Conference on General Aviation
Airport Noise and Land Use Planning

        PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
               21 November 1979
           Georgia Institute of Technology

           Prepared Under Contract G8-01-5040
           For Environmental Protection Agency,
           Office of Noise Abatement and Control

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                         Page

FINAL PROGRAM SCHEDULE	    iii

OPENING REMARKS 	      1
          Charles L. Elkins

AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL MATRIX	     15
          Clifford R. Bragdon
               Noise Control Strategy; Land Use Planning;
               Decision-Matrix Technique; Preventive Measures;
               Party Involvement

GENERAL AVIATION IN THE UNITED STATES:  PAST, PRESENT
AND FUTURE	     53
          John E. Wesler
               Civil Aircraft; Aviation Noise-Abatement; Noise
               Standards; Airport-Proprietor Responsibility;
               Air Traffic Restrictions

A STATE PERSPECTIVE ON GENERAL AVIATION AND  PLANNING  	     63
          Lucie G. Searle
               Aircraft Noise; Source Control; Airport
               Operating Procedures; Compatible Land Use;
               State-Level Effort

THE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY 	  75
          Bill Galloway

THE IMPACT OF GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ON A LOCAL ECONOMY	85
          Michael  J. McCarty
               Business Aircraft; Airport Benefits;
               Economic Impact; Community Development

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
                                                                         Page

THE WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT	     95
          Joan E. Caldwell
               Aircraft Noise Complaint; Legal Action;  Airport-
               Community Negotiation; Noise Sensitive Airport

REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY .  	    103
          Lewis S. Goodfriend
               Noise-Problem Identification; Remediation;
               Community Response; Noise-Impact Control System

REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL
AVIATION ACTIVITY-A CASE STUDY	    113
          W. J. Critchfield
               Airport Master-Plan; Land Development;
               Land-Use Restriction; Avigation Easements;
               Sound-Insulated Construction

PREVENTIVE MEASURES:   WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT, NEW  YORK 	    123
          Peter Q. Eschweiler
               Town-County  Cooperation; Land-Use Study;
               Airport Policy Board; Noise Abatement Plan

THE ROLE OF AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS IN ALLEVIATING GENERAL
AVIATION NOISE	    131
          Stanley J. Green
               General Aviation Growth; Regulations; Engine
               Design; Propeller Noise; Pilot Handbook;
               Airplane Certification

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY ON AIR INSTALLATIONS
COMPATIBLE USE ZONES	    149
          Howard L. Metcalf
               Defense Noise Policy; Noise  Descriptors;
               Public Awareness; Zoning Regulations;
               Clear-Zone Increase

SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE BIBLIOGRAPHY:  AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT	     181
          Clifford R. Bragdon

-------
           Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise
           and Land Use Planning
           Graduate City Planning Program
           College of Architecture
           Georgia Institute of Technology
           Atlanta, Georgia 30332


                                         Final   Program



Wednesday — October 3, 1979

 8 30 -  9 30                        Registration	Space Science Building II. Georgia Institute of Technology

 9 30  10 00                        Welcome
                                   —Clifford Bragdon, Director. Program for Interdisciplinary Studies, Georgia Institute
                                     of Technology. Atlanta. Gcorgin
                                   —William Fash, Dean, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology
                                   —Charles L. Elkms. deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Noise Abatement and
                                     Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

10'00  1030                        BREAK

10 30  11 00                        "Decision Matrix for Airport and  Land Use Planning"
                                   —Clifford Bragdon

1 1 00  11 30                        "General Aviation in the U S.: Past, Present and  Future"
                                   —John  Wesler.  Office  of the Secretary,  Federal  Aviation  Administration,
                                     Washington, D C

11 30  1200                        "A State Perspective on General Aviation and Planning"
                                   —Lucy  Searle,  Community Liaison, Massachusetts  Aeronautics Commission.
                                     Boston. Massachusetts

1200    130                        LUNCH

  1 30   2'00                        "General Aviation Activity  and Land Use  Planning"
                                   —Robert Doyle, Vice President. Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, San Francisco, California

  200   230                        "The Noise Associated with General Aviation Activity"
                                   —Bill Galloway, Principal Consultant, Bolt, Beranek & Newman. Inc., Canoga Park,
                                     California

  2 30   3 00                        "The Impact of General Aviation Activity  on a Local Economy"
                                   — Michael J  McCarty,  Manager. Airport and  Environmental Section.  National
                                     Business Airc.mft Association. Washington. DC

  300   330                        "The Impact of General Aviation Activity  on Airport Community Residents"
                                   —Joan  Caldwell   President.  Northwest Greenwich  Association.  Greenwich.
                                     Connecticut

  330   400                        BREAK

-------
 4.00    5 00                         PANEL A	IMPACT OF GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
                                    PANEL MEMBERS:
                                    —John Tyler, Consultant, N.O.I.S.E., Glastonbury, Connecticut
                                    —Joseph R,  Lewis, Executive  Director, Town-Village Aircraft Safety and Noise
                                      Abatement Committee. Lawrence, New York
                                    —Jack Swing, Department of Public Health, State of California, Berkeley, California
                                    —Shirley Grindle, Citizen Representative, Orange County, California
                                    —Angelo Companella, President, ACCULAB. Columbus, Ohio
                                    (Panel Reaction an^ Audience  Participation)
Thursday — October 4, 1979

 9:00   9:00                         "Remedial Measures  for Dealing  with Noise Associated with  General  Aviation
                                      Activity"
                                    —Lewis Goodfriend, President, Lewis Goodfriend & Associates, Cedar Knolls,
                                      New Jersey

 9:30 - 10:00                         "A Case Study"
                                    —W.J. Critchfield, A.A.E., Manager, Torrance Municipal Airport, Torrance, California

1000  10:30                         BREAK

1030  11:00                         "Preventive Measures for Dealing with Noise Associated with General  Aviation
                                      Activity"
                                    —Gordon Jackson, Deputy Regional  Manager, R.  Dixon Speas &  Associates,
                                      Atlanta, Georgia

11 00  11.30                         "A Case  Study"
                                    —Peter Eschweiler, Westchester Co  Airport,  Rye, New York

1130  1230                        PANELS	PERSPECTIVES ON GENERAL AVIATION PLANNING
                                    PANEL MEMBERS.
                                    — Robert  L  Miller. Senior  Consultant,  Bolt, Beranek and  Newman,  Boston,
                                      Massachusetts
                                    — Kenneth J Delino, Manager, Airport Noise Control Programs, Systems Control,
                                      Inc., Anaheim, California
                                    —Jesse  O Borthwick, Executive  Director, National  Association of Noise Control
                                      Officials, Shalimar,  Florida
                                    -  -Robert Clark, Director, Department of  Planning and Research,  City of Kinston,
                                      Kinston, North Carolina
                                    (Panel Reaction and Audience Participation)

 1230   200                        LUNCH

  200   500                        PANEL C	THE  REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GENERAL
                                                AVIATION ACTIVITY
                                    PANEL MEMBERS:
                                    —Charles Blair, Airport  Planning Specialist,  Federal  Aviation  Administration,
                                      Atlanta, Georgia
                                    — Robert Montgomery, State Aviation Administration, State of Maryland, Baltimore,
                                      Maryland
                                    — Herman Barnard, City Councilman, College Park, Georgia
                                    —Stanley Green,  Vice President, General Aviation Manufacturers Association,
                                      Washington, DC.
                                    — Frank Gammon,  Airport Manager, Teterboro Airport, New Jersey
                                    —Steve Schwenk, Board of Directors, National Pilots Association, Atlanta, Georgia
                                    — Maurice Gosnel, President,  Pilots-Lawyers  Bar Association, Lawrenceville,
                                      Illinois
                                                   iv

-------
Thursday Evening — BANQUET — U.S. Congressman Jerome A. Ambro, New York


 600   700                        Social Hour	Sheraton  Atlanta Hotel

 7:30 -  8.30                        DINNER

 8.30                               Speaker. Congressman J Ambro, New York



Friday — October 5,  1979

 9:00    9.30                        "The Role of  the  Real  Estate Industry  in General  Aviation  Airport  Land Use
                                      Compatibility Planning"
                                    —Richard Forbes,  Professor of Real Estate, Georgia State  University, Atlanta,
                                      Georgia

 9-30   10'OO                        "The Role of Lending Institutions in General Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility
                                      Planning"
                                    —James F  Scott, Scott Appraisal Service. Inc., Atlanta, Georgia

 10'OD   K-30                        BREAK

 1030   11 C'O                        'The Role of Aircraft Manufacturers in Alleviating General Aviation Noise"
                                    — Stanley Green, General Aviation Manufacturers  Association, Washington, D.C.

 11 00   11 30                        "The Pilot's  Role in the Planning and  Implementation of Airport Operator Controls"
                                    —Theodore Elmgren,  President, Torrance Pilots Association, Torrance, California

 1130   1230                        PANEL D	PRIVATE SECTOR  ROLE IN GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
                                    PANEL MEMBERS
                                    —James  D Vernor, Professor  of Real Estate, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
                                      Georgia

                                    —Terence Love. Associate  Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
                                      Georgia
                                     —Julian Diaz III, International Appraisal and Research  Group, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia
                                     — Lvndall Hughes.  President, Real Estate  Aviation Chapter, national Association of
                                       Reators. Chagrin Falls, Ohio
                                    (Panel  Reaction and Audience Participation)

 1230    200                        LUNCH

  2 00    2 30                         "The 'Experiences  of Air Carriers  Airports in  Noise Control Los Angeles"
                                    —Walter V.  Collins. Noise Abatement Manager, Airports, Los Angeles, California

  230    300                         "The Experiences  of Military Airports in Noise Control"
                                     — Howard  Melr.ali   Deputy Director  of Construction  Standards and Design, U.S.
                                       Department ol Defense  Washington, DC.

  300    300                         "The Experiences  of Air Carrier — General Aviation Airport  Planning —
                                       Minneapolis"
                                     —Jeff  Hamiel   Noise Abatomr-nt  Manager, metropolitan  Airport Commission,
                                       Minneapolis  Minnesota

-------
330   4,30                    PANEL E	NON-GENERAL AVIATION PLANNING EXPERIENCE
                             PANEL MEMBERS'
                             —David Braslau, David Braslau Association, President, Minneapolis, Minnesota
                             — Kenneth J Delino, Manager, Airport Noise Control Programs, Systems Control,
                              Inc., Anaheim, California
                             —Max Walker, Hartsfield International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia
                             —Thomas A. Duffy, Director N O I S.E., Washington, D.C.
                             —Gordon A. Miller, Deputy Chief, California Department of Aeronautics,
                              Sacremento, California
                             (Panel Reaction and Audience Participation)

4'30   5'00                    Conference Summary and Wrap-up, Clifford R. Bragdon, Conference Chairman
                             Co-Sponsored  By:

                       The  U.S. Environmental Protection
                       Agency, Office of Noise Abatement
                                    and Control
                               and Georgia  Institute
                                   of Technology

-------
                            PRESENTATION BY
                           CHARLES L. ELKINS
                    DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
                      FOR NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              BEFORE THE
             CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
                         AND LAND USE PLANNING
                           OCTOBER 3, 1979
     Good morning.  I want to welcome all of you to this Conference
on general aviation airport noise and land use planning.  We in EPA
hope that this Conference will play a major role in charting the course
in general aviation development in the future.  Our focus, of course,
is noise produced by general aviation aircraft and its impact on
neighborhoods surrounding our Nation's airports.  Clearly, general
aviation does produce noise in neighborhoods across this country.
But how much of a problem does this noise present?
          Will it get worse in the future?
          Are there adequate remedies that could be adopted by affected
          communities?  By the manufacturers of general aviation aircraft?
          By the general aviation pilots and owners?
          Is there a need for Federal regulation in this area?
     If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," how soon must
action be taken?
     These are some of the questions I hope we will talk about during
this three day conference.

-------
     I would like to take a moment to thank Dr.  Clifford R.  Bragdon of
Georgia Tech for organizing this conference and acting as our Conference
Host.  Cliff is well known to many of you for his leadership in the
field of noise and land use planning.  He seemed the perfect choice of a
person who could bring us all together to discuss these serious matters
in a relaxed and non-adversarial atmosphere.
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been  in the noise
business since the passage of the Noise Control Act of  1972.  That Act
laid out a Congressional policy  "to  promote an environment for all
Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare."
That Act directs EPA to design and carry out a national program to abate
and control environmental noise.  Because of the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration's active role  in the aviation noise area, EPA  was given an
advisory role with regard to the regulation of aviation noise and a
regulatory role with regard to all other environmental  noise sources.
     Those of you who have followed  the aviation noise  area during the
last few years know that we in EPA have focused most of our aviation
noise activities on the problem  of the commercial fleet.  We have made a
number of regulatory proposals to the FAA and have been actively involved
in the promotion and implementation  of noise abatement  planning at the
Nation's commercial air carrier  airports.  Significant progress has been
made  in this area.  But, of course,  much still remains  to be done.

-------
     The reauthon'zation of the Noise Control Act which is now pending
before Congress requires EPA to prepare a five-year plan for its activities
in the coming years.  The mandate is explicit in requiring that EPA
update its 1973 Report To The Congress On Aviation Noise as part of this
five-year planning exercise.  One of the major purposes of this Conference
is to provide guidance to us in EPA about our activities in the general
aviation area during the next five years and the years beyond.
     We have been impressed with the difficulty in the atr carrier area
of trying to control aviation noise in a situation where the problem is
already severe and the order of the day is abatement and retrofit rather
than prevention.  One needs only to read the newspapers to realize that
noise has become a real albatross around the neck of the commercial air
transportation system and a major public nuisance for neighborhoods around
most of our major airports.   The noise problem from general aviation is
clearly not this acute, and yet the rapid growth projected for the
future for general aviation raises the question whether preventative
steps are needed now in order to avoid serious political and economic
constraints on the growth of this valuable part of the Nation's air
transportation system.
     By its very nature, prevention of a future noise problem at general
aviation airports would involve many actors, not just the  Federal Government.
In fact, the major burden for prevention would most probably fall on the
private sector and States and localities.  Those who would expect the
Federal Government to solve this problem would not be,  in  my view, very
good students of contemporary political science.  Thus, although we  in

-------
EPA have taken the initiative to call  this conference,  and  we  want  to
see what role we might play in this area, the focus of this conference
must be much broader:  If a preventative program is needed, what
mutually supportive roles might a whole variety of parties  take in
this effort?  We in EPA are prepared within the limits of our statutory
authority to draft regulations for consideration by FAA in this area,
to give financial assistance under the new Quiet Communities Act to
local communities and States for airport noise abatement planning, and to
continue to help to bring together interested parties for  discussion and
possible agreement on appropriate courses of action.  Deciding whether
or not EPA plays such a.role, however, is less important for this
Conference than identifying whether or not noise from general aviation
is a problem today or potential problem  for the future and laying out
what actions might be appropriate to minimize this problem.
HEALTH AND WELFARE
     Any assessment of the potential seriousness of the general aviation
noise problem must begin, we believe, with an assessment of the effects
of noise on people.  It is always surprising, I think, to  people who
come to review this field from  other walks of life, that so much is
already known about the effects of noise on people.  Although noise as
an environmental pollutant is much less  in the forefront of popular
understanding and support than, say, air and water pollution, noise is
the most pervasive of our environmental  pollutants and it  has,  I believe,
the  longest history.  Long before man knew that the water  and air he was
drinking and breathing were  bad for his  health, he knew the difference

-------
between sound and noise, and he knew he didn't like the noise.   Noise is
the one pollutant for which nature gave us built-in monitors.   In addition,
the fear of a loud noise is one of two fears we are born with,  and our
bodies still react to a loud noise even though we may consciously think
we're ignoring it.
     This natural aversion to noise has been borne out by subsequent
scientific research.  Our automatic response to noise has turned out to
be quite sensible, but for far more subtle reasons than we originally
suspected:
     Most of us  today are, of course, aware of the impact of noise on
our hearing.  Millions of Americans today have severe hearing losses
because of their exposure to noise.  What is perhaps not known by most
Americans, however,  is that people risk losing their hearing in the
presence of much lower exposure levels than they would ever suspect are
hazardous.  On the basis of the latest scientific evidence, we in EPA
have established an  average level of 70 decibels over a 24-hour period
as the level necessary to protect the public from significant adverse
effects on their hearing, with an adequate margin of safety. Those who
are exposed to higher levels than this for 40 or more years run a risk
of losing some of their hearing.  Needless to say, millions of Americans
in this country  are  exposed to levels of  noise significantly above 70
decibels, particularly  in their employment, but also around some of our
major airports.
     Of course,  noise control ordinances  across the country and  lawsuits
against airport  proprietors today are based not so much on a concern  for
hearing loss on  the  part of the public, but on something more fundamental:
people just do not  like noise.  It  is hard to find words to characterize
this aversion to noise.  The traditional  word of  art used  by the  scientific
                                     5

-------
community is "annoyance," but generally we all  use the word  "annoyance"
to signify something which is not very serious.   Those of you  who have
dealt with angry citizens around airports know  that they certainly do
not regard aviation noise as some insignificant irritant in  their
lives, so the word annoyance is certainly a misnomer.   As the  scientific
community has tried to quantify this type of reaction, they  have searched
for an understanding of its causes.   They have  found,  as you would
expect, that environmental noise interferes with normal conversation and
a number of relaxing and educational activities on which people put a
great deal of value. It also disrupts sleep, and if a  person lives in an
environment which is continually impacted each  night by noise, such as
near a major airport, the disruption of sleep can become a serious
health problem.  Based on these impacts, EPA has identified  a  day-night
average level of 55 decibels as the level necessary to avoid most of
these effects.
     But recently, scientists have been focusing on an even  more fundamental
aspect of noise.  The "annoyance" reactions that scientists  have identified
so far may only be the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to  the real
health effects of noise.  Noise is a stressor and the body responds to
stress in many subtle ways that we are not conscious of.  Noise triggers
an automatic response in our bodies which is not controlled by our
conscious minds.  This probably stems from the fact, as  I mentioned,
that fear of a loud noise is one of the two fears that we are born with
and we never forget it.  Outwardly, we may seem calm in  the presence of
noise, but internally our heart rate goes up, our blood  pressure goes
up, adrenalin is secreted and our bodies prepare for the "expected"
assault.

-------
     We in EPA are currently sponsoring a study with Rhesus monkeys at
the University of Miami in conjunction with the National Institutes of
Health.  This study stems from the fact that there are over 40 epidemiological
studies from foreign countries which show a relationship between noise
and cardiovascular disease.  This preliminary monkey study has shown
that after several months of noise exposure which is similar to that
received by millions of working Americans today, the monkeys have
sustained an elevated blood pressure of 3Q% even after the noise source
was removed.  It is too early to draw conclusions from tin's preliminary
experiment and further research is necessary, but if noise is in fact
tied to elevated blood pressure and possible hypertension, the control
of noise may become one of the foremost public health programs in the
country since hypertension is directly linked to heart disease and
stroke. These two diseases alone account for 48% of the deaths in this
country every year.
     In short, noise is not something to be laughed at or to tell our-
selves that we can get used to.  It is a serious health problem, and the
evidence is tending to indicate that the effects could be more serious
and much more wide-ranging than we ever imagined in the past.
     From the point of view of an airport proprietor, it may matter less
exactly what the health effects of noise are and more that angry airport
neighbors can prevent an airport's expansion and improvement.  Their
lawsuits and political activity could in the future significantly slow
if not stop the growth of  the air transportation system.  Rightly or
wrongly, citizens in this  country are becoming  less and less  tolerant of
public officials who make  pronouncements that airport expansion  is  for
the public good and that private individuals must give  up their  property
rights and suffer in order that others might fly or otherwise  have  the
convenience of the airport.
                                    7

-------
     So from many perspectives,  noise is an environmental  pollutant to
be reckoned with, and it behooves us to examine the extent to which
noise is already a serious problem around some of our general aviation
airports and whether or not the  growth of the industry will exascerbate
this problem significantly in the coming years.
AVIATION NOISE BACKGROUND
     What do we know about the noise characteristics of the general
aviation fleet?  Well, putting aside all military aircraft, there are
approximately 185,000 aircraft registered for operation in the United
States.  Only about 3,000 of these civil aircraft are owned and operated
by air carriers as part of the commercial air transportation system.
The rest are operated as general aviation aircraft by individuals,
businesses, and governments.  Most of these aircraft, as you know, are
propeller driven rather than jet powered, although jets are gaining a
larger share of the general aviation fleet every year.
     These 185,000 civil aircraft operate into approximately 14,000
airports in this country.  Half of these 14,000 airports are open to the
public and about 600 of these are certificated for air carrier operations.
It is estimated that today over 130 million operations take place annually
at public use general aviation airports with daily operations varying
up to about 500 operations.  The FAA estimates that operations
of these public use airports will almost double to 220 million annual
operations by 1987 and that the number  of general aviation aircraft
during this period will increase from 185,000 to over 240,000 aircraft
in the same time period.

