applied to military aircraft, the
impact of these techniques on system performance must be carefully and comprehen-
sively assessed.  In order to achieve maximum noise reduction for minimum penalty,
performance/noise/cost trade studies should be conducted early in the development
of each new aircraft and engine system.  These studies, coupled with expected tech-
nology advances, will aid in the practical application of noise control techniques to
future military aircraft.
PROPOSED DEPARTMENT  OF DEFENSE GOALS
    Application of current and future Federal Aviation Administration noise regula-
tions to all military aircraft would not be in the best interests of the national  defense.
                                       1-2

-------
The ability of a military aircraft system to meet noise standards depends primarily
on the missions the aircraft are required to undertake.  Current noise reduction
techniques can be successfully applied to certain aircraft that operate in the civilian
as well as the military domain (light helicopters,  transports, tankers, and long range
patrol aircraft) without imposing excessive performance and weight penalties.  The
cost of such techniques, however,  is significant.  High performance aircraft (fighters,
bombers, and tactical helicopters), whose mission requirements are demanding,
would incur significant performance penalties if they were subjected to current noise
suppression techniques.  Therefore, the Department of Defense must continue to
search for techniques that can be applied to  high performance aircraft and helicopters
without adversely affecting their mission capabilities.
    Recently, the Department of Defense conducted an intra-agency study on environ-
mental quality.   One of the major objectives of this study was to develop a coordinated
long range plan for  environmental  quality research.  The study included a discussion
of the feasibility of developing source noise  reduction goals  for future military air-
craft.  At the present time there are no comprehensive set of source noise reduction
goals for military aircraft.  The Air Force  has established  a maximum noise limit
for engines developed under the proposed Advanced Turbine Engine Program (ATE)
discussed in the Task Group 4 Report on Noise Source Abatement Technology.  This
limit was established to insure that future military aircraft using these engines will
meet current Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, and that  commercial derivatives
of the engine will enable future commercial  aircraft to meet FAR 36 minus 10 EPNdB.
    The Air Force  Aero Propulsion Laboratory has formulated source noise reduc-
tion goals for current and future military aircraft and has recommended that these
goals be adopted by the Air  Force  and the Department of Defense.   The goals were
developed under the premise that source reduction techniques can be applied to
certain classes of military aircraft without  inhibiting military missions. The goals
address two separate classes of aircraft-strategic/tactical aircraft and transport
and other selected aircraft. Strategic and tactical aircraft include  fighters, bombers,
interceptors, tactical helicopters, etc.  Transport and other selected aircraft
include cargo aircraft, CTOL and  STOL transports, navigator trainers,  tankers,
certain reconnaissance aircraft, long range patrol aircraft, etc.  These goals are
summarized in Table 1-2.
                                       1-3

-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
    1.  Based on information collected during the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study,
        source noise reduction techniques can be effectively applied to certain
        classes of military aircraft.  Therefore, the Department of Defense
        should establish a definitive policy to implement the application of source
        noise reduction technology to future military aircraft systems, to set
        allowable noise limits for these classes of aircraft, and to develop a
        noise certification procedure to insure compliance.
    2.  In order to develop a  data base to assess environmental impact,  perfor-
        mance/noise/cost tradeoffs should be conducted during the preliminary
        design and development phases of all future military aircraft systems.
        The Department of Defense should establish a definitive policy to insure
        that these performance/noise/cost trades are conducted.
    3.  Noise Retrofit Performance/Cost Trades should be conducted on current
        military aircraft to determine the feasibility of a selective retrofit
        program to reduce noise at the source.  The Department of Defense should
        establish a definitive policy to insure that these retrofit studies are
        conducted.
    4.  The Congress should  support the Department of Defense in a continuing
        program of research and development to reduce military aircraft noise at
        the source.
    5.  The Department of Defense should continue to conduct interagency efforts
        such as the Army/NASA Rotor Noise Research Program and the  Air Force/
        Department of Transportation Jet Noise Research Program. Such programs
        avoid needless duplication of effort and provide the maximum utilization of
        personnel and funding.
    6.  The Environmental Protection Agency should reestablish and adopt the
        charter  of the  Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program  (1ANAP)
        to coordinate all research and development associated with Aircraft/Airport
        noise.  LANAP successfully coordinated aircraft noise control activities
        for a number of years and, therefore, should be continued. The Department
        of Defense should continue to coordinate military aircraft noise control
        activities with the Environmental Protection Agency through LANAP.
                                      1-4

-------

















rH
1
rH
W
hH

r^
H























CO
3
s
1
g
K
OISE RESEAB
55
W

r^
W
W
P
o

r^
55
W
S
DEPART;

o
0
o
rH
!£
O
55
r-H
Q

1







AGENCY













R&D PROGRAM


^*
c- c-
>H CM
r*H **"

CO
t~ LO
tx co
fe N




X
O
rH
CD
CQ
CD
tf
_O
CD
• rH
O
?
0)
o
§
CD
O
rH
0
rH
rH
• rH
^



CD
CQ
•rH
O
*^
1C RESEARCH
Propulsion/Aerodynamic
CQ


O




o
rH


>>
i^*
O
ts
rH
J
O
rH
03
CD
CQ
Aerospace Re
CD
0
rH
0
rH
rH
-rH


a

'ra
CQ
rH
Inlet/Exhaust Noise Supp




LO







Bio/Psycho-Acoustics



LO O
CM ^*
rH LO


LO LO
CM Tst*
rH LO




t>i
O
ion Laboral
iation
Aero Propulsi
it of Transporl
CD m
o £
rH C
o -g
" rt
^ S*
• rH i
rH
0
ion Laboral
Aero Propulsi
CD
O
o
hH

'i
O
ion Laboral
Aero Propulsi
CD
O
O
r^H

- >i
O O
ics Laboral
ion Laboral
SD3
r-<
^ °
Q Pi
5 §
i— i CD
CD 0)
0 0
rH rH
0 0
r^H ft

^ ^






^H
Quiet Aircraft Propulsioi



o
o
•*


0
o
"*






Laboratorji
P
03
1?
•rH
1— 1
•rH
O

•rH
!=L
(H*
s
<







Helicopter Noise



0




o








Laboratorji
P
••r?
r— I
•rH
rQ
O
«,
rH
• iH
1L
rH*
R
rH







Combustor Noise



0
LO
co


0
LO
"






•§
o
O
CQ
Propulsion Te
f_!
• rH
^
03
>
CJ





d
o
*»4
Ground Run-Up Suppress

LO

-------






3
P^

s
H
CO
ft
P
Constraints/Procedures, Ground Run-
Suppression
URE AIRCRAFT
EH

Pn
^




























Noise/Performance/Cost Trades


•



























CO
CO
o
hH1
Noise Reduction Without Performance


•





























RATIONAL AIRCRAFT
W
ft
O
0


























CO
13
Noise Retrofit/Performance/Cost Tra


•



























d
o
0
Selective Retrofit to Meet FAR 36 Bas
Tradeoff Analyses
URE AIRCRAFT
EH

• PH
m



H
i
u
pj
^H
^
P
H

>-J
W
PH"
CO
u
ffi
EH
O
B
o
ft
CO
<
K
EH


Noise/Performance/Cost Trades


•



























rt
CO
rt
en
•a
§
Meet Current FAR 36 Noise Requirem


•





























Minimum






























0

-------
                                    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

-------