-------
     Most of the country's attention to airport noise has been focused
on about 100 of the larger air carrier airports.   Our analysis of these
air carrier airports indicates that in 1975 approximately 6 million
people were exposed to noise levels of a day-night average of 65 decibels
or greater due to air carrier aircraft alone.   A number of steps have
been taken recently which will bring the number of people exposed to these
high levels of noise down over the next several years, with the greatest
benefit occurring sometime around the year 1985 when the retrofit/
replacement rule will be fully implemented.  Unfortunately, because of
the growth in the size of the commercial aircraft fleet and increased
operations, we can expect the number of people exposed to start going
back up significantly after that date.  Consequently, we in EPA are
actively encouraging further steps to reduce exposure to commercial
aviation noise around our Nation's airports.
     We know very little about the noise problem at the rest of these
13,000 or so airports which serve the general aviation fleet.  We also
know very little about the contribution of general aviation to the noise
problem at our major air carrier airports.  We are undertaking studies
at the present time to predict the noise exposure from these aircraft
both now and in the future, but the universe of aircraft and airports
are so large that it will be sometime before we have  a fully comprehensive
national view of the scope of the problem.  Surely, general aviation
noise is a problem at some airports, but we at EPA have no pre-conceived
ideas about the severity of general aviation noise and to what extent  it
may or may not be a national problem.  We  cannot look at just the  aircraft
or their operations; we must consider the  airport community as well.   If

-------
land use near the airport has evolved w,sely,  there may be little or no
disturbance for the community.   On the other hand,  ambient noise levels
in communities surrounding general aviation airports may be significantly
lower than around our major commercial air carrier  airports.  Thus,
general aviation noise may be more intrusive for people living around
the airport because it occurs against such a low ambient noise level.
Consequently, the fact that general aviation aircraft are quieter than
commercial jets is no reason for complacency.   Thus, the possible noise
problem associated with general  aviation is not just a technological
matter. There are socio-economic and environmental  implications which
must be considered as well.
     We are anxious to hear from those of you attending this conference
concerning the extent which you  believe, based on your own experiences,
that general aviation is a problem today or will be one in the future.
This will help guide future studies by the Federal  Government in this
area and give us all a sense of  perspective on general aviation noise.
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT GENERAL AVIATION NOISE
     If general aviation noise is today or will be  in the future a
serious problem for this country, what can be done  about it?  It will
come as no surprise to any of us that there is no single solution to a
problem as complex as aviation noise.  Our experience in the commercial
aviation noise area has shown that any realistic solution to the problem
must combine actions by a variety of parties, all taken in coordination
with each other. Needless to say, orchestrating such a control program
is very difficult, particularly  when large investments have already been
made on the basis of the status  quo.  That is why working on the general
                                     10

-------
aviation noise problem before it becomes a national crisis is attractive.
Prevention is usually much cheaper and much easier to bring about politically
than retrofit and abatement.  Instead of making investments obsolete as
we must do in some cases in the commercial aviation area, a preventative
program might be able to focus future investments with little additional
costs involved.
     When people talk about quieting any aviation problem, they usually
think first about abating the source of the noise, which in this case
are the general aviation aircraft themselves.  Some steps have already
been taken by the aircraft  industry to produce quieter aircraft.  For
instance, it is no longer possible to talk about "quiet" propeller
aircraft and "noisy" jets.  Some of our new jet aircraft today are
quieter than propeller aircraft, and hopefully, quieter operation is the
trend of the future  for both  types of aircraft.  NASA is conducting
research with assistance from EPA and FAA to develop quieter propeller
driven and jet powered general aviation aircraft.  We are hopeful that
some technological advances,  if only small ones, will result.  Of course,
there is no automatic link  up between technological improvements in  the
laboratory and the incorporation of such  improvements in-the aircraft of
the future.  One of  the very  difficult policy questions for any person
in a Federal regulatory agency such as EPA or FAA  is the extent to which
the manufacturers can be expected to aggressively  move ahead to incorporate
new technology and to develop new technology of  their own  instead of
waiting to be forced to do  so through some type  of government  regulation.
                                      11

-------
     Quieting the source of the noise has proven to be in and of itself
insufficient to solve the commercial  aircraft noise problem and may well
prove to be so in the general aviation area as well.  Ways in which the
aircraft are flown and the way in which airports are developed and
expanded can have a major influence over the amount of noise exposure in
the neighborhoods surrounding general aviation airports.  New takeoff
procedures incorporated now in an FAA advisory circular will provide
considerable relief to airport communities surrounding air carrier
airports in the future if the circular is complied with by-the air
carriers.  Similar improvements in takeoff or landing procedures might
provide some relief from general aviation aircraft also.
     And then there is land use control.  This country has been notoriously
unsuccessful in controlling the land use around airports  in  the past.
Even an airport as modern and advanced as Dallas/Ft. Worth is now beginning
to suffer from encroachment by residential neighborhoods.  Communities
that once vowed that they would hold fast to decisions to ban incompatible
land uses are now caving in to the economic pressures to  allow residential
development in areas impacted by the airport noise.  Thus, we can expect
that even our airports which are built out in the  countryside will soon
be subject to lawsuits by citizens who are outraged by the increasing
noise coming from these major facilities.  We need  to seek stronger and
more effective methods for controlling land use around commercial airports.
The question for us at this Conference this week is whether  such advances
can be pioneered and perfected perhaps in the general aviation area
where economic pressures today are not quite as great as  they are around
commerical airports but where the need in the future may  be  just as great.
                                      12

-------
     We have in the audience for this Conference people who can give us
a good perspective on the potential for these various means of dealing
with general aviation.  We have here representatives from Federal, State
and local governments, from the aviation industry, airport operators,
aircraft operators, aircraft manufacturers, representatives of environmentally
concerned groups, neighborhood representatives, leaders of the real
estate and  lending institutions of our country, and spokesmen of the air
carrier airports and military airports.  Many of these groups have
already had unique experiences in dealing with general aviation airport
noise.  Some have been involved in the adoption of regulations concerning
general aviation airport  usage.  Some have seen these regulations
struck down or  are now involved in litigation concerning aviation regulations.
All of us would like  to share in each other's experiences.  From this
exchange,  I hope there will be a mutual benefit.  Speaking for EPA, we
hope  to gain added insight  into ways in which all of us can work together
in  the years to come  to deal with this problem.
      So,  I  urge all  of you to make your views heard.  Is there a general
aviation  problem today or will there be one  in the future and if so,
what  is  its extent.   Are  there ways of controlling this noise in the
future and  how  effective  would each of these methods be?  What actions
need  to be  taken by some  or all of us to bring about these solutions?
In  order  to make this Conference a working Conference and not just a set
of  lectures, we restricted  the total number  of participants.  In many  cases,
you may be  the  only person  at the Conference with a  particular perspective.
So  please  take  an active  role in these discussions.   Express your  views  so
that  they may affect  the  conclusion of the Conference and thereby  the
policies  and actions  of all of us  in the future.  We  in  EPA  look  forward to
working with all of you during the next three  days.
                                      13

-------
                                                                           60  CNEL  DECREASE
                                                                           55 CMEL  DECREASE
DATA BASED ON IBftN  PROJECT 164358 (UPDATE) 1977 AND R.DiXON SPIAS ASSOCIATES ANCLUC STUDY FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT
NOISE ABATEMENT
   CENTER
        TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (ANCLUC) STUDY
CNEL CONTOURS
 1979 vs \977
DRAWNQ

 TOA-

-------
               AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL MATRIX

                 Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon*

                    Mr. James P. Reese+
                     Prepared for the

              CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION

           AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING

                     Atlanta, Georgia

                      October 3-5, 1979
                          Held at

               THE GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

                    College of Architecture

                  Department of City Planning

                    Atlanta, Georgia  30332
^Professor of City Planning,
Director of Interdisciplinary Programs
+Graduate Research Assistant
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia  30332
                          15

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION	  l7
NOISE CONTROL MEASURES	   20





      Remedial Measures	20




      Preventive Measures	23





PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE  CONTROL MEASURES  	   29
      Public Sector
                                           29
      Private Sector 	 33



      National Associations  	 35





THE EXTENT OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE  CONTROL



  MEASURES 	 38





      Level of Involvement  	38



      Manner of Involvement	  40
CONCLUDING REMARKS  	 42





APPENDIX A
                         16

-------
                        INTRODUCTION






       The need for planning around airports has been recog-



nized as a growing environmental impact problem.  To date,



the primary emphasis for most planning has involved air



carrier airports with general aviation largely overlooked.



       A survey of general aviation airports prepared under



the National Environmental Policy Act requirements indicates



that off-airport land use planning Is decidedly limited.  In



a study conducted by Bragdon for EPA, 111 completed airport



master plans were reviewed.  Only 50% of these plans did



address off-airport land use, and in nearly all instances



the concern for land use compatibility was ignored.



       The rational management of land adjacent to airports



is essential to maximize our resources, and minimize con-



flict.  Frequently, the incompatible development of this



land results in litigation, residential displacement, and



a loss in property tax revenue.  A primary reason for the



present condition is that constituents that participate



and/or influence land use decision-making are not collec-



tively involved.  Typically there is little coordination



between the public, private and quasi-public actors asso-



ciated with airport-community related planning issues.  For



example, local governmental officials, land developers  and




financial institutions very often make independent decisions



without concern for the long-range impacts.  Without collec-
                          17

-------
tive participation general aviation airport master plans



will not be adequately developed and implemented.   All role



players and constituents must be identified and participate



in general aviation airport planning to maximize effective-




ness .



       This report proposes a technique to assist  local



officials in identifying and gauging the involvement of the



role players who participate, either directly or indirectly,



in the development of an airport and its adjacent  land area.



The technique can serve as a guide for local decision-makers



and officials in the preparation of a noise control strategy



for their general aviation airport.



       Two matrices are used to illustrate the involvement



of the various parties in specific noise control measures.



A noise control measure is an action taken by either the public



or private sector that serves to prevent,  curtail  or reduce



the negative impact of general aviation noise on the communi-



ties surrounding an airport.



       The matrices distinguish party involvement  during the



two primary stages of the decision-making process:  planning



and implementation.  The first matrix represents the level



and manner of each party's involvement during the  planning



stage  of the noise control measure(s).  The second matrix



represents the level and manner of each party's involvement



during the implementation stage.  It is the combination of



these  two matrices that reflect land use related decision
                             18

-------
making.




       This report contains four sections.  The first sec-



tion lists and defines the various noise control measures



that may be available to local officials in dealing with



general aviation noise problems.  Section two identifies



the parties involved in the planning and implementation of



the noise control measures.  The extent of each party's



involvement is discussed in section three, while the final



section contains general conclusions.  A complete matrix,



which  shows the interactive process of decision making, is




contained in the Appendix.
                            19

-------
                   NOISE CONTROL MEASURES

       The noise control measures listed across the top of
each matrix are divided into two categories:   remedial and
preventive. ' Those measures oriented more towards existing
development around an airport are considered remedial;
while the measures 'dealing with undeveloped land are preven-
tive.  Remedial measures are typically more expensive to
carry out than preventive measures, since an existing capital
intensive facility is in place.
       The two categories are by no means mutually exclusive,
however.  For example, fee simple interest in property can
be acquired for developed as well as undeveloped land.  The
cost of using such a measure as a remedial device, however,
may be prohibitive.

                    Remedial Measures

       The measures that can be used to correct the problems
created by incompatible development around a general avia-
tion airport include among others:

           (1)  Tax incentive
           (2)  Aircraft noise reduction
           (3)  Airport operator controls
           (4)  Pair disclosure ordinance
           (5)  Restrictions on private mortgage loans
           (-6)  Housing relocation and assistance
           (7)  Purchase leaseback
           (8)  Aviation easement
                            20

-------
       Tax incentives can be offered by local governments



to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the communities



adjacent to an airport.  These incentives may take the



form of a property tax rebate to homeowners and businesses



that install sound attenuation insulation.  The adoption



of this measure may require special legislation by the



state body legally enabling the local government to take



such action.



       Aircraft noise reduction requires the development



of new engine designs or major redesign of existing engines.



This is a long-term solution to the noise problem and will



require increased research by the federal government and



engine manufacturers.



       Certain measures can be taken in the operation of



an airport to minimize its impact on the surrounding area.



For example, the airport operator can require that during



certain times of the day, provided weather conditions are



permitting, all aircraft use a designated runway.  The



approach path for the preferred runway may allow operations



over the more sparsely developed area around the airport,



thus minimizing the impact of noise.  An operator may also



require that pilots use a steeper approach to the runway.



       Noise response monitoring is a type of airport opera-




tor control.  A special noise monitoring staff is designated



by the airport operator to receive and plot complaints of



excessive aircraft noise.  If a disproportionate share of
                            21

-------
complaints are located within a particular corridor, the



approach and departure paths are realigned away from these



areas.  Often the monitoring includes acquisition of physi-




cal or acoustical airport data.



       A fair disclosure ordinance requires realtors and



developers to notify potential real estate purchasers that



the subject property is adversely affected by aircraft



noise.  Such an ordinance requires local legislative action.



       If money is not made available for the purchase of



homes in areas adversely impacted by noise, residential



development will be severely curtailed.  Restrictions on



private mortgage loans would accomplish this objective.



Special state legislation would more than likely be required



to carry out this measure.



       An area immediately adjacent to the end of a runway



may be so severely impacted by noise to the point where it



is uninhabitable.  In this case the airport operator will



have to purchase the property and relocate the occupants.



Federal assistance is available to accomplish this task



through the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of



1970.




       In the event it becomes necessary for an airport



operator to purchase a business severely impacted by noise



or acquire a vacant tract of land immediately adjacent to



the airport, they may wish to lease the property to a com-



patible tenant.   Such a measure does generally require a
                             22

-------
large initial capital outlay.
       A more inexpensive alternative to the purchase of
property is the acquisition of an avigation easement.  An
avlgation easement allows the proprietor to operate air-
craft over a particular land area under a long term agree-
ment.  The effected owner(s) receive compensation, which
represents a certain percentage of the fair market value
of the property.
                  Preventive Measures
       Measures that can be used to reduce or eliminate
the potential for incompatible development around airports
include:
           (1)   Zoning ordinance
           (2)   Subdivision regulations
           (3)   Building code
           (4)   Airport noise attenuation zone
           (5)   Capital improvements program
           (6)   Fee simple purchase
           (7)   Revolving fund purchase
           (8)   Installment-purchase
           (9)   Option
         (10)   Acquisition of the development rights

       A zoning ordinance is used to regulate land use within
a given jurisdiction.  The ordinance specifies the uses that
are permitted within designated areas or zoning districts.
These zones are delineated by the local legislative body  (i.e
City or County  Council) or an appointed board (i.e. Planning
Board) with input from the community.  The ordinance itself
is adopted by the local governing body and is enforced by
                           23

-------
either the local building inspector or a special zoning



administrator.



       The zoning ordinance can be used to control devel-



opment around airports.  Areas adjacent to an airport can



be zoned to permit only those uses that will not be ad-



versely affected by aircraft noise.  Beside regulating the



use of land, a zoning ordinance can legally regulate the



height, bulk and area of a permitted use.



       Subdivision regulations insure that lot layout and



design and adequate improvements are provided for new



development.  These regulations can require that vacant



land, adversely affected by aircraft noise, be subdivided



into large lots, thus discouraging dense residential devel-



opment.  The actual siting of structures on the land can



also be included in a regulation.  Local governing body



adopts subdivision regulations with input and advice from



the community and the local planning board.



       A building code prescribes the minimum standards



for the construction of structures.  This code, legally



adopted by the local governing body, is meant to guarantee



the health and safety and welfare of the community.  The



building code can require that all residential structures



constructed within the areas impacted by aircraft noise be



insulated with sound attenuation material.  Often a certain



sound transmission class (STC) is specified.



       An airport noise attenuation zone combines charac-
                            24

-------
teristics of both the zoning ordinance and building code.



This measure provides for the delineation of zones around



an airport based on the relative impact of noise on these



areas.  Minimum sound attenuation standards are then estab-



lished for the construction of new buildings within each



zone -




       A capital improvements program (GIF) is a planning



tool used by local jurisdictions to phase the installation



of needed public facilities (e.g. water and sewer lines,



roads, schools) on a priority basis.  A short-range GIF,



which usually projects needs 3-5 years into the future,



specifies what public improvements will be provided by a



given jurisdiction and when these improvements will be con-



structed.  A GIF precedes the preparation of a capital



improvements budget  (GIB).  The GIB identifies the methods



by which the improvements will be financed and the source



of the funds.  Development follows the installation of



public improvements, such as utilities and roads.  The GIF



can serve to direct the expenditure of public funds in



those geographical areas most compatible with airport



related development.



       A fee simple purchase of property entails the acqui-



sition of all the rights associated with the ownership of




that property.  Among those rights are mineral, air, and




development (as constrained by local land use regulations).



An airport operator may wish to acquire fee simple interest

-------
in that property around an airport most severely impacted
by aircraft noise.  This measure would guarantee maximum
control over the development of the property and insure
against incompatible development.  If the airport is still
in the planning stages, this excess property can be acquired
with the site itself.  Once the property has been acquired
the airport operator can opt to dispose of it for private
development with attached restrictive  covenants, retain
ownership and maintain a buffer around the facility or
retain the property for public use  (i.e. parks, maintenance
garage and storage areas).
       The major drawback to the  acquisition of fee simple
interest in property is the initial capital outlay that is
required.  One of three alternatives measures can be used
to acquire the needed property and  reduce the initial capital
outlay:

           (1)  Revolving fund purchase
           (2)  Installment-purchase
           (3)  Option

       A revolving fund involves  the acquisition of the
needed property one tract at a time, the preparation of
each tract for development, and the sale of the tract with
attached conditions.  The proceeds  from the sale are then
used to purchase the next tract and the cycle continues
until all the land impacted by noise has been acquired and
developed in a compatible manner-
                            26

-------
       An installation-purchase program allows the airport



operator to acquire the property required over time.   A



bank may provide the initial outlay to the land owner in




the form of a loan to the airport operator, who in turn



repays the bank in annual installments.



       An option conveys to its bearer the right to purchase



a particular piece of property within a specified period



of time.  An airport operator may not have the necessary



funds to acquire all the property impacted by noise so he/



she would obtain an option on the property that cannot be



purchased immediately.  The term of an option varies with



each agreement.  If a three year option is obtained, the



bearer must either purchase the property before the end of



the term, renew the option, or relinquish his/her right to



purchase the property.  The cost of an option, although it



varies, usually includes the property taxes and a standard



interest charge.



       Rather than purchase the entire fee simple interest



in the property adversely affected by noise, an airport



operator may wish to simply acquire the development rights



for the property.  This technique is appropriate when the



land is being used for farming purposes.  The cost of the



development rights for a particular land parcel equals the



difference between the value of that acre at its highest



and best use and its existing value.  If the highest and




best use was dense multi-family or commercial development,



the cost of the development rights would probably not be
                          27

-------
much less than the cost of the fee simple interest in the



property.  This measure is most effective where the highest



and best use is low density residential, or if the develop-



ment rights can be sold on the open market and transferred



to another tract of land.
                             28

-------
         PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES

       Parties from both the public and private sector are
involved in planning and implementing noise control measures.
In addition to public and private actors, the national
organizations representing actors from both sectors are also
listed on the matrices.
       A description of each party's involvement in noise
control is provided in this section.  The descriptions are
very general and merely provide a basic understanding of
the kind of role each party assumes.  The reader is referred
to the matrices for a more comprehensive understanding.

                      Public Sector

       Parties from all levels of the public sector are in-
volved, either directly or indirectly, in a noise control
strategy.  Federal as well as local governments influence
the development of general aviation airports and surrounding
areas.
       The public sector parties involved in the measures
listed on the matrices include:

           (1)  Local governing body
           (2)  Local planning commission (including staff)
           (3)  Local governmental agencies
           (4)  Airport operator
           (5)  Quasi-public authorities
           (6)  Sub-state regional authorities
           (7)  State legislative body
                             29

-------
           (8)  State administrative agencies
           (9)  Federal Aviation Administration
          (10)  Environmental Protection Agency
          (11)  Housing and Urban Development

       The first five parties are most directly involved in
noise control measures.  The local governing body formulates
policies and adopts regulations (e.g. zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations) which address the development of
land adjacent to an airport.  If the airport is operated by
a governmental agency, the governing body is ultimately
responsible for the operation of the facility.
       The planning commission generally serves in an advisory
capacity to the local governing body.  The commission reviews
zoning requests and subdivision plats and makes recommendations
to the governing body.  The staff to the commission plays a
technical role, maintaining projections of the future needs of
the community and preparing objective evaluations of land
development related issues for the commission's consideration.
       Local governmental agencies maintain existing community
facilities and services and advise the governing body on the
future location of public facilities.  A capital improvements
program, mentioned previously, coordinates the activities of
these agencies.
       The role of the airport operator will vary with the
nature of the entity responsible for the operation of the
facility.  If the airport is operated by a governmental
agency or a representative of the local government,  all poli-
                             30

-------
cies dealing with noise control will generally emanate from



the local governing body.  However, in the event an authority



is created to oversee the construction, maintenance and



operation of the airport, a board of directors (appointed by



the local governing body) will formulate noise control policy.



       A quasi-public authority can also influence develop-



ment around an airport.  The independent nature of authorities



permits them to function outside the political process, once



established.  This independence creates a coordination problem.



Each authority, whether it administers a water or a school



system, can influence the direction and intensity of growth.



Their activities must, therefore, be coordinated with those



of the local governmental agencies if a comprehensive approach



to development is to succeed.



       Sub-state regional agencies generally serve a review



function.  This power  (as granted through the Federal A-95



review process) permits these agencies to review and comment



on plans which have some regional impact and entail the ex-



penditure of federal funds (e.g. airport planning and con-



struction) .



       The state legislative body passes enabling legislation



that grants specific powers to municipalities and authorities.



If a municipality wished to offer special tax incentives to



guarantee compatible development around an airport, for



example, special state legislation would more than likely be



required.
                              31

-------
       In some cases the state department of transportation
(DOT) provides grants for airport planning and construction.
In Georgia, for example, the state DOT provides for 10% of
the cost of the following items:

          (1)  Master plan preparation
          (2)  Runway construction and lighting installation
          (3)  Various costs such as utility extension

       The federal government plays a significant role in air-
port planning and development.   The Federal Airport Trust Fund,
administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
provides airport planning and construction grants on an 80-20
match basis.  Among the uses to  which these grants can be put
is the purchase of land adversely impacted by noise.  The FAA
also formulates federal policy dealing with airport noise
control.
       The EPA, through the Administrator is responsible for
coordinating all federal noise efforts.  Although EPA does
have legal authority to propose  regulations for controlling
and abating aircraft noise the FAA, after consultation with
EPA and the Secretary of Transportation, is responsible for
prescribing and amending aircraft standards and regulations.
       The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans
Administration  (VA) insure home  mortgages.  The FHA, for
example, has a policy of not insuring mortgages on homes
located in the zone around an airport most severely impacted
by aircraft noise.  Less impacted impacted areas can receive
mortgage approval only when certain controls are instituted
                            32

-------
(e.g. acoustical treatment of structure).  Both of these
programs are associated with the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development.

                     Private Sector
       The private sector parties involved in planning and
implementing the measures listed on the matrices include:

           (1)  Fixed base operator
           (2)  Property owners
           (3)  Neighborhood organizations
           (4)  Environmental groups
           (5)  Local chamber of commerce
           (6)  Real estate firms
           (7)  Private developers
           (8)  Private contractors and builders
           (9)  Private lending institutions
          (10)  Aircraft engine manufacturing firms
          (11)  Planning and environmental consultants

       A  fixed base operator leases an airport terminal from
a municipal or county government and maintains and operates
the  facility.  Under these circumstances, the ultimate
responsibility for airport policy lies with the local govern-
ing  body.
       Individuals who own property around an airport can
have opposing interests in airport operations.  A residential
property  owner may oppose airport operations if aircraft
noise decreases their property values and disturbs them
personally.  Another property owner may, however, possess  a
vacant tract of land that is large enough to be developed
                           33

-------
industrially (or in some other compatible manner).   This



owner would, therefore,  welcome airport expansion.



       Neighborhood organisations consist of property owners



and renters.  If enough  members of a particular organization



are adversely affected by aircraft noise, the organization



may well take a stand against airport operations.   An environ-



mental group would represent the interests of those citizens




adversely affected by noise.



       The local chamber of commerce consists of local busi-



nessmen and is concerned with the economic growth  of the



community.  An airport can stimulate or enhance the economy



of an area.  Therefore,  the Chamber of Commerce would tend



to espouse the economic  virtues of airport operations.



       The development of land around an airport Involves



the participation of developers, lending institutions, con-



tractors and builders, and real estate firms.  The developer



"packages" the development and obtains financing from a lend-



ing institution.  "Packaging" a development often entails



preparing a market analysis and project feasibility study and



in some cases, acquiring the necessary property.  The con-



tractors and builders, as well as the developer, may be in-



volved in the actual construction of the project.   A real



estate firm then sells the project.



       Aircraft engine manufacturing firms are concerned with



producing engines that provide for the safe and efficient



operation of aircraft.  Recent federal legislation requires
                            34

-------
that engines manufactured meet certain noise standards.  As
a result, engine manufacturing firms have a vested interest
in noise control strategies for airports.
       Consultants play an advisory role in planning and
implementing noise control measures.  Planning and environ-
mental consultants sometimes assist in the preparation of
airport compatibility studies.  These firms can also serve
in an advocacy position, representing the interests of a
local community.

                  National Associations

       There are several national associations which repre-
sent the interests of the various role players involved in
airport noise and land use compatibility planning (see Appen-
dix A).  Most of the associations simply provide a forum
where their members can express opinions on particular issues
Some of the associations are sufficiently large and they can
exert political pressure on and influence the decisions of
local, state and federal legislative and policy making offi-
cials.  All of the associations listed in the appendix have
roles to play in planning and implementing certain noise
control measures.
       The associations are divided into ten categories:

           (1)  Associations for aircraft operators
           (2)  Associations for airport operators
           (3)  Manufacturing related associations
           (4)  Associations dealing with airport services
           (5)  Associations related to  airport safety
                             35

-------
           (6)  Other aviation-related associations
           (7)  Environmental associations
           (8)  Real estate and development associations
           (9)  Banking associations
          (10)  Other relevant national associations

       The associations represented in each category, due
to a common interest, assume similar roles in the planning
and implementation of noise control measures.  The first
six categories deal directly with aviation concerns.  Asso-
ciations for aircraft operators represent the interests of
aircraft' pilots and owners.  One of the largest and most
influential aviation associations, the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA), falls within this category.
       The associations in category two represent airport
operators.  The third category includes associations which
represent firms that produce and/or distribute aviation
products (i.e. aircraft, aircraft engines, electronic de-
vices , etc.).
       The members of the associations in the fourth category
rely on airports for their livelihood.  Any disruption in
the operation of an airport may affect the financial status
of the members in this category.  The last two aviation
categories deal with flight safety and the overall develop-
ment of the aviation industry, respectively.
       The next 'three categories contain associations that
represent specific airport noise and land development in-
terests of communities around airports that are adversely
                              36

-------
affected by noise.  The real estate and banking associations



represent the respective interests of these two parties and,



in some cases, influence the land development and lending



practices and policies of association members.
                            37

-------
             THE EXTENT OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT



                IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES








       Knowledge of the noise control measures and the par-



ties involved in those measures is a necessary prerequisite



to the preparation of an effective noise control strategy.



An understanding of the extent of the parties involvement



is equally important, however, as it allows the officials



devising a strategy to assess its impact and incorporate the



input of these parties affected into any final plan or pro-



posal.



       Two indicators are used in the matrices to assess the



extent of a party's involvement in a particular noise con-




trol measure:  (1) the level of involvement and, (2) the




manner of involvement.





                  Level of Involvement
       A party is Involved in a noise control measure on one



of two levels:  direct or indirect.  The characteristics of



each level are represented in Tab^e 1.



       Scale Is the crucial distinguishing factor between



direct and indirect involvement.  The remaining character-



istics are byproducts of scale.  Those parties that operate



at the local level and have an ongoing role in the local



decision-making process will be more directly involved in



planning and implementing noise control measures.   Private



as well as public parties are involved at this level.   On
                          38

-------
                        TABLE I
            THE LEVEL OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT
DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTICS
Scale
Continuity
Duration
Complexity
      Direct

Restricted to Local
Involvement

Continuous Involve-
ment in Local Deci-
sion-Making Process

Long-Term Involve-
ment in Measure

Decisions are Less
Complex, Involving
Fewer Parties
      Indirect

Regional., State, or
Federal Involvement

Sporadic Involvement
in Local Decision-
Making Process

Short-Term Involvement
in Measure

Decisions are More
Complex, Involving
Several Bureaucratic
and Governmental
Levels
Constituency
Party is Responsible
to or in Constant
Contact with Consti-
tuency Affected by
Measure.
Party is Distant from
Constituency Affected
by Measure.
                             39

-------
the other hand, those governmental administrative agencies
and private organizations removed from the local scene
have only an indirect influence on the local decision-
making process.
       The higher the level of involvement the more time
consuming and complex the decision-making process will be.
For example, a zoning ordinance will only require decisions
at the local level, whereas the purchase of fee simple
interest in land will more than likely require federal and,
in some cases, state funding.  The inclusion of these two
additional levels will involve more time and several more
parties .

                  Manner of Involvement
       Three parameters are used to distinguish the manner
of a party's involvement In planning and implementing a
noise control measure :

           (1)  The party serves in an advisory capacity
           (2)  The party has an economic stake In the
                measure, and
           (3)  The party is involved in an administrative,
                legislative or policy formulation manner.

       The parties that approach the measure objectively,
seeking to advise the decision-makers, function in an
advisory capacity.  Under certain circumstances, the role
of the adviser will change from one stage of the process
to the next.  For example, while the planning commission
                            40

-------
and staff may serve in an advisory capacity during the



planning stage of a zoning ordinance, once the ordinance



is adopted, the role of the staff becomes administrative.



       The input of a party with an economic stake in a



measure will tend to be subjective.  If, for example, a



proposed airport zoning ordinance will restrict a property



owner from developing his land beyond two units per acre



when the market could bear a multi-family development, the



property owner would have an economic stake in the matter



and, therefore, assume a subjective position.



       Governing bodies (including local and state bodies),



administrative officials and boards, and airport operators



comprise the group of parties involved in noise control



measures in an administrative, legislative and policy for-



mulation manner.  Administrative and legislative tasks are,



in most cases, carried out by local elected and appointed



officials.  Policy formulation is carried out by these offi-



cials, as well as state and federal agencies.



       The manner of a party's involvement sometimes varies



depending on when he is involved in the decision-making



process.  If, for example, a quasi-public authority has



sold bonds for a public improvement on the assumption that



dense development will follow, it will more than likely take



a stand against land use controls requiring low density




residential development or agricultural use.  The authority's



primary concern is with protecting the interests of its



bondholders.
                             41

-------
                     CONCLUDING REMARKS








       The matrices discussed in this report provide some



guidance to local officials in both the identification



of the parties involved and, the assessment of the extent



of the parties involvement, in carrying out selected noise



control measures.  These matrices serve only as references,



however.  The problems associated with coordinating the



involvement of the parties is a complex process that will



vary with each local situation.  The measures chosen to deal



with the problem will also vary, depending on such factors



as:  (1) the number of jurisdictions affected, (2) the avail-



ability of funds, and (3) the type of land uses affected.



       It is essential that local officials perceive the



scope of the general aviation noise problem and identify



and involve all affected parties in the search for an appro-



priate noise control strategy.  Such advance planning will



result in the effective and rational management of land



adjacent to general aviation airports, while minimizing



the potential conflict between the many parties involved.
                          42

-------
                        APPENDIX A




                   NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS







I.     Associations for Aircraft Operators



      (a)  Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association



      (b)  Lawyer-Pilot Bar Association



      (c)  National Pilots Association





II.   Associations for Airport Operators



      (a)  Airport Operators Council International



      (b)  American Association of Airport Executives





III.  Manufacturing Related Associations



      (a)  Aerospace Industries Association of America



      (b)  Aircraft Electronics Association



      (c)  Aviation Distributors and Manufacturers Association



      (d)  General Aviation Manufacturers Association





IV.   Associations Dealing with Airport Services



      (a)  Air Freight Forwarders Association of America




      (b)  Air Mail Pioneers



      (c)  Air Transport Association of America



      (d)  American Society of Traffic and Transportation




      (e)  Commuter Airline Association of America



      (f)  National Air Carrier Association



      (g)  National Association of Flight Instructors



      (h)  National Business Aircraft Association



      (i)  National Agricultural Aviation Association
                               43

-------
V.     Associations Related to Airport Safety



       (a)  Flight Safety Foundation



       (b)  Institute of Navigation



       (c)  National Safety Council





VI.    Other Airport Related Associations



       (a)  Aviation Development Council



       (b)  National Air Transportation Association



       (c)  National Association of State Aviation Officials



       (d)  American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics



       (e)  Transportation Association of America





VII.   Real Estate Associations



       (a)  American Land Development Association



       (b)  American Land Title Association



       (c)  American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers



       (d)  National Association of Real Estate Appraisers



       (e)  Society of Real Estate Appraisers



       (f)  Real Estate Aviation Chapter



       (g)  National Association of Real Estate Brokers



       (h)  National Apartment Association



       (i)  National Association of Industrial and Office Parks



       (j)  National Association of Realtors



       (k)  National Property Management Association



       (1)  Relocation Assistance Association of America



       (m)  Society of Industrial Realtors



       (n)  American Real Estate and Urban Economics  Association
                              44

-------
VIII.  Banking Associations



       (a) Independent Bankers Association of America



       (b) Mortgage Bankers Association of America



       (c) American Bankers Association



       (d) National Bankers Association



       (e) American Savings and Loan League



       (f) American Society of Bank Directors



       (g) Council of Mutual  Savings Institutions



       (h) United Mortgage Bankers of America



       (i) United States  League of Savings Association





IX.    Environmental Associations



       (a) Institute of Environmental Sciences



       (b) Environmental  Action Coalition



       (c) Community Environmental Council



       (d) National Environmental Health Association



       (e) Environmental  Law  Institute



       (f) National Organization to Insure a  Sound-Controlled



           Environment



       (g) Committee on Noise as a Public Health  Hazard



       (h) Association for the Reduction of Aircraft  Noise




       (i) Citizens Against Noise



       (j) Citizens for a Quieter City



       (k) Sierra Club



       (1) National Association of Noise Control  Officials
                            45

-------
X.     Other Relevant National Associations



       (a)  Chamber of Commerce of the United States



       (b)  National League of Cities



       (c)  International City Management Association



       (d)  National Association of County Administrators



       (e)  National Association of Counties



       (f)  Council of State Governments



       (g)  National Governors Association



       (h)  The Urban Land Institute



       (i)  Institute of Noise Control Engineering
                             46

-------
NOISE CONTROL MATRIX
    PLANNING STAGE
      (SCHEMATIC)
                                             Nl
               47

-------
NOISE CONTROL MATRIX'
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
      (SCHEMATIC)
                                              Nl
               48

-------
   KEY SHEET FOR PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES









A.  Local Governing Body




B.  Local Planning Commission (including staff)




C.  Local Governmental Agencies




D.  Airport Operator




E.  Quasi-Public Authorities




F.  Sub-State Regional Authorities




G.  State Legislative Body




H.  State Administrative Agencies




I.  Federal Aviation Administration




J.  Environmental Protection Agency




K.  Housing and Urban Development




L.  Fixed Base Operator




M.  Property Owners




N.  Neighborhood Organizations




0.  Environmental Groups




P.  Local Chamber of Commerce




Q.  Real Estate Firms




R.  Private Developers




S.  Private Contractors and Builders




T.  Private Lending Institutions




U.  Aircraft Engine Manufacturing Firms




V.  Planning and Environmental Consultants




W.  Associations for Aircraft Operators




X.  Associations for Aircraft Operators
                                49

-------
 Y.  Manufacturing Related Associations




 Z.  Associations Dealing with Airport Services




AA.  Associations Related to Airport Safety




BB.  Other Aviation Related Associations




CC.  Environmental Associations




DD.  Real Estate and Development Associations




EE.  Banking Associations




FF.  Other Relevant National Associations
                                    50

-------
             KEY SHEET FOR NOISE CONTROL MEASURES









 1.   Tax Incentive




 2.   Aircraft Noise Reduction




 3.   Airport Operator Controls




 4.   Fair Disclosure Ordinance




 5.   Restrictions on Private Mortgage Loans




 6.   Housing Relocation and Assistance




 7.   Purchase Leaseback




 8.   Aviation Easement




 9.   Zoning Ordinance




10.   Subdivision Regulations




11.   Building Code




12.   Airport Noise Attenuation Zone




13.   Capital Improvements Program




14.   Fee Simple Purchase




15.   Revolving Fund Purchase




16.   Installment - Purchase




17.   Option




18.   Acquisition of Development Rights
                                51

-------
    LEVEL OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
                       (Key to Legend)
Dl - Directly involved; party serves in an advisory capacity.

D2 - Directly involved; party has an economic stake in the measure.

D3 - Directly involved; party is involved in an administrative, legis-
     lative or policy formulation manner.
II - Indirectly involved; party serves in an advisory capacity.

12 - Indirectly involved; party has an economic stake in the measure.

13 - Indirectly involved; party is involved in an administrative, legis-
     lative or policy formulation manner.



Nl - Party is not involved in the measure.
                               52

-------
         GENERAL AVIATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
                PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
                     JOHN E, WESLER
ANY DISCUSSION OF GENERAL AVIATION MUST BEGIN WITH SOME
DEFINITION OF THE TERM,  "GENERAL AVIATION" IS NOT STRICTLY
DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE
PROMULGATED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
IN ORDER TO REGULATE AIR COMMERCE, PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE, AND
DEVELOP CIVIL AERONAUTICS, AND CONTROL THE NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE OF THE UNITED STATES,
AS NORMALLY ACCEPTED, "GENERAL AVIATION" REFERS TO ALL
CIVIL AIRCRAFT OPERATED IN THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT
THOSE OPERATED UNDER PARTS 121 AND 127 OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION REGULATIONS--THAT IS, ALL LARGE AIRCRAFT AND
HELICOPTERS USED IN SCHEDULED AIR CARRIER OPERATION,  THUS,
"GENERAL AVIATION" INCLUDES SUCH USES AS AIR TRAVEL CLUBS
WITH BOEING 707S AMD CONVAIR 880S, AIR TAXI AND COMMERCIAL
OPERATORS OF SMALL AIRCRAFT, AIR CARGO CARRIERS, AND BUSINESS
CORPORATE AIRCRAFT, IN ADDITION TO THOSE NORMALLY THOUGHT OF
AS RECREATIONAL AIRCRAFT,  ALONGSIDE THE SMALL SINGLE-ENGINE
PROPELLER-DRIVEN PIPER CUB RESIDES A BOEING 707, CLASSIFIED
AS A "GENERAL AVIATION" AIRPLANE.
                          53

-------
FOR OUR PURPOSES THIS MORNING,  I  BELIEVE WE ARE MORE
INTERESTED IN THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WHICH OPERATE INTO
AND OUT OF THE SMALLER AIRPORTS AROUND OUR COUNTRY,
ALTHOUGH STRICTLY SPEAKING, MANY LARGER JET-POWERED  AIR-
PLANES ARE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL AVIATION CATEGORY,
THEY ARE NOT OF INTEREST TO US  HERE BECAUSE THEY OPERATE
ALMOST ENTIRELY OUT OF MEDIUM AND LARGE HUB AIRPORTS,   WE
MEAN TO CONCENTRATE ON SMALLER  AIRCRAFT,
SMALLER GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DOMINATE THE U,S,  CIVIL
AIR FLEET,  THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 193,000 GENERAL  AVIATION
AIRCRAFT IN USE TODAY, COMPARED WITH LESS THAN 2,400 AIR
CARRIER AND AIR CARRIER TYPE AIRCRAFT,   GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT:
     -  ARE FLOWN BY 798,800 ACTIVE PILOTS
     -  WILL FLY 39 MILLION HOURS THIS YEAR
     -  MAKE SOME 54 MILLION RECORDED OPERATIONS AT
        AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS
     -  MAKE APPROXIMATELY 17 MILLION INSTRUMENT
        OPERATIONS

GENERAL AVIATION GROWTH WILL CONTINUE AT A HIGH RATE,   OVER
THE NEXT 12 YEARS-IN 1991-WE  FORECAST THAT THERE WILL
BE:
     -  304,000 GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT-AN ANNUAL
        INCREASE OF 3.9 PERCENT
                         54

-------
     -  1,110,700 ACTIVE PILCTS--AN ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
        OF 2,8 PERCENT
     -  64 MILLION HOURS FLOWM--AN ANNUAL INCREASE OF
        4,2 PERCENT
     -  NEARLY 76 MILLION RECORDED OPERATIONS AT
        AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS-AM ANNUAL GROWTH
        RATE OF 3.0 PERCENT
     -  OVER 31 MILLION INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS-AN ANNUAL
        GROWTH RATE OF 5,1 PERCENT
     -  FASTER-THAN-AVERAGE GROWTH IN CORPORATE BUSINESS
        FLYING
     -  SLOWED GROWTH IN RECREATIONAL FLYING DUE TO
        CONTINUALLY RISING FUEL COSTS
THESE STATISTICS DISPLAY ONLY A PORTION OF THE GENERAL
AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THIS COUNTRY,  THE OPERATIONS LISTED
ABOVE ARE ONLY THOSE AFFECTING THE FAA'S WORKLOAD--THAT IS,
OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS,  AT THE BEGINNING
OF THIS YEAR, THERE WERE 14,574 AIRPORTS IN THE U,S,, OF
WHICH 13,853 HANDLED ONLY GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT,  AND
730 HANDLED BOTH GENERAL AVIATION AND CERTIFIED AIR CARRIER
OPERATIONS,  ONLY 428 OF THESE AIRPORTS HAVE FAA TOWERS,
THUS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GENERAL AVIATION TAKEOFFS AMD
LANDINGS IN THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO 'QUESTION,
                           55

-------
THE FORECASTED GROWTH IN GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
PORTENDS GROWING  PROBLEMS AT THE SMALLER AIRPORTS WHICH
MUST HANDLE THESE OPERATIONS,  THE SHEER INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF NOISE EVENTS,  ADDING TO THE ABSOLUTE GROWTH AT THE
SMALLER AIRPORTS WILL BE THE LESSENED USE OF LARGER HUB
AIRPORTS BY GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT,   THE POTENTIAL
DANGERS OF MIXING OPERATIONS AT LARGER AIRPORTS WAS
TRAGICALLY ILLUSTRATED LAST YEAR AT SAN DIEGO, WITH THE
MID-AIR COLLISION BETWEEN AN AIR CARRIER 727 AMD A SMALL
SINGLE-ENGINE PROPRELLER-DRIVEN AIRPLANE.  AS PART OF OUR
PROGRAM TO REDUCE THIS RISK, THE FAA HAS ACCELERATED ITS
IMPROVEMENTS OF SATELLITE, OR RELIEVER AIRPORTS NEAR MAJOR
HUBS,  AS THE NAME INDICATES, SATELLITE AIRPORTS WILL HAVE
SUITABLE RUNWAYS, APRONS, CLEAR ZONES,  AND NAVIGATIONAL
EQUIPMENT TO ATTRACT GENERAL AVIATION AND TRAINING OPERATIONS
AWAY FROM THE LARGER AIRPORTS,  THUS, MANY SMALLER AIRPORTS
WILL SEE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN OPERATIONS DURING THE
COMING YEARS,

THE FEDERAL POLICY REGARDING AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT WAS
STATED IN 1976,  ESSENTIALLY, IT WAS OUR THEME AT THAT TIME--
AND REMAINS THE SAME TODAY--THAT AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT  IS
                                 56

-------
A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AMONG ALL ELEMENTS OF THE AIRPORT
COMMUNITY,  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST:
     -  CONTROL AIRCRAFT NOISE AT THE SOURCE--THE AIRPLANE
        ITSELF
     -  CONTROL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AMD MANAGE THE
        NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE SO AS TO MINIMIZE NOISE
        IMPACTS
     -  PROVIDE FUNDING TO PERMIT AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
        PROJECTS
     -  SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF
        NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY
THE FAA HAS MET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES:
     -  NOISE STANDARDS LIMIT THE NOISE LEVELS OF NEW-
        DESIGN AND NEW-PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING
        SMALL PROPELLER-DRIVEN MODELS
     -  OPERATIONS AT FAA-CONTROLLED AIRPORTS ARE
        TAILORED TO MINIMIZE NOISE IMPACTS
     -  FAA PROVIDES FEDERAL FINANCING OF AIRPORT
        PROJECTS FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PURPOSES, AND
        WE HAVE PROPOSED NEW LEGISLATION TO EXTEND
        ELIGIBILITY TO SOUNDPROOFING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
        NEAR AIRPORTS, AND NOISE MONITORING EQUIPMENT
     -  FAA WORKS CLOSELY WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
        AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO PUSH NOISE ABATEMENT
        TECHNOLOGY
                         57

-------
BUT THE FEDERAL EFFORTS ALONE CAN NEVER SOLVE THE
AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM,  AIRCRAFT WILL NEVER BE SI LENT,
NO MATTER HOW ADVANCED THE TECHNOLOGY, THERE WILL REMAIN
A RESIDUAL NOISE IMPACT, WHICH MUST BE ATTACKED BY THE
OTHER ACTORS IN THE AIRPORT GAME:
     -  AIRPORT OPERATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
        DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS AT THEIR AIRPORTS,
        AND ARE FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES
        WHICH RESULT, INCLUDING NOISE DAMAGES
     -  STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE
        FOR LAND-USE CONTROL AND ZONING, AND FOR
        PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF THE AIRPORT
        NOISE CONDITIONS
     -  AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
        PROPER CONTROL OF THEIR AIRPLANES, FLYING
        THEM SAFELY  IN A MANNER LEAST INTRUSIVE TO
        AIRPORT NEIGHBORS

ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT OF OUR MEETING HERE TODAY IS GENERAL
AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND-USE PLANNING, I WOULD LIKE
TO CONCENTRATE FIRST ON THOSE THINGS WHICH AN AIRPORT
PROPRIETOR CAN DO TO LIMIT NOISE AT HIS OR HER  AIRPORT
AND THUS MINIMIZE THE RESIDUAL JOB LEFT TO THE LAND-USE
PLANNERS,  RESTRICTING LAND USES FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY
                           58

-------
PURPOSES IS AM AGONIZING TASK.   IN MANY CASES,  IT IS AN
IMPOSSIBLE TASK IF AIRPORT SURROUNDINGS ARE ALREADY
DEVELOPED IN AN INCOMPATIBLE MANNER,   TYPICALLY,  LAND-
USE PLANNING IS ONLY FEASIBLE AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING
FURTHER NOISE IMPACTS, RATHER THAN CORRECTING THOSE WHICH
ALREADY ARE PRESENT,  THE LESS LAND AREA AFFECTED,  THE
BETTER--IN EITHER CASE.
AN AIRPORT OPERATOR IS IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION-LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR NOISE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE  OPERATION
OF THAT AIRPORT, BUT OFTEN APPARENTLY WITH LITTLE CONTROL
OVER THOSE OPERATIONS,  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PRE-
EMPTED CONTROL OVER THE NOISE GENERATOR-THE AIRPLANE-BOTH
ITS INHERENT NOISE PRODUCTION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS
FLOWN,  SO WHAT SLEPT?
ONE AVAILABLE MEANS IS THE CONTROL OR RESTRICTION OF THE
TYPES OF AIRPLANES WHICH MAY USE AN AIRPORT, BASED ON THE
NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE AIRPLANES,  CURFEWS ARE ONE
READILY-APPARENT EXAMPLE, EITHER BY CLOSING THE AIRPORT
COMPLETELY AT NIGHT, OR BY RESTRICTING AIRPORT USE TO
"QUIET" AIRPLANES DURING CERTAIN HOURS,  RESTRICTING USE
OF AN AIRPORT THROUGH A BAN ON JET-POWERED AIRCRAFT,
BECAUSE OF NOISE, IS NOT PERMISSABLE.  SO-CALLED "JET BANS"
HAVE BEEN RULED TO BE DISCRIMINATORY BY THE COURT IN THE
                           59

-------
RECENT SANTA MONICA CASE,  SINCE IT WAS SHOWN THERE THAT
SOME JET AIRCRAFT ARE ACTUALLY QUIETER IN OPERATION THAN
SOME PROPELLER-DRIVEN AIRCRAFT,
IF THE REASON FOR USE-RESTRICTIONS AT AN AIRPORT IS NOISE,
THEN NOISE LEVELS CAN BE EMPLOYED TO RESTRICT USE.  THE FAA
HAS PUBLISHED ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-3, DATED MAY 29, 1979,
LISTING IN DECENDING ORDER OF NOISE LEVEL MANY AIRCRFT
TYPES AND MODELS,  THESE NOISE LEVELS ARE BASED ON STANDARDIZED
TESTS, FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES DEFINED IN THE FAA'S NOISE
STANDARDS, 14 CFR 36,  LEVELS ARE TABULATED FOR ALL AIRCRAFT,
FOR WHICH RELIABLE DATA ARE AVAILABLE, AT THREE LOCATIONS-
THE TAKEOFF, SIDELINE, AMD APPROACH LOCATIONS SPECIFIED IN
THE NOISE REGULATIONS,  THUS, RELIABLE, COMPARABLE, STANDARDIZED
NOISE VALUES ARE READILY AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL USE,  AN AIRPORT
OPERATOR MAY THEN LIMIT THE USE OF AN AIRPORT TO AIRCRAFT
WHICH GENERATE NO MORE THAN--FOR EXAMPLE--85 A-WEIGHTED
DECIBELS AS MEASURED DURING TAKEOFF UNDER THE STANDARDIZED
PROCEDURES OF 14 CFR 36, AND HAVE AVAILABLE A NONARBITRARY
AND NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHICH TYPES OF
AIRCRAFT ARE ADMISSABLE AND ACCEPTABLE AT THAT AIRPORT,  THE
ACTUAL NOISE LIMIT SELECTED MUST, OF COURSE, DEPEND ON THE
DEGREE OF NOISE PROTECTION JUSTIFIED AT AN AIRPORT,  AMD, OF
COURSE, AN AIRPORT OPERATOR WILL NEED TO EXAMINE CAREFULLY
JUST WHAT SUCH A RESTRICTION WILL DO TO THOSE AIRCRAFT
OPERATORS THAT HIS OR HER AIRPORT SERVES,
                               60

-------
IT IS OFTEN TEMPTING TO INSTALL A MICROPHONE OFF THE R
OF AN AIRPORT, AND LIMIT THE USE OF AN AIRPORT BASED ON
ACTUAL NOISE MONITORING,  ASIDE FROM THE TECHNICAL COMPLICATIONS
AND EXPENSE OF SUCH AN APPROACH, THE FAA OPPOSES SUCH
RESTRICTIONS ON THE BASIS OF SAFETY,  PILOTS-AMD ESPECIALLY
LESS EXPERIENCED PILOTS-MAY BE TEMPTED TO "BEAT THE BOX" IN
SUCH INSTANCES, BY FLYING IN AN UNSAFE MANNER IN ORDER TO
REDUCE NOISE OVER THE MONITORING POINT,  IN ADDITION, CON-
STANTLY CHANGING PROPAGATION AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
WILL CAUSE NOISE LEVELS AT A GIVEN POINT TO CHANGE FROM DAY-
TO-DAY, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME AIRCRAFT IS FLOWN IN EXACTLY
THE SAME MANNER,  THUS, A PILOT IS NEVER CERTAIN THAT HE OR
SHE WILL MEET A SET MEASURED LEVEL EACH TIME HE OR SHE FLIES,
AND MAY BE TEMPTED TO ALTER THE FLIGHT PROCEDURE "JUST TO BE
SURE",  I BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARDIZED NOISE LEVELS
TABULATED IN ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-3 ARE A BETTER BASIS FOR
RESTRICTING AIRCRAFT USE AT AN AIRPORT, THAN ARE MONITORED
SINGLE-EVENT LEVELS,

IN SUMMARY:
     -  GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY IS GROWING, AND WILL
        CONTINUE TO GROW IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE
     -  ALTHOUGH THE INDIVIDUAL NOISE LEVELS OF NEW
        GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT WILL BECOME QUIETER
        AS THE FAA'S NOISE STANDARDS BECOME INCREASINGLY
        EFFECTIVE, SHEER VOLUME OF ACTIVITY WILL CONTINUE
        NOISE PROBLEMS AT SOME GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS
                            61

-------
LAND-USE CONTROLS AND ZONING ARE DIFFICULT TO
IMPOSE, AND REPRESENT ESSENTIALLY THE LAST
RESORT IN AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRACTICAL MEANS
FOR RESTRICTING AIRPORT USE FOR NOISE CONTROL
PURPOSES
                        62

-------
   "A STATE PERSPECTIVE ON GENERAL AVIATION AND PLANNING"

         AN ADDRESS PRESENTED AT THE EPA CONFERENCE
ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
                     OCTOBER 3-5, 1979
           BY LUCIE G, SEARLE, COMMUNITY LIAISON
             MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION

     I AM DELIGHTED TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THIS EPA CONFERENCE ON
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING,  IT'S A SUBJECT
THAT'S CLOSE TO OUR HEARTS AND EARS IN MASSACHUSETTS, so I WELCOME
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT
WHICH ARE, OF COURSE, FROM ONE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE.
     RECENTLY,  I STUMBLED ACROSS A MAGAZINE ARTICLE THAT I BELIEVE
SUMS UP QUITE NICELY THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM FROM THE PERSEPCTIVE
OF AN AIRPORT NEIGHBOR,  II IS ENTITLED "AIRPLANE, STAY  'l.'AY FROM iW
kooF,'"'  THE AUTHOR WRITES:  "You MOVE OUT  FROM THE NOISE OF A CITY,
YOU PAY A PREMIUM TO BE AWAY  FROM THE RAILROAD, YOU GO TO A LOT OF
TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO GET ON A SIDE STREET AWAY FROM BUSSES AND THE
TRUCKS,  SO WHAT DO YOU GET?  liHY, ALONG WITH A BIG MORTGAGE, NEIGHBORS,
A MANGY LAWN AND A LEAKING BASEMENT, YOU GET  PLANES,  II TURNS OUT
YOUR QUIET RESIDENTIAL SECTION IS A BOARDWALK FOR  MODERN AVIATION,
AND THE PLANES  COME OVER AS IF YOU HAD PUT SUET OUT FOR  THEM,"  THIS
ARTICLE APPEARED IN A 1947 ISSUE OF THE SATURDAY EVENING HOST!   Il
WAS CITED AT AN EARLIER AVIATION CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION IN 1947 AND USED IN A  SPEECH ENTITLED "'BAKING
GOOD NEIGHBORS  OF AlRPORTS,'"
     TODAY IN MASSACHUSETTS,  WE HAVE A GENERAL  AVIATION  NOISE  PROBLEM
THAT IMPACTS NOT ONLY AIRPORT NEIGHBORS LIKE  THE AUTHOR  OF  THIS  ARTICLE,
                                    63

-------
BUT THREATENS THE VIABILITY OF SEVERAL OF OUR KEY SUBURBAN GA AIRPORTS,
BECAUSE OF NOISE, WE ARE HAVING GREAT DIFFICULTY—IN FACT, WE ARE
LOSING THE BATTLE AT ONE PARTICULAR AIRPORT--IN MAINTAINING THE RUN-
WAYS AND TAX IWAYS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, NEVER MIND EXTENDING OR
ADDING NEW RUNWAYS,  A.ND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE A SHOWDOWN
BETWEEN THE  AIRPORT AND ITS NEIGHBORS, TRY TO PUT IN AN INSTRUMENT
LANDING SYSTEM,  ALTHOUGH SUCH A KEY NAVIGATIONAL AID, UNDOUBTEDLY,
ENHANCES SAFETY FOR AIRPORT NEIGHBORS AND USERS, IT IS REGARDED—
IRRATIONALLY,  I BELIEVE-- BY MANY AS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WILL
LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN OPERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, MORE NOISE,  WHAT
               »,
MAKES TODAY'S  SITUATION so AGONIZING is THAT JUST ABOUT ALL OF
OUR GENERAL  AVIATION AIRPORTS  IN MASSACHUSETTS WERE SITED 30-40 YEARS
AGO IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS SURROUNDED BY AMPLE OPEN SPACE,
     THE SOLUTIONS TO OUR NOISL PROBLEM TODAY ARE THE SAME ONES THAT
WERE AVAILABLE IN  1947:  NOISE CONTROL AT THE SOURCE THROUGH QUIETER
AIRCRAFT; OPERATING PROCEDURES; AND LAND USE CONTROLS,  FROM THE
STATE PERSPECTIVE,  I'M GOING TO REVIEW EACH OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS
AND COMMENT  ON OUR EXPERIENCE  AS WELL AS WHAT I BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE
DONE.  UUR ''MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIENCE'''  INVOLVES A STATE SYSTEM OF
25 PUBLICLY  OWNED  AIRPORTS AND AS MANY PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPORTS OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC,
1.   SOURCE  CONTROL is PRIMARILY A FEDERAL AND  INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY.
     FROM A  STATE  VIEWPOINT, WE BELIEVE A GREAT DEAL  REMAINS TO BE
     DONE HERE,  PARTICULARLY WITH PISTON ENGINED PROPELLER AIRPLANES,
     PROPS ARE BY  FAR THE BIGGEST USERS OF OUR GENERAL AVIATION
     AIRPORTS,  BESIDES THEIR  HIGH VISIBILITY AND,  I  MIGHT ADD,
     AUDIBILITY,  IN THE TOUCH  AND GO OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FLIGHT
     TRAINING, PROPS CONSTITUTE THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF THE BUSINESS
     AVIATION  FLEET, WHICH MAKES EXTENSIVE USE OF OUR GA  AIRPORTS,
                                64

-------
     PROP NOISE CAN BE CONTROLLED BY REDUCING PROPELLER TIP SPEED
WHICH CAN BE ACHIEVED BY A SLOWER TURNING PROP OR A MULTI~BLADED
PROP,  FROM WHAT I CAN LEARN, WE ALREADY HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF KNOW-
HOW WHICH GOES BACK MANY YEARS,  AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH IS GOING
ON RIGHT NOW TO LEARN HOW TO BUILD A LOW~NOISE PROP--SUITABLE FOR
NEW DESIGN AIRPLANES OR RETROFIT—WITHOUT SACRIFICING PERFORMANCE,
THIS EFFORT IS BEING CONDUCTED JOINTLY BY HIT AND NASA UNDER EPA
SPONSORSHIP,
     WHAT SEEMS TO BE MISSING  is THE INCENTIVE, PARTLY BECAUSE IT
IS ONLY  IN RECENT YEARS THAT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NEIGHBORS
HAVE FLEXED THEIR POLITICAL MUSCLES AND PARTLY BECAUSE FAA's FAR 36
STANDARDS FOR LIGHT PROPS PRESENT LITTLE OR NO CHALLENGE TO THE
INDUSTRY,  SINCE FAR 36 WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1969, THE MODEST STANDARDS
SET  FOR  LIGHT PROPS (UNDER 12,5"00 LBS, ) HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED TO
REQUIRE  MORE STRINGENT NOISE LEVELS,  THE RESULT IS THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF LIGHT PROPS HAVE,  FOR SOME TIME, MET FAA/S LENIENT
STANDARDS,
     FROM THE INDUSTRY'S POINT OF VIEW, ONE OBSTACLE MAY BE THE
ENORMOUS COST AND COMPLEXITY OF FAA CERTIFICATION OF EVEN THE
SLIGHTEST DESIGN CHANGE, A SITUATION WHICH OBVIOUSLY DISCOURAGES
INNOVATION AND RETROFIT,  I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF
THE  NEWER MODEL PROPS—AND HERE I THINK OF THOSE MANUFACTURED BY
CESSNA AND PIPER—HAVE ACHIEVED COMMENDABLE NOISE REDUCTION GAINS, PRI
MARILY BY LOWERING THE RPMs,
     AT  ANY RATE, A COMPELLING CASE CAN BE MADE FOR  IMPROVING THE  PROP
SITUATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE REMEMBER THAT THIS FLEET DOES NOT
TURN OVER VERY QUICKLY,  THERE IS A BACK DOOR APPROACH TO DEALING  WITH
THE  FEDERAL REGULATORY INERTIA WHICH MY OWN COMMISSION HAS  REFUSED
TO SANCTION SO FAR, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE CHAOS THAT WOULD  RESULT
                                 65

-------
FROM AIRPORT TO AIRPORT AND STATE TO STATE AND ALSO BECAUSE IT
WISHES TO AVOID REINFORCING WHAT SOME REGARD AS MASSACHUSETTS'
ANTI-BUSINESS IMAGE,   AND THAT IS THE SETTING OF MAXIMUM AIRCRAFT
NOISE LEVELS BY THE AlRPORT PROPRIETOR,   ONE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS
PROPOSED TO SET A NOISE LEVEL REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
MORE STRINGENT THAN FAR 36, BUT FOR SEVERAL REASONS, MY COMMISSION
TURNED THE PROPOSAL DOWN,  THE POINT !  WANT TO MAKE HERE IS THIS:
WE WOULD LIKE TO TIE OUR STATEWIDE SOURCE NOISE POLICY TO A NATIONAL
NOISE STANDARD SUCH AS FAR 36j BUT IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY HARD TO
DO THIS BECAUSE SOME OF THE FAR 36 STANDARDS ARE SO WEAK.
     THE EFFORT TO QUIET THE BUSINESS JET FLEET IS ANOTHER STORY,
HERE, I BELIEVE, WE HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL,  DESIGN STANDARDS,
FIRST SET BY THE FAA IN 1969, WERE TIGHTENED IN 1977, AND A PRODUCTION
CUTOFF DATE OF 1975 WAS SET FOR OLDER NOISY MODELS,  THERE IS HARDLY
AN AIRPORT NEIGHBOR THAT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE QUIETNESS OF THE CESSNA
CITATION,  THERE ARE OTHERS WITH IMPRESSIVE NOISE RECORDS, TOO, SUCH
AS THE FALCON 10, THE WESTWIND, AND THE NEWER LEAR JETS, JUST TO NAME
A FEW,   IN FACT, WE HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT AT ONE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS,
OVER 40% OF THE BUSINESS JET FLEET IS MADE UP OF CITATIONS AND
SIMILAR TURBO FANS,  WHILE I DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE FIGURES FOR OUR
OTHER GA AIRPORTS, IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME TO LEARN THAT A LARGE
PERCENTAGE OF THEIR BUSINESS JET FLEETS IS COMPOSED OF THE QUIETER
MODELS,  WHILE THE BUSINESS JET FLEET HAS A MUCH FASTER TURNOVER
THAN THE PROP FLEET, THE FACT REMAINS THAT BOTH TECHNOLOGY AND
THE MARKETPLACE HAVE RESPONDED TO FAA'S INCREASINGLY STRINGENT FAR 36
STANDARDS,
                                  66

-------
2,   OPERATING PROCEDURES is THE SECOND OF THE THREE PART SOLUTION,
     THIS INVOLVES DESIGNING SITE SPECIFIC MEASURES THAT ADDRESS AN
     AIRPORT'S PARTICULAR NOISE PROBLEMS,  IN MASSACHUSETTS, THESE
     HAVE INCLUDED PRESCRIBED FLIGHT PATHS, PREFERENTIAL RUNWAYS,
     REQUIREMENTS THAT AIRPLANES BE AIRBORNE IN THE FIRST HALF OF
     THE RUNWAY, TIME OF DAY  AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR TOUCH
     AND GO OPERATIONS AND DESIGNATED AREAS FOR RUNUPS,
          WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE RESULTS COME AFTER
     A PARTICIPATORY EFFORT THAT INVOLVES AIRPORT NEIGHBORS AND
     USERS ALONG WITH THE RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
     OFFICIALS,
          OPERATING PROCEDURES ARE NOT A PANACEA, BUT THEY CAN HELP
     TO MINIMIZE NOISE IMPACTS, PARTICULARLY IF SOME NON RESIDENTIAL
     AREAS STILL EXIST OVER WHICH AIRCRAFT CAN BE DIVERTED,  ALSO,
     OPERATING PROCEDURES OFTEN OFFER THE ONLY TANGIBLE NOISE RELIEF
     TO AIRPORT NEIGHBORS,
          WHEN I THINK ABOUT OPERATING PROCEDURES AT OUR GA AIRPORTS,
     I CANNOT HELP BUT SINGLE OUT THE NATIONAL BUSINESS AIRCRAFT
     ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS BEEN A LEADER IN DEVISING PROCEDURES AND
     SPREADING THE NOISE ABATEMENT MESSAGE AMONG ITS MEMBERS,
          TO GET THE MOST OUT OF PROCEDURES, IT HAS BEEN OUR
     EXPERIENCE THAT WE NEED MORE HELP FROM THE FAA AlR TRAFFIC CONTROL
     LERS AT OUR TOWERED AIRPORTS,  WHILE WE DO NOT EXPECT THEM TO
     ENFORCE LOCAL REGULATIONS, WE BELIEVE MORE COULD BE DONE TO
     INFORM AND REMIND PILOTS OF THE NOISE RULES IN EFFECT,
3,   LAND USE, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF OUR  NOISE ABATEMENT TRIO,  is  A MOST
     CRITICAL AND CHALLENGING TASK.  APPLYING LAND USE CONTROLS  IS,
     UNDOUBTEDLY, A LOCAL AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY, ALTHOUGH THERE  IS
     CERTAINLY A FEDERAL ROLE, PARTICULARLY  IN THE FINANCIAL AREA,
                                      67

-------
HERE ARE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND HIGHLIGHTS BASED ON OUR
EXPERIENCE,
     IN OUR STATE, AND I  SUSPECT THIS IS TRUE IN MANY OTHERS.
LAND USE IS A JEALOUSLY GUARDED LOCAL FUNCTION, IN LARGE PART
BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATIONS,  OUR ONE EFFORT, IN
1976, TO ENACT STATE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO EXERCISE LAND USE CONTROLS NEAR AIRPORTS, WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL.  THE PROBLEM IS COMPOUNDED, OF COURSE, BY THE
NEED FOR PROPER LAND USE PLANNING, NOT ONLY ON THE PART OF THE
MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE AIRPORT IS LOCATED, BUT ALSO THE
ABUTTING COMMUNITIES,  OUR CLASSIC "WHAT NOT TO DO STORY" IS OF
ONE OF OUR MORE ACTIVE SUBURBAN BOSTON GA AIRPORTS, BUILT IN
THE 1940's,   BEVERLY AIRPORT is LOCATED  IN BEVERLY AND DANVERS
AND ABUTS A THIRD COMMUNITY, WENHAM,  FOR SOME TIME, THIS AIRPORT
WAS PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY UNDEVELOPED LAND; BUT IN THE
EARLY 1960'S, A DEVELOPER PURCHASED SOME ADJACENT FARM
LAND IN THE NEIGHBORING TOWN OF DANVERS AND BUILT SCORES OF
HOMES, SOME OF WHICH ARE LESS THAN 400 FT, FROM THE LONGEST
RUNWAY,  TODAY, OF COURSE, IT is A NO WIN SITUATION FOR ALL
INVOLVED BECAUSE THE AIRPORT NEIGHBORS HAVE TO CONTEND WITH
NOISE,AND THE PILOTS HAVE HAD NOISE ABATEMENT RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED ON THEM,
     WHAT ARE WE DOING ON THE STATE LEVEL TO PREVENT THIS KIND
OF  INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT FROM RECURRING?  BASICALLY, FOUR
THINGS:  (1) PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,1 (2) PROMOTING
AIRPORTS AS ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS; (3) JAWBONING
AND MORAL SUASIONj AND (4) INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS IN THE CAUSE.
     ON THE FIRST:  PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEANS
                             68

-------
WORKING WITH AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL OFFICIALS TO COME
UP WITH WAYS TO INSURE COMPATIBLE LAND USE.   THIS MAY INVOLVE
ZONING, PURCHASE OF LAND OR EASEMENTS, SUBDIVISION CONTROL,
NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS THAT AN AIRPORT IS NEARBY, SPECIAL
PERMITS AND OTHER STRATEGIES,  BECAUSE THIS  IS HOW I  SPEND A
GOOD DEAL OF MY TIME, I HAVE, DURING THE PAST YEAR, PUT TOGETHER
A GUIDE TO COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING NEAR AIRPORTS IN
MASSACHUSETTS,  THIS is A SOUP TO NUTS COOKBOOK THAT  PROVIDES
RECIPES FOR THESE AND OTHER LAND USE CONTROL METHODS,
     ON THE SECOND; REMINDING COMMUNITIES OF THE ECONOMIC
AND TRANSPORTATION VALUE OF THEIR AIRPORTS:   SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
THE EARLY DAYS OF AVIATION WHEN A MUNICIPALITY WAS WILLING TO
GIVE ITS EYE TEETH TO GET AN AIRPORT, AND TODAY'S NO  GROWTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES, MANY OF OUR  CITIES AND TOWNS
HAVE FORGOTTEN OR LOST SIGHT OF THE VALUE OF THEIR AIRPORT,  I
AM CONVINCED THAT MY JOB OF PERSUADING A PLANNING BOARD THAT A
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OUGHT TO BE REZONED TO PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT IF THE PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS AND OTHER LOCAL OFFICIALS COULD SEE  A DIRECT  RELATION
BETWEEN THE NEED TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT ON ONE HAND,  AND THE
ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE AIRPORT TO THEIR COMMUNITY, ON THE OTHER,
THIS CAN BE TOUGH BECAUSE IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO QUANTIFY THE
VALUE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS,  MANY OF THEM JUST ABOUT BREAK EVEN,
SO THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY ENRICHING THE LOCAL COFFERS; AND A GOOD
DEAL OF TAX EXEMPT LAND IS INVOLVED,  WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING  IS
POINTING TO AIRPORTS AS GENERATORS OF JOBS BOTH ON AND OFF THE
AIRPORT; AND AS AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSETS THAT CAN HELP ATTRACT
INDUSTRY TO AN AREA,  BESIDES DOING THIS THROUGH PAPERS, ARTICLES,
                               69

-------
AND TALKS, WE HAVE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT AIRPORT MASTER
PLANS IDENTIFY AN AIRPORT'S PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
ROLE.  IN ADDITION, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AS AN EXTREMELY COMPATIBLE LAND USE,
     ON THE THIRD:  JAWBONING AND MORAL SUASION CAM BEST BE
ILLUSTRATED BY AN EXAMPLE,  ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, THE ClTY OF
WORCESTER ANNOUNCED PLANS TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON
AIRPORT PROPERTY AND LAND ADJACENT TO ITS AIRPORT, A PROJECT
WHICH WE APPLAUDED,  THE PLANS CALLED FOR A RATHER SOPHISTICATED
LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY TO BE BUILT TO THE AIRPORT,  SHORTLY
AFTER THE HIGHWAY PLAN SURFACED, AN ABUTTING LAND OWNER TOOK
STEPS TO GAIN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR ALMOST 500 HOMES TO BE
BUILT ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WOULD BECOME DEVELOPABLE ONCE
THE ROAD WAS COMPLETED,  SlNCE THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BY THE
CITY OF WORCESTER, WE APPLIED WHAT I CALL JAWBONING AND MORAL
SUASION,  FROM OUR DOT SECRETARY ON DOWN, WE POINTED OUT THE CITY'S
WOULD BE  INCONSISTENCY OF PROMOTING AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON ONE
SIDE OF THE AIRPORT WHILE PERMITTING HOUSES ON THE OTHER,  LOCAL
PILOTS APPLIED PRESSURE; AND WE COMMENTED VIGOROUSLY THROUGH THE
A-95 REVIEW PROCESS,  I WAS FAIRLY NEW AT MY JOB, AND I WAS
DETERMINED NOT TO LET THIS SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS,  II JUST SO
HAPPENED THAT IN THE 1976 RENEWAL BY CONGRESS OF THE AlRPORT
DEVELOPMENT AID PROGRAM (ADAP), ACQUISITION OF LAND OR INTERESTS
THEREIN NEAR AN AIRPORT FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY PURPOSES WAS
ADDED AS AN ITEM ELIGIBLE FOR UP TO 90% FEDERAL FUNDING,  WE
IMMEDIATELY PREPARED A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE ClTY OF
WORCESTER TO ACQUIRE THE PARCEL, AND I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUGGESTED
TO THE ClTY MOTHERS (AND FATHERS) THAT I THOUGHT WE COULD GET
                                70

-------
THE DESIRED FEDERAL FUNDING,  A.S IT TURNED OUT, WORCESTER DID
NOT GET ANY FEDERAL MONEY FOR REASONS WHICH I  WILL GO INTO LATER,
THE UPSHOT OF OUR STATE JAWBONING WAS THAT THE CITY—VERY MUCH
TO ITS CREDIT—SPENT ABOUT $160,000 OF ITS OWN MONEY TO BUY
ABOUT 130 ACRES,  I AM TOLD THAT THANKS TO MY  POLLYANNA
PROMISES OF "OH, I'M SURE WE CAN GET FEDERAL FUNDING FOR YOU/'
WORCESTER HAS UNOFFICIALLY NAMED THIS PARCEL THE LUCIE SEARLE
MEMORIAL PARK!
     ON THE FOURTH:  INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS IS MY WAY OF SAYING
THAT, AT LEAST IN MASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB
OF GETTING HELP FROM PEOPLE WITH LAND USE EXPERTISE, SUCH AS
LOCAL PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND BOARDS, STATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCIES; THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, AND OTHERS,  WlTH A STAFF OF
13, THE MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION is TYPICAL OF MOST
STATE AVIATION AGENCIES, AT LEAST OF THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BECOME
SUBSUMED BY THEIR STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION.  OUR STAFF
IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF ENGINEERS AND PILOTS WHICH IS FINE, BUT
THAT MEANS WE NEED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THOSE  FOLKS WHO CAN DO
FOR LAND USE WHAT MY AGENCY DOES FOR AVIATION.
     HERE ARE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES:  LIKE MOST STATES, MASSA-
CHUSETTS IS DIVIDED INTO REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES WHICH ARE
A "NATURAL" FOR ALL KINDS OF AIRPORT PLANNING  BECAUSE THESE
AGENCIES WORK WITH ALL OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IN A REGION RATHER
THAN JUST THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE AIRPORT IS LOCATED,  AND
AIRPORTS ARE A REGIONAL, NOT A MUNICIPAL, FACILITY,  TRADITIONALLY,
THESE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN HIGHWAY ORIENTED BECAUSE THEIR FUNDING
COMES FROM HIGHWAY MONEY,  To MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR THESE
AGENCIES TO DO AVIATION PLANNING, THERE  IS A BILL BEFORE CONGRESS
THAT WOULD PROVIDE MONEY FOR THE HIRING OF AVIATION PLANNERS BY
                               71

-------
THE NATION'S REGIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION,
     NOW FOR A MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE:  BEVERLY AlRPORT, AND
ITS ENVIRONS, WHICH I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, HAS BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF A JOINT LAND USE STUDY, CONDUCTED BY THE GREATER
BOSTON REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AT THE REQUEST OF THE
THREE COMMUNITIES WHICH HAVE THE AIRPORT AS THEIR COMMON
BOUNDARY,  THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL FINISHED
THEIR WORK JUST IN TIME FOR ME TO BRING A FEW COPIES ALONG TO
SHOW YOU,  WE DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL THEIR FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE REGIONAL
PLANNING STAFF GOT INVOLVED IN AND APPLIED THEIR SKILLS TO HELP
RESOLVE SOME OF THESE FRUSTRATING AIRPORT/LAND USE ISSUES,  THEY
ACTUALLY MET WITH THE BEVERLY AlRPORT COMMISSION—POSSIBLY A
FIRST—AND  I SUSPECT THEY NOW KNOW A GOOD DEAL MORE ABOUT AIRPORTS,
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY ATTRACTING AND INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS,
     LAND USE CONTROLS, AS I STATED AT THE OUTSET, ARE,
UNDOUBTEDLY, A LOCAL AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY; BUT WHAT ABOUT THE
FEDERAL ROLE THAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER,  HERE ARE SOME IDEAS FROM
THE STATE PERSPECTIVE, VIS-A-VIS GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS,
MONEY, OF COURSE, is ALWAYS WELCOME,  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE LAND OR INTERESTS THEREIN AROUND THOSE
AIRPORTS THAT DO NOT HAVE SERIOUS NOISE PROBLEMS NOW.  IT  IS
UNLIKELY THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN UNDER THE EXISTING FEDERAL
GUIDELINES,
     TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE,  I HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY EARLIER
WORCESTER STORY,  I EXPLAINED THAT THE 1976 RENEWAL OF ADAP
PERMITTED FEDERAL FUNDING OF  UP TO 90% TO BUY LAND OR  EASEMENTS
FOR AIRPORT  NOISE COMPATIBILITY,  HOWEVER, WHEN THE FAA REGULA-
TIONS TO COVER THIS FINALLY EMERGED,  IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT
                              72

-------
WORCESTER WOULD NOT QUALIFY BECAUSE THE NOISE LEVELS THERE
WERE AND ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH ACCORDING TO THE FAA GUIDELINES,
ALTHOUGH WORCESTER is AN AIR CARRIER AIRPORT--IT HAS TWO FLIGHTS
A DAY BY DELTA—ITS OPERATIONS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY GENERAL
AVIATION, AND IT ILLUSTRATES WELL THIS DILEMMA OF AN AIRPORT
THAT IS NOT NOISY ENOUGH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDING,
     AGAIN, ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THIS is THE THIRD YEAR
CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED FEDERAL NOISE LEGISLATION,  EACH BILL
HAS CONTAINED PROVISION FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING,
BUT THE BILLS APPLY ONLY TO AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS,
     IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO BE CRITICAL OF FAA OR CONGRESS
ON THIS SCORE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FUND ALL THE
POTENTIAL LAND USE REQUESTS,  NOISE IS NOISE AND IT IS UNDER-
STANDABLE THAT FAA GUIDELINES FAVOR THE MORE NOISY AIRPORTS,
THE POINT IS THAT THIS USUALLY LEAVES OUT GA AIRPORTS,
     IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE WAY OUT OF THIS BIND IS THROUGH
BLOCK GRANTS TO THE STATES, AND THERE IS REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC
HERE BECAUSE EACH OF THE PROPOSALS TO RENEW ADAP~THAT OF SENATOR
HOWARD CANNON, THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALS—PROVIDES FOR BLOCK GRANTS,
     IN ANOTHER AREA, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD MAKE LIFE
EASIER FOR ALL OF US BY ELIMINATING THE ALPHABET SOUP WE HAVE
TO DEAL WITH AND DESIGNATING ONE SYSTEM FOR MEASURING NOISE
AND DESCRIBING ITS IMPACT,
     OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE CONCENTRATED MORE ON THE LAND USE APPROACH
TO NOISE ABATEMENT BECAUSE  I BELIEVE  IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT
TASK AND ALSO BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SINGLED OUT — AS I BELIEVE
IT SHOULD BE--IN THE TITLE OF THIS CONFERENCE.
                             73

-------
     NOW,  TO RECAP  WHAT I  HAVE SAID,   YES,  WE DO HAVE A NOISE
PROBLEM AT OUR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS.   THE SOLUTIONS ARE WELL
KNOWN,  AND THEY HAVE BEEN  AROUND FOR  SOME  TIME.
     WE COULD, IN SOME CASES,  IMPROVE OUR  TOOLS,
     SOURCE CONTROL is PRIMARILY A FEDERAL AND INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY,
     WE NEED TO MAKE MUCH  BETTER USE  OF THE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
     AND STANDARDS  FOR LIGHT PROPS MUST BE TIGHTENED,
     OPERATING PROCEDURES.  WHICH CAN  PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOISE RELIEF
     TO AIRPORT NEIGHBORS  NOW, ARE SITE SPECIFIC,   THE MAIN EXCEPTION IS
     THE NBAA PROCEDURES,  BASED ON POWER MANAGEMENT,  WHICH ARE APPLICABLE
     AT ANY AIRPORT,  THE  MAJOR TASK  IS SPREADING THE WORD AMONG
     PILOTS AND GETTING THEM TO USE THE PROCEDURES,   THE AVIATION
     PRESS HAS HELPED ON THIS  SCORE,  PARTICULARLY BUSINESS AND
     COMMERCIAL AVIATION WHICH RUNS A MONTHLY NOISE COLUMN,  WE COULD
     USE MORE HELP  FROM THE FAA TOWER CONTROLLERS,
     LAND USE CONTROL REQUIRES ACTION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH
     THUS FAR HAS BEEN THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE CHAIN,  ALTHOUGH WE
     WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, OTHER  STATES  SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER
     LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM CLOUT IN THIS PREDOMINANTLY
     LOCAL MATTER,
          OUR ABILITY TO PURCHASE LAND NEAR GA AIRPORTS FOR NOISE
     COMPATIBILITY  WOULD BE IMPROVED  IF THE CHANCES WERE BETTER OF
     GETTING FEDERAL MONEY TO  HELP DO THE  JOB,  TOWARD THIS
     END,  WE NEED TO SEE THAT  BLOCK GRANTS TO THE STATES ARE PROVIDED
     FOR IN THE RENEWED ADAP,
                                74

-------
  THE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH
  GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY


        BILL GALLOWAY
    Principal Consultant
BOLT, BERANEK & NEWMAN, INC.
   Canoga Park, California
       OCTOBER 3, 1979
                75

-------
   SOUND EXPOSURE LEVELS AT 6500 FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE ON
     TAKEOFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
         PROPS
AERO COMMANDER 560E
BEECH B80
BEECH V35
CESSNA 210L
CESSNA 310Q
AEROSTAR 601
BEECH 58P
CESSNA 207A
CESSNA
CESSNA
PIPER PA-32-300
PIPER PA-23-250
CESSNA P210N
CESSNA A185F
BEECH A200
BEECH 76
CESSNA 182
CESSNA T337H
CESSNA 421B
MITSUBISHI Mu-2N
MOONEY M20
PIPER PA-34-200T
CESSNA 182Q
102
101
 96
 95
 95
 94
 94
 94
 94
 94
 94
 93
 93
 92
 91
 90
 89
 89
 OQ
 oo
 87
 85
 84
 82
PIPER PA-28-140
CESSNA 172N
GRUMMAN AA-5
ROCKWELL 690B
CESSNA 150
CESSNA 152
           JETS
HS-125
JETSTAR I
JET COMMANDER
LEARJET 25
GULFSTREAM II
SABRELINER 60
FALCON 20
LEARJET 24
JETSTAR II
SABRELINER 65A
FALCON 10
LEARJET 35
CITATION  II
CITATION  I
 76
 75
 73
 69
 68
 65

112
110
109
105
104
104
102
100
 94
 93
 90
 89
 86
                              76

-------
    75
CD

 I
Q
Z
x
O
Z
    70
O   65
O
     60
     55
     50
                                                 91%  SINGLES
                                                  9%  TWINS
                                                  2%  NIGHT
                            TOTAL OPERATIONS
                                 PER YEAR
                       4         6      8    10       15     20
                    THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE
                                                                 25
  TAKEOFF  NOISE  FROM  PROPELLER- DRIVEN SMALL AIRCRAFT
                                   77

-------
   75
   70
Q
z
ID
o
O
n:
O
Z
 I
Q
   65
   60
55
   50
                                     90% MAX. T.O. WEIGHT
                                     POWER CUTBACK
                                     2% NIGHT
                   TAKEOFFS
                    PER DAY
                     6      8    10       15     20   25   30
               THOUSANDS OF FEET  FROM BRAKE RELEASE
      TAKEOFF NOISE FROM  COMPOSITE  BUSINESS  JET
                            1978  FLEET
                            78

-------
    70
CQ
Q
Z
ID
O
O
o
Z
 I
>-
<
Q
    65
    60
55
    50
             TAKEOFFS
              PER DAY
               100
                               90% MAX. T.O. WEIGHT
                               POWER CUTBACK
                               2% NIGHT
            4         6      8    10        15     20
            THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM BRAKE  RELEASE
                                                    25
      TAKEOFF  NOISE  FROM  COMPOSITE  BUSINESS  JET
                       CURRENT TURBOFANS
                            79

-------
CO
o
         >
         -<
        O
        I
a
m
uo
O
c
z
o
         o.
         CO
               70
              65
              60
              55
              50
                     1.5
                             APPROACHES

                               PER DAY
                                 10
                                                         i   i   i   r
                                                                              i    r
                                                             MAXIMUM LANDING

                                                             WEIGHT

                                                             2% NIGHT
                                   4        6      8    10        15

                       THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD
20   25  30
                     APPROACH NOISE FROM COMPOSITE  BUSINESS  JET -  1978  FLEET

-------
oo
           O
           i
           Z
           o
o
m
CO
O
c
Z
o
           Q-
           CD
                 70
      65
                 60
                 55
                 50
                                                            1   I   TT
                            APPROACHES
                              PER DAY
                               100
                                                       MAXIMUM  LANDING
                                                       WEIGHT
                                                       2%  NIGHT
                        1.5
                    2               4         6      8    10        15
                        THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM  RUNWAY THRESHOLD
                   APPROACH  NOISE  FROM  COMPOSITE BUSINESS  JET - CURRENT
                                                 TURBOFA NS

-------
Qi
o
Q_
O
or
LJJ
CD
5

z
    35
    30
    25
    20
15
    10
                                1        1         1

                                 136 OUT OF 428 AIRPORTS
                                 WITH FAA TOWERS
          50       100-     200-     300-      400-     500-
                   150      250      350      450      550
                THOUSANDS O,- TOTAL  OPERATIONS  - FY  1978
                                                         >600
      A I RPORT S
      1500 AIR
              WITH  FAA  CONTROL
             CARRIER  OPERATIONS
TOWERS  A NO
 PER YEAR IN
LESS  THAN
FY  1978,
       LESS THAN  10% MILITARY  OPERATIONS
                                  82

-------
 APPROXIMATE EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PROPELLER-DRIVEN  SMALL
AIRCRAFT REPRESENTED BY ONE LARGER AIRCRAFT IN COMPUTING
                 DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL

                                   APPROACH       TAKEOFF
                                   1500 _E^i    6500  FEET
MEDIUM RECIP, TWINS                   2.5           1,6
SMALL TURBOPROPS                      1,6           25
DHC-6 TWIN OTTER                       8             8
LARGE TURBOPROPS                      200           25
DC-9-30/737-100, 200                  125           TO
737-200QN                              16           400
727-100                               200           800
727-100/200QN                          25           630
BUSINESS-TURBO JETS                   160            80
BUSINESS-MED, TURBOFANS                16             8
BUSINESS-NEW TURBOFANS                2,5           1,6
                             83

-------
          "The Impact of General Aviation Activity on a Local Economy"

                    REMARKS BY MICHAEL J. MCCARTY,  MANAGER,
                     AIRPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL  SERVICES
                   NATIONAL BUSINESS  AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, INC.

                 CONFE'lENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIIPORT NOISE AND
                               LAND USE PLANNING
                                Atlanta, Georgia
                                October 3, 1979


It's a pleasure to be here today and  have this  opportunity to describe what impact

general aviation has on the Country's economy.   For one reason or  another,  there

seems to be a mysterious cloud which  lingers over  th° people's vision of  what role

general aviation activity and the community airport plays in their every  day lives.

Part of this mystery can be resolved  simply by  realizing what general aviation

really stands for.



"General aviation" itself is that very loose and misleading  term which  is usually

associated with everything except the airlines  and military. That means  that private

business aircraft, air taxis and charters, air  freighters, contract carriers, mail

plans, pleasure and acrobatic aircraft, flight  trainers,  crop dusters,  banner towing,

construction helicopters, blimps, free baloons, gliders,  frisbies  and high flyballs

to rightfield are all placed in the general aviation category.



With all this activity, no wonder general avaiation accounts for 98 percent of the

active aircraft, 87 percent of the total hours  flows, 65  percent of the aircraft

miles flown, and 81 percent of all aircraft operations.   It's  necessary,  however,

to go beyond all this and attempt to  identify,  in one word,  what a majority of

general aviation is all about.  The word I keep coming back to is "business"—

that's right, general aviation means  business.
                                             85

-------
Two years ago, the St.  Louis Globe-Democrat took a survey to identify what




function the general aviation activity in the area was serving.   The Globe found




that 72 percent of the activity was for business and commercial  purposes, 23 percent




was for personal transportation and proficiency training, and only 5 percent for




pleasure.








Bow, as I represent the business flying which is under this general aviation




umbrella, I would like to narrow my text to this specific area.   I also believe it




would be helpful co briefly describe the business fleet and why  companies use




aircraft.








There are today some 50,000 business aircraft in the United States, of which nearly




10 percent are turbine powered.  This Is approximately 27 percent of the total




general aviation fleet.








A recent study by an independent research firm shows that, of America's top 1,000




Industrial corporations as listed by FORTUNE Magazine, 314 now operate their own




business aircraft—a total of 1,773 planes.  This compares with  less than 450




companies just four years ago!








BUSINESS WEEK Magazine last year pointed out that "Corporate aircraft are radically




transfonaing the way many companies do business.  And they are helping to change




the geographical tilt of the United States economy, as more companies build plants




without  regard to the rigid corridors of public transportation."  This article




also stated that "The impact of corporate flying, moreover, may grow more than




the sheer numbers growth would indicate.  Increasingly, U.S. companies are using




their aircraft as sophisticated tools that do more than simply haul top brass from




point-to-point in comfort."





                                            86

-------
A few examples of company use of business aircraft are:








Oxford Industries, Inc., an Atlanta-based apparel maker that uses a twin-engine




Beechcraft to fly department store personnel to its plants where they can oversee




orders being produced.  According to the firm's Vice Chairman, giving buyers




commercial airline tickets would not work because the company's 38 plants are




scattered across six southeastern states—many in towns with grass airstrips




that lack commercial service.








Xerox. Company is reported to fly 15,000 employees a >ear on a company owned shuttle




plane between its Stanford headquarters and its Rochester, New York, plant—




saving $410,000 a year over commercial airfares and cutting travel time as well.








One of the key reasons why more and more businesses are turning to the use of




their own aircraft is that airline service is declining—both in numbers of




flights and in points served.  According to CAB figures, the certificated airlines




now serve only 400 points in the Continental United States—a 30 percent decrease




from the 567 served in 1960.








As things stand today, the company airplane may well be the only link for a manager




in reaching more than 19,000 unincorporated communities, and even 379 cities with




populations of over 25,000 that do not have any airline service.








There are, of course, many reasons other than declining ariline service for




more and more companies to add aircraft to the company inventory of productive tools.




But they usually net down to the convenience, mobility, and flexibility that allow
                                             87

-------
managers to increase that radii of action...to decentralize their plant, ware-




housing, and marketing structures...to diversify their scope of operations...compete




in unpenetrated marketj...and to maximize the potentials of plant locations through




greater mobility for managers.








The company aircraft can be scheduled to  go where the manager wants to go,




when he wants to get there; and "there" may be someplace not even served by




commercial airlines.








The company aircraft usually provide an office environment  that increases management




productivity.  It is a very common enroute work pattern for a two to four man




conference to be held.  Or individual executives can  empty  the  briefcase of work




while traveling—something they would hesitate to do  in the close-quarters setting




of a commercial flight.  Or, they may plan their business call  at the destination




city, or prepare their formal trip reports on the way home.   In fact, the chief




executive officer of one of our larger NBAA member companies says that "...using




the company plane is a sneaky way of getting  more working time  out of our




executives."









And, of course, there are the obvious advantages.   No time  need be lost waiting




for the next scheduled flight once business is concluded.   Conversely,  no efficiency




need be lost because sufficient time cannot be allowed to complete the business




beqause the executive must "catch a plane."









From the self-serving point of view of the businesses themselves, it would appear




that the use of aircraft is a productive  addition to  the corporate economy.  But,




by now you are probably asking what  all this  has to do with the impact business
                                           88

-------
aviation has on the national economy?  What is the public benefit from general




aviation activity?









Unfortunately, this has never been measured in any great depth by anyone—including




the Federal Aviation Administration.  However, by sampling some individual




situations around the Nation, it is possible to get a feel for the contributions




made by aviation in general, and business aviation in particular.









In Ohio, for example, a statewide airport program was initiated in 1965 with




$6.2 million in State funds, and matching monies from the localities involved—




a start-up total of $12.4 million.  Sixty-four counties participated by building




new airports and improving existing facilities.  When the State later conducted an




evaluation of the program, the following specifics were determined:








At 20 new airports created under the program, almost half of all landings and




takeoffs being made were by corporate aircraft and commercial cargo planes.








More than half of 150 manufacturing firms selected at random throughout the




state use their air transportation facilities frequently.








The counties with new airports had a three-percent higher payroll rate increase




after completion of the airport than did the counties which did not participate.









Extrapolating from the experience of participating counties, compared with non-




participating counties, it appears that over a four-year period, Ohio netted $250




million in additional personal income, and created more than 60,000 new jobs by




virtue of the airport development program.  That is a benefit-to-cost ratio of 20 to 1.

-------
Oa a national basis, the JOURNAL OF COMMERCE on March 27, 19-78, reported on the




growth of the corporate aircraft fleet, and stated that, "...over 1,000 plants




In the last three years have been located in areas distant from major city




airports.  Decentralization makes it tougher to keen tabs on operations without




bloating the executive ranks.  In addition, the airports with airline service are




dwindling."








Many towns and cormunities nationally recognize this.  Lee's Summit, Kansas, for




example, recently purchased a private airport for the City,  and is extending the




runway from 2,400 to 3,000 feet to accommodate twin-engine aircraft.  The stated




purpose is to.make the airport an attraction for Industry.








Dr. A. Erskine Sproul, Chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Airport"Commission, at




Staunton, Virginia, reported that 20 new industries employing at least 4,000 people




have moved into the area in the last 17 years, and airport facilities were listed as




a. prerequisite by all of them.









the Milan, Tennessee, MIRROR, reported last year on Gibson County's opening of a




new airport with a 4,500 runway to "handle all business jets and piston driven




planes..."  Mr. Argyle Graves, Chairman of the Airport Commission, was quoted as




saying, " Seventy-five percent of prospective plants use jets, and I know of one




big plant which bypassed Milan and went to a neighboring Tennessee town because




they had adequate airport facilities.  Contrary to what many people think," Mr. Graves




continued, "airports are not a luxury enjoyed by a few.  They have become vital links




for the business world.  With the new facilities at Gibson County Airport, a business




executive can fly to Chicago and back and transact his business in less than eight
                                           90

-------
hours.  I feel that that airport will be one of the county's greatest
assets."
In 1978, the Santa Barbara, California, NEWS PRESS ran a roundup on local air-




ports and what they contribute to the economy.  They stated that because of




industry located on the airport, the Santa Maria Public Airport provides jobs




for 1,600 area residents.  It makes possible private and airline transport




to cattlemen and vegetable producers.  Columbia Records uses it for air freight




service; oil companies use it as a staging airport for geologists in the area..




The report also included the Lompoc Airport, with a '',600 runway, and states that this




airport has 16 persons employed on it with an annual payroll of $100,000.








The Oxnard, California, PRESS-COURIER reported that the Camarillo Airport,




with 90,000 takeoffs and landings in 1977, generated $310,000 in revenue—more than




it costs the county to operate the airport.  It also generated $64,000 in local




taxes.  In addition, tenants at the airport employ approximately 390 persons with




a payroll of over $3,5 million annually.








At Odessa, Texas, the Airport Board surveyed 135 businesses selected at random in




the area and found that 46 percent of the companies had customers, business




associates, or company personnel who travel to and from Odessa by business air-




craft.  This represents a passenger flow of 385 passengers a month traveling by




other than scheduled aircraft.  Over 50 percent of the business that operate




aircraft to Odessa stated that additional facilities would encourage more use of the




airport.
                                             91

-------
The Santa Ana, California,  Chamber of Commerce sent  questionnaires to 1,000




randomly selected business  in the area and received  518  replies.   Seventy-one




percent of the replies showed a need for air transportation facilities.  Twenty-




eight percent of the 518 companies said the Orange County Airport had influenced




in the decision to locate within the County.








Twenty-five percent said they use general aviation aircraft, and  average ten




flights per month.  Of that group, roughly 40 percent—or 51 companies—had their




own aircraft; the remainder chose to use charter flights.








All these examples support  the finding of a U.S. Department of  Commerce survey




which polled 3,000 manufacturing firms to determine  factors influencing industry




location decisions.  The availability of air service and preferred community




size were two survey items.  For 11 percent, availability of air  service was




considered critical; and for 17 percent, significant.  Cities of  under 25,000




were the preferred size for 20 percent of the firms, with 38 percent choosing




cities of 50,000 or less.








Another survey of leading United States firms revealed that 80  percent would not




locate a plant in an area lacking an airport, and 57 percent indicated that the




airport should be capable of handling heavy twin engine  aircraft.








In addition to bringing business into a community and helping local people to




conduct business outside the community, airports bring very tangible benefits to




the entire population.  The access an airport provides and  the  employment opportunities
                                            92

-------
It offers are easily recognized.  Less apparent, perhaps, but no less Important
are:


1.   Value of time saved (by passenger plus "domino effect")
     (a)  Business flying
     (b)  Pleasure flying
     (c)  Utility flying


2.   Emergency value (human life and property)
     (a)  Natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, wind and weather)
     (b)  Crime control and law enforcement
     (c)  Riots and civil disturbance
     (d)  Rescue and life savings
     (e)  Forest fire fighting


3.   National defense value
     (a)  Pilot training and availability
     (b)  Value to war time combat use
     (c)  Civil Air Patrol
4.   Promotion or stimulation of air carrier flying — provides valuable
     feeter traffic
5.   Entertainment value
     (a)  Value to general aviation passengers (in terms of gratification)
          1)  Air shows
          2)  Radio, TV, movies
          3)  Vacation and resort area development
          A)  Sightseeing and other transportation modes

                                             93

-------
     (b)   Value to entertainment industry








6.   General business industry associated with general aviation travel




     (a)   Hotels



     (b)   Ground transportation (taxi,  limousine,  car rental,  etc.)




     (c)   Meals








7.   Specific benefits related to general aviation




     (a)   Aerial photography and napping




     (b)   Fish sporring and fish savings




     (c)   Forest fire.patrol




     (d)   Power and pipeline patrol




     (e)   Corporation internal business aircraft management, maintenance, and




          operations, personnel and expenses.






The local airport is rapidly becoming the principal gateway to the Nation's modern




transportation system.  Communities large and small-are realizing that to be




without air service today is as detrimental to their development as being bypassed




by the railroads was a century ago, or left off the highway map 25 years ago.








Communities that are not readily accessible to the airways may suffer penalties that




can effect every local citizen—whether he flies in a general  aviation aircraft,




uses commercial airlines, or never has occasion to travel at all.








The role of the general aviation airport in providing air access is increasing.  By




having access to all the Nation's airports, general aviation aircraft can bring the




benefits and values of air transportation to the entire country.





THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AIRPORTS AND GENERAL AVIATION MEANS BUSINESS.





                                          94

-------
THE WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT
                       AL HANV .
                  N F W YORK
                            /
                               MASS.
                                    BOSTON
    r
WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT
I"     ....
I  CONN. • j ')
1  e NEW HAVEN
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
          Federal Aviation Administration
          Office of Environmental Quality
             Washington, D.C.20591
                   95

-------
                                 NOTICE
This document was prepared by Ms.  Joan E.  CaldweJ.1,  President,  Northwest
Greenwich Association,  and is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange.
The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or
use thereof.
                                96

-------
                         WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT
Ever since the aircraft ceased to be an interesting curiosity  to  those
on the ground, resident annoyance with noise has been the subject of
vigorous complaint.  For years, the owners,  operators and users  of
airports and the Federal Government failed to deal with noise  complaints
and looked at residents as irrational and unreasonable.  Residents on
the other hand took a conspiratorial view of noisemakers.

Blasted by noise which took away their peace and tranquility.  and faced
with little or no response from the airport  community, frustration set
in.

Thus, the scene was set for confrontation between two desperate  groups,
the airport and its neighbors, neither one fully understanding nor
trusting the other.

Westchester County  (N.Y.) Airport  (WCA) on the Connecticut border provided
a  testing ground for the understanding and coalition of these  two groups,
and for the development of noise abatement procedures with which both
groups were comfortable.  We call  it the Westchester Experiment.

So that the Westchester Experiment may be used as a model for  future
action, we will describe the background of the problem at WCA, the
governmental response to resident  complaints and resident action in
precipitating the Experiment.

                        Background of  the Problem

The Airport:

WCA is a 700 acre general aviation airport located on  the Connecticut -
New York bolder.  Like many of the general aviation  facilities,  it was
created from a little used World War II military installation that had
been located, during an emergency  situation, into the  midst of four
well-established residential communities.

During 1976, the airport ranked  fourth in total operations and second
in general aviation operations in  New  York State.

The user group at WCA is mixed.  It  includes the corporate jets  for  many
of "Fortune's 500"  corporations, light aircraft for  private use  and  for
training, and commercial carriers  providing  scheduled  service.   Also,
the Air National Guard has an  air  reconnaissance mission at WCA.
                               97

-------
Each of the uses presented a different  noise experience for the neigh-
bors and precluded any simple solution  to  the noise  problem.

Neighborhood Area:

The surrounding residential neighborhoods  are as mixed as the aircraft
at WCA.  On the Connecticut side of the state line,  there is  a signif-
icant area of large lot development (2  to  4+ acres)  with expensive
homes.  On the New York side, land use  patterns  vary by community but
tend to be more dense.  Lot sizes there are generally one acre or less.
All of the communities have the usual combination of schools, churches,
hospitals and recreational areas.  There never was,  nor is there now,
any significant business development in the area.

The Noise:

Early in the seventies, when annual operations were  at an all time high
of 282,000 movements, there were four types of objectionable  airprfrt
noise.  Though there were other noise problems,  these four were the
subject of most neighborhood objection:  1) Jet  operations, particularly
during sleep hours from 10:UO p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 2)  High frequency jet
engine run-ups; 3) Use of reverse thrust,  especially at night; and, 4)
The daisy-chain of light aircraft doing touch and go.

               Resident Complaints and  Governmental  Action

Concerted resident complaints began in 1968.  Prior  to that time they
had been sporadic.  The complaints were spurred  by the growth of WCA
from 145,000 operations in 1958 to 254,000 operations in 1968.  Further-
more, multiple uses of the airport and the increased use of jets with no
discernible noise abatement procedures  drove residents to bitter complaint.

Greenwich, Connecticut, residents through their  Homeowner Association
formally complained about aircraft noise from 1968 to 1974.  Their
complaints were constant and articulate.  They were  made orally and in
writing.  They were addressed to every level of  government from the FAA,
Eastern Region, to the owner of the airport, Westchester County. New
York.  Residents  enlisted and received the assistance of the  Town of
Greenwich and of  their Congressman but their complaints fell  on deaf
ears*  There was  no meaningful response.  The FAA denied all  authority
over use of the airport; the owner claimed that  the  operator  had authority
under  terms of  the lease; and the operator insisted  that Federal law
vested the authority  in the  FAA and owner respectively.  Thus, the
residents were  carefully shuttled from one authority to another in what
might  properly  be called The Shell Game.
                               98

-------
                             Citizen Action

In the spring of 1974 in total frustration over governmental deafness,
the residents of northwest Greenwich hired the Westport, Connecticut,  law
firm of Davidson and Spirer to file a lawsuit.

Late in the summer of 1974, an action was filed in the Federal District
Court in New Haven, Connecticut, (Docket B-74-280) by the Homeowner
Association* against the owner and the operator of Westchester County
Airport and the FAA.  The citizens were joined in this action by the
Town of Greenwich, Connecticut.  Essentially the plaintiffs' sought
$20,000,000 in damages, in addition to injunctive relief requiring an
enforced noise abatement program and a curfew.  Finally, the residents
had the ear of Government!

In the six months following, considerable legal maneuvering took place.
The important result was that in January of 1975 the airport owner,
Westchester County, offered to negotiate, and the National Business
Aircraft Association (NBAA) sought to participate in the negotiations
on behalf of their corporate members.

To offer to negotiate was immediately rejected by the Homeowner
Association for three reasons:

     1)   mistrust of the airport owner's motives, based on years
          of experience;

     2)   realization that unstructured negotiations were worthless;
          and ,

     3)   fear that prolonged negotiations would empty the Association's
          treasury because of increased legal costs.

Homeowner reluctance to negotiate was eventually overcome by the NBAA
and the \\tstchester County Pilots Association.  With permission of
counsel, the presidents of each of these organizations contacted the
president of the Homeowner Association.  A meeting was set up during
which these representatives of the aviation community convinced home-
owners of their sincerity and eagerness to deal with the noise problem
by developing a noise abatement policy for WCA.  They also conveyed the
concern of both the airport owner and the Federal Government that a
peaceful solution to the problem be reached.

With NBAA assurances of technical assistance and some tough negotiating
between lawyers, a Stipulation of Settlement was hammered out and signed
in July of 1975, one year after the lawsuit was filed.  Determination by
the homeowners to deal with their noise problem through the courts
finally produced the long awaited result.
""Northwest- Greenwich Association
                                 99

-------
                             The  Stipulation

The Stipulation is a comprehensive  document  that  sets  forth the parties,
their relationships and the conditions  governing  the negotiations to
resolve the noise problem.   In effect,  it  identifies  the users - the
people making the noise,  and the  residents -  the  people hearing the
noise, as the principals  in these negotiations.

The Stipulation called for  the formation of a  Committee consisting of
these two groups to meet  on a regular basis with  a  specified agenda (See
Appendix).   The Stipulation mandates  that  the  FAA,  the airport owner,
and the operator serve the  Committee  in an advisory capacity,  supplying
such data as needed to deal with  the  noise problem  objectively.

In recognition of what is now acknowledged as  the airport owner's
responsibility, Westchester County  agreed  to  review, give good faith
consideration and act upon  all recommendations of the  Committee with
respect to noise abatement  and safety procedures.

Negotiations under the Stipulation  began in  September  1975 and have
continued productively to date.

                             Results  to Date

The Westchester Experiment  has produced meaningful  results in terms of
noise reduction.  Negotiations under  the Stipulation and concessions by
the airport community have  resulted in  the following:

     1.   The development,  printing and distribution of a noise abate-
          ment procedure  for WCA.  The  procedure  itself is the result of
          careful, expensive study  and  field  testing by the NBAA using
          aircraft borrowed from  the  corporations.  The procedure docu-
          ment is designed  to be  inserted  in  the  pilot's manual and is
          given to all users of the airport.   Work  is  under way to have
          Jeppeson, pilot's manuals,  include  the  procedure in its
          regular publication.

     2.   A voluntary curfew of jet takeoffs  from 11:00 p.m. to 6:30
          a.m.  This curfew has been  adhered  to by  the majority of
          resident users.  It has considerably reduced regional noise
          but homeowners  feel that  there  is  still room for improvement.-

     3.   Elimination of  reverse  thrusts  except in  an  emergency situation,

     4.   A voluntary reduction in  touch  and go operations by using
          smaller regional  airports.
                              100

-------
     5.    Prohibition of  turbine  engine  run-ups unless an emergency
          exists in which case  approval  must be given by the airport
          operator.  At all  times specified areas of the airport are
          mandated  for this  engine work.

     6.    A manned, twenty-four hour  noise complaint number set up by
          the operator with  an  established procedure for logging and
          dealing with each  complaint.

     7.    The purchase of a  portable  noise monitoring unit to measure
          noise exposure  around the residential community.  Funds are
          now being requested for a permanent  monitoring system to
          insure a  constant  noise measurement  nearer the source.

     8.    Installation, by the  ovner, of instrument guidance systems to
          assist in compliance  with noise abatement and safety procedures
          agreed upon at  WCA.

     9.    Nationwide publication  that WCA is a noise sensitive airport
          and that  noise  abatement procedures  are  in effect and must be
          obeyed by all pilots.

    10.    Representation  of  homeowners on the  WCA Master Plan Policy
          Liaison Board.   The Board will provide  the citizen-resident
          input for development of a  long range plan for WCA.

These results were  not easily achieved.   The  first  few meetings were
tense and at times  almost hostile. The  hostility  stemmed  from the home-
owners Jong frustration and  anger, and the  pilots'  anxiety over  the
demands  that might  be made on them.

In retrospect, we realize that  these  sessions  served a  constructive
purpose; they enabled all parties to  air their resentments and realize
that the problems involved were not,  after  all,  insurmountable.

While there are many difficult  issues still  to be resolved,  the  dialogue
between  the airport community and the homeowners  has  produced  objective
discussion, mutual  trust  and an atmosphere  of  positive  solution.   The
work to  date has gone a long way towards making Westchester  County Airport
a better neighbor.   Future discussions and  action hopefully  will  make  it
a good neighbor, so that  any future resort  to  the Courts  will  be unnecessary,

Through  our experience with the Westchester Experiment  we have found
that reasonable people, working together, can achieve  a great  deal.
                               101

-------
                                APPENDIX*
The Committee shall initially consider, study and,  if possible,  report
on the following items:

     (a)  Night operations at the airport between the hours of 11:00
          p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

     (b)  Abatement of noise disturbance from engine run-ups and ground
          operations.

     (c)  "Touch and go" flight procedures.

     (d)  Scheduling of student pilot training.

     (e)  The feasibility and desirability of establishing a preferential
          runway system.

     (f)  Runway restrictions.

     (g)  Raising the  floor under the LaGuardia Terminal Control area in
          and around Westchester County Airport to a minimum of four
          thousand feet  (A,000') MLS, or above, from its current floor
          of  three thousand feet (3,000') MSL.

     (h)  The safest and most desirable angle for the existing glide
          slope and any  future glide slopes that might be installed.

     (i)  The installation of a VAS1 system on Runways 11, 29 and 16.

      (j1)  The feasibility, desirability and possible consequences of  the
          installation of noise monitoring equipment.

     (k)  helicopter operations.

      (1)  Lse of thrust  reversers.

      (m)  Discussion,  proposal and  implementation of other practices  and
          procedures which will reduce  noise  and emissions and increase
          safety from  the operation of  Westchester  County Airport.

 The  list  set  forth above may  be supplemented  by  other items which may be
 undertaken bv  the  Committee.
 *The  information in this appendix is contained  in  the  Settlement  of
 Stipulation  as agreed to by all the parties in  the lawsuit.
                              102

-------
   REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED
              WITH GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
                            By
                 LEWIS S. GOODFRIEND, P.E.
             Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates
                 Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
To provide relief from noise problems at a General Aviation
Airpcrt, or to eliminate such problems, requires the identification
of the specific problems at that airport, and the development
of an integrated plan for remediation.  This paper first
examines the nature of the GA Airport noise problem, and
then outlines what remedies are available and how they may
be synthesized into a noise impact control system.

The first step in remediation is the identification of the
nature of the existing noise impact, and of the portion of
the surrounding community for which the noise problem exists.
This first step may, in itself, be the major one in remediation
since conventional noise impact descriptors have not appeared
to be suitable for GA Airport noise assessment ' .  Among
the problems in applying noise descriptors are:
          Different operations at the same level cause
          difference responses.

          Flight tracks vary widely for the same category of
          aircraft at typical measuring locations, thus
          yielding a large spread in measured levels.

          Community response appears to occur as a complex
          function of flight frequency, maximum level,
          duration above ambient, and visibility.
                           103

-------
This has been confirmed to some extent by Harris in his
study for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, and by
some work performed by my own associates at Morristown
Municipal and other nearby airports.

In one case, the noise complaints occur only when aircraft
land at night with their lights on before they cress the
airport property fence.  The average daily traffic at this
airport is only about four movements a day.

A quote from Harris further delineates the nature of the
problem of using noise descriptors in defining and remedying
GA Airport noise problems,

          - ...cumulative aircraft noise near the ambient
            for other noise resulted in concerted community
            action.

     These airports were all in relatively quiet areas.
     Serious complaints and concerted community action
     occurred with aircraft noise levels in the range from
     L,  50 to L,  55, levels far below current official
     standards of acceptability.

              airport neighbors first complained about levels
              of noise exposure fror.i touch-and-go training
              operations about 5 dB lower ,than they first
              complained about levels of noise exposure
              from normal arrivals and departures.

     Complaints for normal operations started when the
     levels of exposure exceeded L,  55*  We traced most of
                                  an
     the complaints at the small general aviation airports
     to the frequent touch-and-go training flights.
                           104

-------
     Complaints about touch-and-go flights did not occur
     when the levels of exposure due to a touch-and-go
     flights were below L,  50;  however, they occurred on a
     regular basis when exposure exceeded L,  50.  At the
     airports we studied, there were no levels due to touch-
     and-go flights that exceeded L,  55.

It is probable that a careful record of community complaints
is the best indicator of GA Airport noise problems.  Serious
noise problems can be monitored using conventional level
monitoring equipment.  But the use of such data tc predict
impact can again best be done for the specific runway on the
basis of local community noise response information.

In order to relate airport operations to noise impact,
detailed information on the individual GA Airports is necessary,
Information includes:

     1.   Size.

     2.   Physical relationship of airport and noise-sensitive
          areas.

     3.   Traffic volume.

     4.   Traffic mix  (prop only).

     5.   Presence of  jet traffic.

     6.   Frequency  of  jet traffic.

     7.   Fixed  base activities  (static engine run ups).

     8'.   Runway use.
                             105

-------
With this information and the complaint records, it may be
possible, without any acoustical information at all, to
estimate the noise impact on surrounding areas.  Add to
these data the ambient noise levels in the area, and the
actual or predicted maximum levels at the noise-sensitive
locations due to aircraft operations, and the problem will
almost define itself.

Experience at a number, of snail airports has confirmed
Harris1 findings with regard to touch-and-go traffic noise.
If the neighbors hear it for the better part of any hour it
will cause complaints.  Furthermore, frequent departing
flights with noise levels significantly above the ambient,
cause complaints.  With respect to jet traffic, it appears
that there is no simple relationship between frequency of
flights and annoyance.  The community response appears to
occur in three discrete steps:

     1.   Awareness of jet traffic.

     2.   Annoyance by jet traffic.

     3.   Group action against jet flights.

It is clear from this preliminary discussion, that there are
few functional relationships to guide us in the assessment
of the impact of GA Airport noise in the surrounding community.
However, the remedial measures available are also discrete
in nature,  so that we are not faced with measuring a small
change in noise level or impact.  If we can't make a change
equivalent to a five or 10 decibel reduction in level, we
will see no change in the community response.
                             106

-------
There are several generic types of remedial measures.  These
include political, regulatory, operational, economic, and
community relations measures.  Some remedial measures are
accomplished through a combination of those elements listed.
Political solutions are those which result from actions by
municipal bodies such as the governing body or the planning
board.  Actions which deal with the zoning of properties
around the airport on the basis of a long term local or
,-egional plan are examples.  Such political solutions are
.•jcldom feasible today because master plans have been adopted,
and changing them may create hardships and inequities that
resul4: in litigation.  A partial solution is the purchase of
properties that are, or will be, impacted by airport traffic.
But, even such land purchase can lead to litigation.  However,
land use planning is a continuing process and must continue
to be a major element in individual airport planning.  Other
political remedies involve landing fees, hanger rental, and
the rate of development of the airport in view of its attractiveness
to both based and itinerant  aircraft.

Regulatory measures include  those activities which are under
the control of the airport management.  These include noise
limits at monitoring locations and the use of curfews on
aircraft not meeting published noise level standards.  This
is, in essence, the use of a maximum single event noise
level.

The operational measures available to the airport operator
include the publication and  use of a preferential runway
system, the use of noise abatement flight procedures, and
the identification for pilots of noise-sensitive areas.
                           107

-------
Of course, for single runway airports, the preferential
runway idea isn't much help.  However, flexibility in the
assignment of departure headings, and close cooperation
between FAA tower personnel and the airport management, can
reduce the impact during high density traffic periods.

For smaller airports, touch-and-go traffic may all occur
near or over residential areas.   It is here that attention
needs to be given to the place of flight training in the
airport community relationship.   It may be that airport
operators will have to decide whether business traffic and
aircraft maintenance activities are more important than
flight training and hanger or tie-down income.  It has
occurred to many in the general aviation area, that some
trade offs in this area may be in order.  Just turn on your
radio on some clear Friday afternoon and listen to the
combination of student pilots, business twins, and high
performance jets all in the same traffic pattern.

A combination of regulatory and operational measures has
been adopted by some airports, which require the filing of
applications by those wishing to operate turbine-powered
aircraft into the airport, and which also require that
certain procedures be followed during landing and takeoff.
These procedures are published in some cases as Jeppesen-
like pages.

Economic remedial measures include incentives for major
corporations to maintain a good neighbor image by minimizing
their fleet impact on the neighboring community.  This
provides strong motivation to operate quietly and to upgrade
the flight with quieter aircraft.
                          108

-------
Another economic aspect of remediation exists when the
impacted community includes members of the owning companies'
staffs.

At some airports, the management works closely with the
neighboring communities to pinpoint those operations that
appear to have the greatest impact, and with the cooperation
of the FAA personnel implement noise abatement plans.  Also,
corporate pilots have joined together in formal organizations
at some airports and, among other activities, work toward
noise abatement and improved community relations.  This may
include assessment of operational procedures for noise
abatement involving turbine-powered equipment noise, as well
as participating in community activities.  It has been known
for many years, that noise annoyance is increased by the
belief on the part of the auditor that the noise is unnecessary
or can be easily abated.  It is also known that good community
       ^
relations is worth up to 10 dB of noise reduction.  With
this in mind, it is clearly important for airport managers
to work at improving community relations.  Programs which
identify communications paths for complaints, follow-up
reports on complaints, and disseminate information on studies,
programs, and actions taken to improve the noise situation
are very important.  This means not issuing press releases,
but meeting with elected officials of neighboring municipalities
and community groups and bringing in the pilots organizations
and FAA staff where they can hear the problem at first hand,
discuss the operational aspects, and then discuss potential
measures to reduce the noise impacts both in the near and
long term.

There are some problem areas where the ideas that have been
presented will not be easy to implement.  These include:
                           109

-------
     1.    Airports in one municipality that are owned by
          another municipality-

     2.    Airports on the edge of one municipality that
          causes noise problems in another.

     3.    Suburban airports initiating turbine-powered
          activity.

     4.    Airports opening new fixei base jet maintenance
          facilities.

Nevertheless,  a program for remediation should always be
available to each airport management.  It should be operating
before any complaints occur,  and it may result in never
having serious noise complaints.  Such a program includes:

      1.  Preparation of topographic maps and aerial photographs
          with the expected traffic patterns overlaid.

      2.  Delineation of noise-sensitive areas.

      3.  Listing of airport, telephone "information" numbers.

      4.  Availability of instructions for recording complaint
          information.

      5.  A noise coordinating committee to review operations,
          recommend noise abatement procedures, and assess
          complaints from an operational point of view.

      6.  Issuance of noise abatement procedures if needed.
                           110

-------
     7.  Regional information and eduction programs.


     8.  Cooperation with local governing bodies and planning

         boards in order to achieve long term benefits from
         land use planning.


     9.  Review of FAA documents and environmental requirements

         for airport development.


    10.  Annual re\iew of the programs.
Harris, Andrew S., "Noise Abatement at General Aviation
Airports," Noise Control Engineering, March-April 1978.

Harris, Andrew S., "Noise Problems of General Aviation
Airports," INTER-NOISE 76, Washington, D.C., April 1976,
                         111

-------
        REf-niAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED
           WITH  GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY - A CASE STUDY

              PRESENTED BY W, J, CRITCHFIELD, A.A.E,
                       TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA

           TO THE CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT
                   NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING

                         ATLANTA, GEORGIA
                          OCTOBER 4, 1979

     GENERAL AVIATION AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION HAS COME OF AGE,
     UNFORTUNATELY, THIS CONVENIENCE AND SOPHISTICATION HAS DEVELOPED
ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH PLAGUE GENERAL AVIATION,  MOST AIRPORTS
WHICH MAKE C.ENERAL AVIATION A CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION HAVE TWO THINGS  IN COMMON,  THEY ARE LOCATED IN A
CROWDED URBAN AREA, AND THEY ARE HEAVILY USED,
     TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT is NO EXCEPTION,  IT is LOCATED IN  THE
SOUTH BAY AREA OF Los ANGELES COUNTY SERVING A POPULATION IN EXCESS OF
2 MILLION,  IT IS ALSO ABOUT THE 12TH BUSIEST AIRPORT IN THE NATION,
     THE AIRPORT WAS FIRST DEVELOPED AS A FLIGHT STRIP BY THE BUREAU
OF PUBLIC ROADS IN THE LATE 1920's,  IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S,
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPED AS A FIGHTER STRIP IN THE EARLY AND
MIDDLE 40'S,
     IT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ClTY OF ToRRANCE  IN 1948,  AT THAT TIME
THE AIRPORT WAS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE, OIL FIELDS, AND SOME
INDUSTRIAL USE,   THE COMMUNITY, NOW THE ClTY OF LoMITA, TO THE EAST,
WAS MOSTLY AGRICULTURAL USE RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
     THE AIRPORT AND ITS SURROUNDING COMMUNITY REMAINED IN THIS
GENERAL LAND USE PATTERN FOR 10 V
                                113

-------
     IN 1958 THE CITY OF TORRANCE TOOK ACTION TO DEVELOP THE
AIRPORT TO MEET THE GROWING NEED FOR GENERAL AVIATION,  OVER THE
NEXT 5 YEARS THE CONTROL TOWER WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE SECOND RUNWAY
WAS BUILT, TAXIWAYS, PARKING APRONS, LIGHTING, AND HANGARS WERE
CONSTRUCTED,
     CONCURRENTLY, HOUSING AND APARTMENTS WERE DEVELOPED AROUND THE
AIRPORT,
     THE OBJECTIONS TO AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CONFLICTING LAND USE
PATTERNS FIRST BECAME EVIDENT IN 1965,  THE ClTY OF TORRANCE STARTED
ITS FIRST REMEDIAL MEASURE AT THAT TIME,
     THIS DEALT WITH LAND USE,  THE AREA IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE
AIRPORT HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO DEVELOP WITH POOR QUALITY HOUSING FOR
SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE,
     MANY OF THE HOUSES WERE FREEWAY MOVE-INS DISPLACED BY FREEWAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATED,  IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
AIRPORT, THE ClTY OF TORRANCE INITIATED A FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO CONVERT THE RESIDENTIAL LAND
USE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
     THE PROJECT AMOUNTED TO $7 MILLION ON 1/3 MATCHING GRANT, LOANS
AND LOCAL FUNDING,
     THE ORIGINAL PROJECT CONVERTED RESIDENTIAL USES IMPACTED BY
AIRPORT OPERATIONS TO LIGHT  INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE, AND COMMERCIAL USES
WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE AND, IN FIVE INSTANCES, HAVE CREATED LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL  COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT,
     TODAY  IT  is AN EXAMPLE  OF EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT,
     ANOTHER PROJECT UNDER STATE GUIDELINES USING LOCAL FUNDS WILL
TAKE PLACE  IMMEDIATELY  NORTH OF THE EXISTING MEADOW PARK REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT,
     IN 1965 THE  CITY TOOK OTHER LAND  USE MEASURES WHICH CONTINUE TO
BF.  UTILIZED,

-------
     THESE ARE THE ACQUISITION OF AVIGATION EASEMENTS WHICH REQUIRE
HEIGHT LIMITS, GRANT THE RIGHT OF FLIGHT; AND,  IN SOME  INSTANCES,
REQUIRE ACOUSTIC TREATMENT,
     AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED BOTH AS DEED RESTRICTIONS ON
TRACTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND AS A CONDITION OF LAND USE CHANGES
OR MODIFICATIONS SUCH AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, LOT SPLITS, AND
OTHER LAND USE MODIFICATIONS,
     ACOUSTIC CONSTRUCTION  IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR NEW STRUCTURES HAVING
CRITICAL USES IN THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AREAS,  THIS INCLUDES THE
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WHICH REQUIRE LOW INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS,
     AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED JUST AS STREET, SIDEWALK, SEWER,
AND OTHER EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED FOR NEWLY DEVELOPING PROPERTY OR
PROPERTY REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING USES,
     IN CONGESTED URBAN AREA LAND USE PLANNING, RE~USE, DEED RESTRICTIONS,
AND AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE LIMITED AS REMEDIAL MEASURES,
     THERE STILL EXIST RESIDENTIAL USES WHICH ARE IMPACTED BY GENERAL
AVIATION AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS,
     IN 1970 AIRCRAFT NOISE, TOGETHER WITH CHANGING LAND USE, RAISED
QUESTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THE ClTY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY,
     A PROCESS WAS STARTED  FOR REVIEWING THE GOALS FOR THE AIRPORT
WHICH RESULTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW AlRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE
NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM BEING USED TODAY,
     BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS, IT is ESSENTIAL TO PERFORM
AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE AIRPORT,
     THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE AIRPORT,
BUT THE AIRPORT ITSELF, ITS USE, TYPES AND CLASS OF AIRCRAFT, AND THE
SPECTRUM OF EXPERIENCE OF THE AIRCRAFT OPERATORS,
                                 115

-------
     YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS AND THE PROBLEM AREAS,  THE
AVERAGE GENERAL AVIATION PILOT DOES NOT PERCEIVE HIS OPERATION INTO
AND OUT OF THE AIRPORT AS A PROBLEM,   THE PILOT GENERALLY HAS NO
PERCEPTION OF THE NOISE IMPACT OF HIS AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT ON THE GROUND,
     IT'S AKIN TO TURNING A DRIVER LOOSE ON A PARKWAY OR A FREEWAY
WITHOUT A SPEEDOMETER AND CAUTIONING  HIM NOT TO EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT,
     NOISE IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM,  SAFETY MAY BE BROUGHT FORTH AS A
PROBLEM, BUT GENERALLY IT IS SECONDARY AND IS USED TO SUPPORT RESISTANCE
TO NOISE IMPACT,
     THE MAGNITUDE OF THE NOISE MUST BE ANALYZED,
     THE SOURCE, IN TERMS OF THE AIRCRAFT TYPE, ITS POWER PLANT,
PROPELLER NOISE, EXHAUST NOISE;
     TECHNIQUE - THE PILOT'S EXPERIENCE, HIS FAMILIARIZATION WITH THE
AIRCRAFT, AND ITS CAPABILITY; THE LIMITATIONS OF ITS PERFORMANCE, AND
ITS NOISE, AND WITH THE AIRPORT AREA,
     ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE NOISE PROBLEM is FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE -
THE VOLUME OF THE NOISE MAY BE LOW, BUT MANY AIRCRAFT WAY BE OPERATING
IN A TRAINING MODE, AND THE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF THE OPERATIONS
MAY BE EVERY 45 SECONDS,  THE NOISE MAY NOT BE LOUD, BUT IT IS STEADY
OR RECURRENT,
     THE THIRD ELEMENT IS TIME OF OCCURRENCE,  YOU MUST ANALYZE THE
TIME OF OCCURRENCE OF THE NOISE EVENTS  IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY'S
CYCLE ~ WHAT ARE PEOPLE DOING AT THE TIME OF YEAR, THE TIME OF WEEK,
OR TIME OF DAY THAT THE NOISE FROM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS WOULD ANNOY
THEM OR CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THEM?  ToRRANCE, WITH THE AID OF A
PORTABLE NOISE MONITOR AND LATER A SOPHISTICATED COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM
WITH 11 MONITOR SITES, CONDUCTED A SERIES OF NOISE ANALYSES OF
OPERATIONS PRIMARILY FROM RUNWAY 29R,
                                 116

-------
         OF THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS OCCUR TO THE WEST; A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OCCUR ON RUNWAY 29R,
     FROM THIS ANALYSIS WE DEVELOPED A CURVE WHICH IDENTIFIED THE
BULK OF THE AIRCRAFT OPERATING AT ToRRANCE MUNICIPAL AlRPORT,
     WE DETERMINED THAT ABOVE 82 MAXIMUM AND 88 SINGLE EVENT NoiSE
EXPOSURE LEVEL, 5% OF THE AIRCRAFT FLEET WOULD BE AFFECTED,
     THE CITY COUNCIL IN INITIATING ACTION TO CONTROL THE NOISE IN
THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT SELECTED THESE AS THE UPPER LIMIT FOR
DAYTIME OPERATION TOGETHER WITH 76 MAXIMUM AND 82 SINGLE EVENT AS
THE NIGHTTIME LIMITS,
     THESE LIMITS WERE SELECTED BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT
MIX AND THEIR  IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY,  OUR SELECTION AND DECISION
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE COURT DECISION IN
SANTA MONICA,
     ONCE THE  INFORMATION, IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM, AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS ARE ASSEMBLED, THE THIRD EFFORT AT REMEDIAL MEASURES MUST
BE  INITIATED,
     THERE MUST BE AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR BOTH PILOT USERS AND THE
COMMUNITY,
     WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EDUCATION, MOST PILOTS SAY "No WAY", AND
MOST COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES SAY "You'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING",
     PILOTS RESENT THE IMPLICATION THAT THEY ARE LESS THAN COMPETENT
IN  THEIR TECHNICAL SKILL, AND THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE PEOPLE THUNDERING OVERHEAD AND MAKING NOISE CAN EVER BE EDUCATED,
     NONETHELESS, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED IT, AND WE HAVE BEEN REASONABLY
SUCCESSFUL - A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER, PROVISIONS FOR OPERATIONAL
EVALUATION OF AIRCRAFT TO DETERMINE NOISE LEVEL, AND, MOST  IMPORTANT
OF  ALL, COMMUNICATIONS',.
                                  117

-------
     THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER IS SENT TO BOTH PILOTS AND THE
COMMUNITY WHO WISH TO RECEIVE IT,  IN THIS NEWSLETTER WE REPORT
ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM, NEW TECHNIQUES
FOR REDUCING NOISE IMPACT, BOTH FROM THE SOURCE AND FLYING TECHNIQUE,
CAUTION ON TIME OF OCCURRENCE, AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE,
     WITH EVALUATIONS, THE ClTY HAS UTILIZED THE NEWLY ACQUIRED AND
INSTALLED NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM TO REVIEW AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND
FLIGHT TECHNIQUES, WE CAN TALK DIRECTLY TO THE PILOTS THROUGH OUR OWN
MULTI-COMM FREQUENCY ACQUIRED FROM THE FCC FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PURPOSES,
     A PILOT CAN MAKE 2 OR 3 RUNS USING DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES AND GET
INSTANT ANSWERS ON WHICH TECHNIQUE IS MOST EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING NOISE
FROM HIS AIRCRAFT OPERATION,
     THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PILOTS ARE COOPERATIVE AND UNDERSTANDING
IN RESPONSE TO THE EDUCATION PROGRAM,  PILOTS PRIDE THEMSELVES IN THE
PROFESSIONAL EXECUTION OF THEIR SKILL,
     THE EDUCATION PROGRAM IS ALSO AN EXCELLENT TOOL FOR COMMUNICATING
WITH THE COMMUNITY WHAT IS BEING DONE, WHAT IS NOT BEING DONE, AND WHY,
     EDUCATION is VOLUNTARY AND ONLY GOES so FAR,
     THE FOURTH ELEMENT IN REMEDIAL MEASURES IS ENFORCEMENT,  THE ClTY
COUNCIL OF TORRANCE, BASED ON DATA GATHERED, ANALYSIS,  AND EVALUATION
OF THE AIRPORT NOISE ENVIRONMENT, ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE  AND SUBMITTED
IT TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
     THE CITY RECEIVED APPROVAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THAT ORDINANCE,
THE LIMITATION ON TIME PERIODS WHEN TOUCH AND GO TRAINING OPERATIONS
COULD BE PERFORMED, AND THE INSTITUTION OF A DEPARTURE  CURFEW,
     ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS COMMENCED IN OCTOBER, 1978,  A
SERIES OF CITATIONS WERE  ISSUED OR COMPLAINTS FILED; THE INCIDENTS OF
VIOLATION OF THESE PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE NOW ZERO,
                                 118

-------
     INITIALLY THE LOCAL FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MADE
MINIMAL COOPERATIVE EFFORT IN THE ClTY's ENFORCEMENT OF TOUCH AND
GO LIMITATIONS AND DEPARTURE CURFEWS,  AFTER SOME DISCUSSION THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOW  ISSUES ADVISORIES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ASSISTING PILOTS WHO MAY BE UNAWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS,  ADVISORIES
SUCH AS "FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, REQUEST You MAKE A FULL STOP" IN RESPONSE
TO A REQUEST FOR TOUCH AND GO DURING PROHIBITED HOURS,
     THIS HAS BEEN MOST HELPFUL IN PREVENTING PILOTS FROM BEING CITED
AND CALLED INTO COURT AND FINED,
     OUR OBJECTIVE, AFTER ALL, IS TO REDUCE THE NOISE IMPACT,  NOT TO
COLLECT FINES OR CITE FOR MISDEMEANOR VIOLATIONS,
     THE CITY OF TORRANCE PLANS TO EXPAND ITS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
INTO THE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE
DECISION IN THE SANTA MONICA CASE,
     THIS WILL IMPACT THOSE PILOTS WHO HAVE SELECTED AN AIRCRAFT THAT
CANNOT MEET THE NOISE STANDARDS AT TORRANCE OR THOSE PILOTS WHO DO
NOT OR WILL NOT UTILIZE THE TESTED AND PROVEN TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING
NOISE FROM THEIR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS,
     AGAIN, THE PURPOSE is NOT TO FINE AND NOT TO CITE, BUT TO REDUCE
NOISE,
     PILOTS AND AIRCRAFT OWNERS WHO MEET THE NOISE LIMITATIONS AT
TORRANCE ARE BENEFITED BY THIS ENFORCEMENT,   IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF
OVERALL NOISE IMPACT AND REDUCES THE PRESSURE FOR ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS
ON THE AIRPORT AND ITS OPERATIONS THUS MAKING THIS MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
AVAILABLE TO THE MAJORITY OF USERS,
     THE FIFTH MOST IMPORTANT REMEDIAL MEASURE IS REPORT THE RESULTS,
IN THE FOUR PREVIOUS STEPS, REPORTING THE STEPS AND THEIR RESULTS IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT OUTGROWTH AND SUPPORT THAT CAN BE USED,
     A FULL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION, GOOD OR BAD, ON THE RESULTS OF
THE OVERALL NOISE ABATEMENT FRQr-R.AM  is IMPORTANT IN OBTAINING
                                119

-------
CREDIBILITY AND SUPPORT OF BOTH PILOTS AND COMMUNITY,
     THE NEWSLETTER,  PRESENTATIONS TO GROUPS, SERVICE CLUBS, AND
ORGANIZATIONS OF THE  NoiSE ABATEMENT PROGRAM'S FUNCTIONS AND OBJECTIVES,
INTERFACE WITH MEDIA  TO KEEP THEM ADVISED AS TO THE PROGRESS - ALL
ARE IMPORTANT TO A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM,
     THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT
POLICY, PUBLISHED IN  NOVEMBER,  1976, FURNISHES A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR
NOISE REDUCTION PROGRAMS,  A REASONABLE PROGRAM, BASED ON PROPER
ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND PREPARATION, CAN BE ASSURED OF A REASONABLE
RESPONSE FROM THE FAA,
     UNFORTUNATELY,  THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS IN ANY GIVEN PROGRAM THAT,
FROM TIME TO TIME, RECEIVES A NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BASED ON NATIONAL POLICY,
     THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S STRICT ADHERANCE TO NATIONAL
POLICY  IN CERTAIN MATTERS IS UNRESPONSIVE AND NEGATIVE IN ITS IMPACT
ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AGENCIES, AND AIRPORT PROPRIETORS WHO NEED ALL
THE HELP THEY CAN GET TO MAINTAIN THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF OUR AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,
     THE SUCCESS OF REMEDIAL MEASURES BY THE CITY OF TORRANCE AND
OTHER GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT PROPRIETORS WOULD BE MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE
IF THE  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WAS MORE RESPONSIVE AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL PERMITTING THE REGIONAL OFFICES MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH GENERAL
AVIATION AIRPORTS, THEIR NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
     THIS WILL LEAD TO A POLICY WHICH CAN REFLECT POSITIVE NOISE
ABATEMENT EFFORTS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION,
     IN  SUMMARY, A CASE  STUDY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES AT TORRANCE
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INCLUDES LAND USE CONTROLS BY REDEVELOPMENT AND
                                 120

-------
REUSE, DEED RESTRICTIONS, AVIGATION EASEMENTS, AND ACOUSTIC
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT AND THE COMMUNITY,
      IT INCLUDES COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES TO A PROGRAM,
     WITHOUT THIS COMMITMENT OF DOLLARS AND PEOPLE, ANY PROGRAM is
ONLY PAPER, ORDINANCES, LAWS, CODES, AND IT WILL BE A "PAPER TIGER",
     THE PROGRAM INVOLVES ANALYSIS OF AND DEFINING THE PROBLEMS,
MORE RESOURCES, DOLLARS, PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT,
     THE PROGRAM INVOLVES EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE PROBLEM, THE PILOTS AND THE COMMUNITY, MORE DOLLARS AND
RESOURCES,
     THE PROGRAM INVOLVES ENFORCEMENT,  SOME REQUIRE GREATER INCENTIVE
THAN  OTHERS TO TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM,
MORE DOLLARS AND PEOPLE,
     AND FINALLY, REPORTING THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM TO THE COMMUNITY
AND PILOTS,
      USE OF THE NEWSLETTER, PERIODIC REPORTS TO THE CITIZENS' ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, AIRPORT COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL KEEP THE PILOTS AND
COMMUNITY  INFORMED OF  PROGRESS,
      WITH THESE REMEDIAL MEASURES, ToRRANCE HAS REDUCED THE AIRPORT
NOISE CONTOURS, ACCOMODATED A SLIGHT  INCREASE IN OPERATIONS, GAINED
A SIGNIFICANT  INCREASE  IN REVENUES, AND WE HAVE NO MORE DEMONSTRATIONS
AND PROTESTS IN FRONT  OF ClTY COUNCIL,
      IT'S WORKED FOR TORRANCE,
      WE THINK  IT'S A MODEL PROGRM,
      THANK YOU,
                                  121

-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
Graduate City Planning Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
(404) 894-2350
                     PREVENTIVE  MEASURES:
            WESTCHESTER COUNTY  AIRPORT,  NEW YORK

                       PETER ESCHWEILER
                   COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING
            WESTCHESTER COUNTY  AIRPORT,  NEW YORK
                        OCTOBER  4,  1979
                              123

-------
Document A      MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
                        BETWEEN THE
                   COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
                            AND
       THE TOWN OF RYE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
     This memorandum Is between the County of Westchester,  herein-
after called the County, and the Town of Rye, hereinafter  called
the Town.
     The County and the Town recognize  the advantages of close
coopers Lion in the development of the Westchester County A rport
Master Plan, and in particular, the land use planning eleme  t and
the Airport Noise Control and Land Use  Compatibility Study
(ANCLUC).  This cooperation will be mutually beneficial, and vill
combine  the talents of both parties to  provide the best and  most
enduring solutions to  the planning and  resource development
problems in that portion of the Town adjacent to the airport.   This
memorandum of understanding has been signed by both parties  to
implement these joint  efforts.
                  WHAT THE COUNTY WILL  DO
     The County will provide the Town with detailed descriptions
of the  technical work  to be performed under the Airport Master
Plan, the land use planning element, and the Airport Noise Control
and Land Use Compatibility Study.
     The County will provide the Town Board with County projections
ol land u.se, population, housing, street and highway improvements,
and- other information  relating to such  areas of the Town as the
Town Board may deem appropriate including the entire unincorporated
area of the Town if so requested by the Town Board.
                               124

-------
     For the purposes of the land use planning element,  the County



and its consultants will accept the adopted Town Development Plan



as a "given", unless and until the Town notifies the County Plan-



ning Department that it has changed that policy statement; the




Town will provide the County Planning department with copies of



all such changes.




     The County will meet with the Town Board at mutually convenient



times to identify, discuss and attempt, to resolve any off-airport



land use issues arising within the Town and relating to  the



airport and its operations.




     The County will review, upon the request of the Town Board,



any local plans or applications to the Town for approval of land





use actions during the time frame of the Airport Master  Plan



preparation and comment to the Town on the effect of such plans



or applications on the airport or the effect by the airport on




that such development.



     On mutually convenient dates, the County and its consultants



will brief Town officials on the progress of the Airport Master



Plan, and solicit comments nnd suggestions thereon.



     The County will provide the Town with copies of all information



reports and discussion papers prepared during the Airport Master



Plan nnd 1 he ANC1.UC study for the Town's information and comment.




     The County will provide the Town with a copy of the final




Airport Master Plan and ANCLUC study.
                               125

-------
                   WHAT THE TOWN WILL DO



     The Town will cooperate with  the County  and  its  consultants



on the Airport Master Plan and consult with  them  on matters of




local development affecting or affected by  the  airport  and  its



operat ions.



     The Town will provide a copy, to the County,  of  appropriate



and pertinent local data and plans for land  use,  housing, population,



neighborhood analysis, utility plans and the  like  which  describe or



which may influence development in the vicinity of the  airport.



     At present the Town has a home-owner representation fron the



Town and nominated by it on the Airport Advisory  Board,  and on  the



Airport Master Plan Policy Liaison Board.  The  Town may  also designate



an additional pc-rson specifically  to represent  the Town  Board on



tho A_i_rp_p_r_t_ Policy Liaison Board and other master  plan  working



conmitices during the master plan  process.   The County  will give



duo no4. i"o of such meetings to that representative.



     The Town will provide to the  County a copy of the  local



zoning ordinance, land subdivision regulations  and other regulations



controlling development in the vicinity of  the  airport.



     The Town will review County projections  of land  use and



population and other data pertaining to its  area  and  submit comments



thereon to tho County.




     The Town will meet on mutually convenient  dates  with the County



and its consultants on the Airport Master Plan  for consultation  and



to present the Town's comments and suggestions.
                              126

-------
                    IT IS FURTHER AGREED

     That the town shall have the right to participate in the master

planning process as fully as though it were a co-sponsor but shall

not boar any responsibilities of endorsement or approval that might

otherwise limit a co-sponsor.

     That the implementation of this agreement regarding the land

use planning element of the Airport Master Plan and the ANCLUC study

shall be coordinated and supervised by the County Commissioner of

Planning and by the Town Supervisor or their desingated representatives,

     That the services and data to be provided by each part to the

other shall be from the then-available sources and data, and

at no cost to the other party.

     The County and the Town may agree to develop such additional

data as may be deemed to be advisable and appropriate for the

Airport Master Plan and the ANCLUC studies, but within the constraints

of available time and budget.

     The County of fcestchester and not the Town will be responsible

for the obligations under the FAA Master Plan Grant Agreement with

the United State Government.
To',.n of Rye
By:
    supervisor
Date:
c,.'.  •/>
As authorized by Resolution
of                   ,  1979
                               127
                County of Westchester
                                             ^-t
By:,  +£&.
   uommissioner
Date:
                            *-y  22,
                As authorized  by  the
                Board of  Acquisition  and
                Contract  by  Resolution
                Dated £X*fcfc*» j   ,  1977

-------
Document B





                MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT



                          BETWEEN




                      THE TOWN OF RYE



                            AND



                 THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER



               REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT




     The Town of Rye and the County of Westchester are participating



in the Airport Master Plan study for the Mfestchester County  Airport



and its accompanying Airport Noise control and Land Use Compatibility




study.



     The ""own of Rye is contiguous with t:;e Westchester County



Airport, and is unique in that there are in the approach areas  to



Runway 34 some 300 acres of developable land in the Town of  Rye.



The appropriate development of this land is of- particular  concern



both to the Town of Rye and to the County of Westchester,  both



because of its relationship to the County airport and in view of ita



economic benefits.  As a part of the master plan and AKCLUC  studies.



the Town and the County are cooperating in the study of the  appropriate



form and type of development  For this specific area.



     The Town of Rye has designated this area as a critical  area



on which it wishes to cooperate with the County in promoting sound



economic development for the  highest and best possible use in our



existing circumstances.  Accordingly, it is hereby agreed  that  the



County of Westchester and the Town of Rye will continue the  cooperation



started under the Airport Master Plan and ANCLUC studies and will
                               128

-------
actively  seek  the  appropriate  development of this land by

such developers  and  with  such  land uses as will be of great

value  to  the Town  of  Hye  and  yet  be compatible with the

requirements relating to  public  safety and welfare for the use

of land in  the vicinity of  the County Airport.  Both the County

and  uif Town :\e:ree that a necessary and immediate priority of this

joint  economic development  effort will L»J the planning of an

effective and  appropriate access road system, linking route 684

with the  developable  land in  the Town of Hye, designed to improve

'the  value and  viability  for the land for prudent economic development,

     In support  of this agreement, the To'vn pledge:; to pursue in

Rood faith  its responsibilities in the preparation of the Airport

Master  I'lan and  ANCL'JC study  agreement , and to cooperate with the

County  in seeking  and <--upporting appropriate development options.

'i hi  County  of  'AVstches ter pledges the star"'" support of the County

personnel,  particularly  those  of the Office of Economic Development,

tne  Department of  Planning,  the Department of Public Works, and  the

Department  of  Transportation,  in obtaining and promoting the

appropriate development  of  this critical area of the Town of Rye.

     i-iipnod this  2*^  day  of /v>/-*-«r -   1979 by
Anthony 'J. PosJllipo
Supervisor
Town of Rye
                                              Alfred B. DelBello
                                              Coun-ty Executive
                                              Couoty of Westchester
                                129

-------
General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Suite 517
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 296-8848
            THE ROLE OF AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS
           IN ALLEVIATING GENERAL AVIATION NOISE

                  -  STANLEY J,  GREEN  -
                      VICE  PRESIDENT
        GBIERAL AVIATION [WiUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

       CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
                   AND LAND USE PLANNING

              GEORGIA  INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
                     ATLMA, GEORGIA

                    OCTOBER 3 - 5, 1979
                              131

-------
     FIRST, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT GENERAL AVIATION IS TO GAMA,
GENERAL AVIATION, WHICH is DEFINED AS ALL CIVIL AVIATION OTHER THAN THE
LARGE SCHEDULED AIR CARRIERS, IS VITAL TO THE NATION'S ECONOMY AND
TOUCHES EVERY SEGMENT OF AMERICAN LIFE IN SOME BENEFICIAL WAY,
     GENERAL AVIATION MAY ALSO BE DESCRIBED AS OVER 800,000 PILOTS
FLYING 200,000 AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM OVER 14,000 AIRPORTS,  IT COMPLEMENTS
THE EXCELLENT AIRLINE SYSTEM OF THE U,S, BY TRANSPORTING OVER 110,000,000
INTERCITY PASSENGERS ANNUALLY,  ALTHOUGH MOST OF THESE FLIGHTS USE
AIRPORTS WITHOUT AIRLINE SERVICE AT ONE, OR OFTEN BOTH ENDS OF THEIR
•FLIGHTS, ONE-THIRD OF ALL BUSINESS FLIGHTS INTO MAJOR METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS CONNECT WITH A SCHEDULED AIRLINE FLIGHT,
     IN SHORT, GENERAL AVIATION - WHICH  INCLUDES COMMUTER AIRLINES, AIR
TAXIS, AND BUSINESS AND PERSONAL AIRCRAFT - EXPANDS THE BENEFITS OF AIR
TRANSPORTATION FROM THE 380  SOME AIRPORTS SERVED BY THE SCHEDULED AIR-
LINES TO THE NEARLY L8,000 COMMUNITIES SERVED BY GENERAL AVIATION,
MANY OF THESE AIRPORTS ARE IN RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY AND  GENERAL
AVIATION  IS THE ONLY FORM OF AIR TRANSPORTATION,
     GENERAL AVIATION  is AN  iNDUSTRY THAT EMPLOYS OVER 300,000 PEOPLE  IN
MANUFACTURING, SALES,  FLIGHT DEPARTMENTS, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER RELATED
SERVICES,  THERE ARE OVER 5,000 LOCAL AND  INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES  INVOLVED
 IN GENERAL AVIATION, NATIONWIDE,
                              132

-------
     GENERAL AVIATION ALSO CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE U,S, BALANCE
OF TRADE,  HISTORICALLY, ONE-FOURTH OF THE TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION
PRODUCTION IS EXPORTED, WITH THE RESULT THAT NEARLY 90 PERCENT OF THE
WORLD'S GENERAL AVIATION FLEET HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED
STATES,

GROWTH OF GENERAL AVIATION
     SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 1970, CONSIDERABLE GROWTH HAS OCCURRED IN
THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY,
          THE GENERAL AVIATION FLEET HAS GROWN 60 PERCENT, FROM
          130,000 AIRCRAFT TO 200,000
          THE NUMBER OF HOURS FLOWN HAS INCREASED 56 PERCENT, FROM
          25 MILLION TO 39 MILLION HOURS ANNUALLY,
          THE NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS USING BUSINESS AIRPLANES AMONG
          THE FORTURE 1000 HAS GROWN TO 524, AN INCREASE OVER 25
          PERCENT,  ADDITIONALLY, THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE
          PURCHASED THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT,
          IN 1970, THE  INDUSTRY DELIVERED 7,300 AIRCRAFT,  THIS FIGURE
          WAS SURPASSED IN THE FIRST FIVE MONTHS OF 1979,
     LAST YEAR, ALMOST 18,000 NEW AIRCRAFT VALUED AT $1,78 BILLION, WERE
DELIVERED BY THE U,S, MANUFACTURERS,  THIS YEAR, OUR MANUFACTURERS
EXPECT TO DELIVER APPROXIMATELY THE SAME NUMBER OF NEW AIRCRAFT WITH A
SHIPMENT VALUE EXCEEDING $2,1 BILLION,  THE SOPHISTICATION OF THESE
AIRCRAFT IS ALSO INCREASING,  A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE  FLEET  IS BEING
DELIVERED WITH INCREASED INSTRUMENT FLYING CAPABILITIES AND  PRACTICALLY
ALL NEW AIRCRAFT ARE EQUIPPED WITH TRANSPONDERS,
                             133

-------
     THERE is AN INCREASING TREND TOWARD PRESSURIZATION,  TWENTY PERCENT
OF NEW SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT ARE NOW TURBOCHARGED, WHICH PROVIDES
BETTER FUEL EFFICIENCY AND HIGHER SPEEDS AT HIGHER ALTITUDES,  IN ADDITION,
THE NUMBERS OF HIGHER PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT ARE INCREASING AS A PERCENTAGE
OF THE TOTAL FLEET,  So FAR THIS YEAR, SHIPMENTS OF MULTIENGINE PISTON
AND TURBOPROP AIRCRAFT ARE UP BY 20 PERCENT, AND JETS BY 25 PERCENT,
     IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, FAA IS FORECASTING THAT THE GENERAL AVIATION
FLEET WILL INCREASE AN ADDITIONAL 55 PERCENT, TO OVER 300 THOUSAND
AIRCRAFT,  IT  IS ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL BE OVER A MILLION ACTIVE
PILOTS,  FLYING HOURS ARE ANTICIPATED TO INCREASE BY 58 PERCENT,
     THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT OF 1978 HAS PROVEN TO BE OF CONSIDERABLE
BENEFIT TO THE GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS,  THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUTER
AIRLINE  INDUSTRY,  ENCOURAGED BY THE NEW LAW,  IS PLACING UNPRECEDENTED
DEMANDS FOR NEW AIRCRAFT,   IN ADDITION, MORE AND MORE BUSINESSES ARE
FINDING THAT THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT ARE  INDISPENSABLE  "BUSINESS TOOLS" TO
TRAVEL TO LOCATIONS WHICH ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO REACH BY THE SCHEDULED
AIRLINES,   IN  THE  PAST 10 YEARS, 120  POINTS OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN DROPPED
BY THE CERTIFICATED AIRLINES, MANY OF WHICH HAD NO REPLACING SERVICE,
THE CAB  CURRENTLY  HAS ON FILE NOTICES FROM  CERTIFICATED AIRLINES REQUESTING
TO DISCONTINUE SERVICE TO 130 ADDITIONAL  POINTS,
     CONSEQUENTLY, BUSINESS AVIATION  AND THE  SCHEDULED  AIRLINES FORM AN
 IMPORTANT  INTERCONNECTING LINK, AS GENERAL  AVIATION  PROVIDES SERVICE TO
ALL OF THESE  POINTS,
                             134

-------
ON JULY 21, 1968, SECTION 611, CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT
NOISE AND SONIC Bow, BECAME PART OF THE FAA ACT OF 1958 AND
SET IN MOTION A MAJOR REGULATORY BASED EFFORT TO CONTROL AIRCRAFT
NOISE AT ITS SOURCE,  THIS EFFORT HAS INTENSIFIED OVER THE YEARS
THROUGH FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT AND THROUGH CONTINUING
REGULATORY PRESSURES,

THE PURPOSE OF THIS, OF COURSE, is TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT - THAT
"COMPLEX OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE NATURE OF
AN INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIETY,"

THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITHIN THE GENERAL AVIATION COMMUNITY
THAT CAN BE TERMED "ENVIRONMENTAL."  OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED AIRPORTS
AT EACH END OF EACH  SUCCESSFUL TRIP, AND AIRPORTS ARE GETTING
HARDER TO COME BY, AND TO KEEP,   ISSUES THAT WERE ONCE THOUGHT
TO HAVE BEEN FINALLY SETTLED ARE  REOPENED AS PROGRAMS TO REPAVE OR
INCREASE THE LENGTH  OF RUNWAYS LEAD TO COMMUNITY HEARINGS ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS'OF THESE PROGRAMS,  CONCERNS THAT WERE
ONCE WHOLLY THE BALIWICK OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER NOW RECEIVE ATTENTION
BY AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS, PILOT  ORGANIZATIONS, AND FIXED BASED
OPERATORS,  RUNOFF,  SEWERAGE, EMISSIONS, AND NOISE — ALL ARE PART
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OF THE AIRPORT,  As MANUFACTURERS,
WE MUST BE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE EFFECTS  (AND WORK TO MINIMIZE
THE IMPACT) ON THE COMMUNITY  IF THE EXPANSION OF OUR BUSINESS,
WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE DESIRE, IS TO  TAKE PLACE,
                              135

-------
[vbRE SIMPLY SAID, NOISE IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CONTINUED



GROWTH OF GENERAL AVIATION, AND WE MUST, AND ARE, WORKING TO




REDUCE THIS IMPEDIMENT,








LET'S SPEND A FEW MINUTES AND REVIEW WHERE WE WERE SO AS TO BETTER



PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WHERE WE ARE,  IN NOVEMBER OF 1969, THE FAA



PUBLISHED FAR PART 36, A SET OF RULES ESTABLISHING NOISE LIMITS



APPLICABLE TO NEW JET AIRCRAFT DESIGNS,   ITS OBJECTIVE WAS SIMPLE -



PUT A CAP ON AIRCRAFT NOISE, WHICH WAS CLEARLY ESCALLATING AS MORE



AND MORE JET AIRCRAFT ENTERED THE FLEET AND OPERATIONS INCREASED,



IN 1975, WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL AVIATION JETS, THESE SAME



STANDARDS WERE APPLIED TO NEWLY MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT OF THE



OLDER TYPE DESIGNS,








TO QUANTIFY THESE REGULATIONS, FOR THE GENERAL AVIATION JETS,



THOSE WHOSE MAXIMUM TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT ARE 75,000 POUNDS OR



LESS, WE SAW LIMITS ON NOISE AS FOLLOWS:








          1.   FOR THE APPROACH AND SIDELINE SITUATIONS,



               102 EPNoB,



          2.   FOR THE TAKEOFF  SITUATION, 93 EPNoB,








A NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT DESIGNED  IN THE 1960's, AND WHICH WERE  STILL



 IN PRODUCTION, DID NOT MEET THESE LEVELS AND EITHER HAD TO BE



MODIFIED OR GO OUT OF  PRODUCTION,  THE  MANUFACTURERS  EFFECTIVELY
                             136

-------
MET THE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A VARIETY OF WAYS - "HUSH KITS/'
SPECIAL, REQUIRED OPERATING TECHNIQUES AND RE-ENGINING, WITH THE
RE-ENGINING USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE
AIRCRAFT TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE,  THE ENGINES USED BY THE
AIRCRAFT COMPANIES WHO CHOSE THE RE-ENGINING ROUTE WERE CERTIFIED
IN THE 1971 - 72 TIMEFRAME, THE GARRETT CORPORATION TFE 731 AND
THE PRATT AND WHITNEY JT 15D,  THE RESULTS OF RE-ENGINING WERE
DRAMATIC - SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN NOISE LEVELS WERE ACHIEVED
ALONG WITH MANY OTHER BENEFITS, PRIMARILY REDUCED FUEL CONSUMPTION,

THESE ENGINES WERE ALSO UTILIZED  IN NEW AIRCRAFT DESIGNS - DESIGNS
THAT HAD SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS BETWEEN THE REGULATORY ALLOWABLE NOISE
LEVELS AND THOSE ACTUALLY MEASURED,  THE MARGINS WERE OF COURSE
"DESIGNED  IN" TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF BOTH THE ENGINE AND THE
AIRCRAFT - THE ENGINE'S GROWTH  POTENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXPANDING  ITS POTENTIAL AIRFRAME APPLICATIONS - THE AIRCRAFT
GROWTH - TO EXPAND  ITS APPLICATIONS,

THE REGULATORY TREND  IS ALWAYS  TOWARD TOUGHER REQUIREMENTS -  IN
THIS CASE  LOWER NOISE - AND TOUGHER STANDARDS WERE  INEVITABLE,
FAA'S LATEST RULES, RESULTING FROM A NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING PUBLISHED  IN 1976, SUBSTANTIALLY TIGHTENED  THE
STANDARDS  FOR NEW DESIGNS OF AIRCRAFT,  THESE STANDARDS WERE
ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY THE  INTERNATIONAL ClVIL AvIATION
ORGANIZATION COMMMITTEE ON AIRCRAFT NOISE AT  ITS  FIFTH MEETING
AND ARE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS  CAN 5  NOISE  LEVELS,
                             137

-------
AGAIN, TO QUANTIFY THESE NEW REGULATIONS, FOR GENERAL AVIATION JETS,
THE APPROACH LIMIT DROPS FROM 102 EPNoB TO 98; THE SIDE LINE, FROM
102 TO % AND THE TAKEOFF, FROM 93 TO 89,

NOW LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST VIEWGRAPH - TAKEOFF NOISE LEVELS,
THE TOP SOLID LINE, LABELLED 69 FAR 36,  IS THE FAA ORIGINAL 1969
REGULATION,  THE TRIANGLES SHOW THE NOISE LEVEL OF MANY OF THE
ORIGINAL GENERAL AVIATION JETS, THE LEAR 23, 24, 25 SERIES, THE
ROCKWELL SABERLINER SERIES, THE LOCKHEED JET STAR, AND THE
GRUMMAN GULFSTREAM II,  As I MENTIONED, WHEN AIRCRAFT THAT WERE
STILL IN PRODUCTION WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 1969 RULES, WE DID SO
THROUGH EITHER THE USE OF SUPPRESSORS OR REQUIRED OPERATING
TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS CUT-RACK,  THESE AIRCRAFT ARE INDICATED
BY THE HEXAGONS,  SOME AIRCRAFT WERE MODIFIED BY RE~ENGINING
WITH  MODERN TURBO FANS,  THESE AIRCRAFT ARE SHOWN AS SQUARES,
IF THE SYMBOL, TRIANGLE, HEXAGON, OR SQUARE,  IS FILLED  IN,  IT
MEANS THAT CUT-BACK AFTER TAKEOFF IS USED AS A STANDARD
OPERATING TECHNIQUE TO ACHIEVE THE MEASURED NOISE LEVEL.

THE RESULTS OF RE-ENGINING ARE OFTEN TIMES DRAMATIC,  NOTE  THE
OPEN  TRIANGLE AT THE  106 DB  LEVEL.  THE  OPEN  SQUARE JUST  BELOW
THE 93 DB LEVEL  IS THE SAME  AIRCRAFT, A  REDUCTION OF 13 EPNoB,
                              138

-------
AS IS VERY EVIDENT, OUR MODERN TURBO-FAN-POWERED GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT, SHOWN BY THE CIRCLES, ARE, IN MOST CASES, SUBSTANTIALLY
BELOW THE 1978 LIMIT,  THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED
NOISE AS A PRIME DESIGN PARAMETER IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE
OF THESE AIRCRAFT,

TURNING NOW TO CHART NUMBER TWO, WHICH SHOWS THE APPROACH NOISE
LEVELS, AGAIN WE SEE THE ORIGINAL FAA REGULATION, 69 FAR 36, AND
THE PRESENT REGULATION, 78 FAR 36,

NEW ENGINE DESIGNS SCHEDULED FOR CERTIFICATION IN THE NEXT FEW
YEARS, ARE, IN ADDITION TO BEING MORE ECONOMICAL THAN TODAY'S
DESIGNS, ALSO GOING TO BE QUIETER,  THUS, THE NEWEST AIRCRAFT
DESIGNS ARE BEING TARGETED TO BE WELL BELOW PRESENT FAA NOISE
LIMITS,  THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEW TYPES WILL BE THE PART 24
COMMUTER AIRCRAFT, SCHEDULED FOR INTRODUCTION ABOUT 1983-85.

RECOGNIZING, HOWEVER, THAT WITHOUT SOME LIMITS, NOISE LEVELS
WOULD LIKELY CREEP UP, THE INTERNATIONAL ClVIL A.VIATION ORGANIZA-
TION ADOPTED, IN APRIL OF 1974, A RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
ESTABLISHING SUCH LIMITS,  FAA ADOPTED THESE LIMITS IN
JANUARY OF 1975, TO BECOME OPERATIVE ON JANUARY IST, 1980,
THIS MEANS THAT AFTER THE END OF THIS YEAR, NO PROPELLER
DRIVEN GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT MAY RECEIVE AN ORIGINAL
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE UNLESS IT MEETS THE STANDARD.
                                139

-------
THE EFFECT OF OUR INDUSTRY WAS PREDICTABLE AND THE RESULTS HAVE
BEEN DRAMATIC,  WHEN WORK WAS STARTED BY ICAO ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF ITS RECOWENDED PRACTICE, IN 1972, A MAJOR PORTION OF THE
FLEET THEN BEING CURRENTLY PRODUCED DID NOT MEET THE LEVELS BEING
DISCUSSED AS POSSIBLE LIMITS - AND THE WORK BEGAN,  CERTIFICATION
AND RECERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT IS COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING,
IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO WAIT UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE REGULATORY
CUT-OFF TO RECERTIFICATE ALL OF THE AIRCRAFT, MUCH LESS MODIFY
THOSE THAT COULD NOT MEET THE LIMITS,

BY THE END OF 1976, FULLY THREE YEARS AHEAD OF THE REGULATION DATE,
ALMOST ALL NEWLY MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT BELOW 6,000 POUNDS TAKEOOF
GROSS WEIGHT HAD BEEN MODIFIED TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE,
CERTIFICATION OF ALL AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE 6,000 TO
,12,500 POUND CATEGORY, IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE,

IT APPEARS THAT WE HAD TO TAKE A DIFFERENT TACK  IF WE ARE TO FURTHER
REDUCE PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS,  FROM THE HARDWARE
POINT OF VIEW, WE ARE ATTACKING THE -NOISE PROBLEM BY TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT - STUDYING, PRIMARILY, NEW PROPELLER DESIGNS,  THIS EFFORT,
HOWEVER, WILL NOT PRODUCE FRUITFUL RESULTS FOR AT LEAST FIVE TO TEN
YEARS,

MORE  IWEDIATE RESULTS IN NOISE REDUCTION WILL COME ABOUT THROUGH
CHANGES  IN THE OPERATING PROCEDURES  FOR THE AIRCRAFT,  Vfe ARE
ACCOMPLISHING THIS GOAL THROUGH GAMA SPECIFICATION No, J,
                                140

-------
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR GANA SPECIFICATION No, 1,
"SPECIFICATION FOR PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK," IT WAS INTRODUCED
BY G/WA ON FEBRUARY 15, 1975, AS A GUIDE TO INDUSTRY STANDARDIZATION
OF MATERIAL WHICH WOULD BE OF MAXIMUM USEFULNESS AS AN OPERATING
REFERENCE HANDBOOK BY PILOTS AND MEET APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT REGU-
LATORY REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY WITH EACH AIRCRAFT, AN FAA APPROVED
AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL.  THE MAJOR FEATURE OF THE SPECIFICATION
WAS TO INCFEASE THE IN-FLIGHT USEFULNESS OF THE BOOK BY
STANDARDIZING THE FORMAT OF HANDBOOKS, USING UNITS THAT ARE OF
MOST VALUE TO PILOTS, AND INTEGRATING THE MATERIAL REQUIRED BY
REGULATION WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER,

THE SPECIFICATION HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY BY GAFA MANUFACTURERS
SINCE THAT TIME AND THE CONCEPT HAS BEEN PROVEN,

WE ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING THE SPECIFICATION TO ACCOUNT
FOR OTHER THAN PURE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - FUEL ECONOMY AND
NOISE REDUCTION,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAA REGULATIONS THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION
PROVIDED A "MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER LIMITATION/' THE HIGHER POWER
THAT THE ENGINE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO DELIVER, IN THE PARTICULAR
AIRPLANE, WITHOUT TIME LIMIT ON ITS USE.  HOWEVER, AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER FOR NORMAL  OPERATIONS
OTHER THAN TAKEOFF, AND CONTINUOUS USE OF THIS POWER HAS ADVERSE EFFECTS
ON NOISE, FUEL ECONOMY AND ENGINE WEAR,  K!E HAVE, THEREFORE,  ESTABLISHED
A LIMITATION OF THE USE OF.MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER BY DEFINING  IT
                               141

-------
AS THE TiAXIMUM POWER PERMISSIBLE CONTINUOUSLY DURING TAKEOFF, ONE
ENGINE INOPERATIVE, ABNORMAL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ONLY,"

THE MAXIMUM POWER PERMISSIBLE CONTINOUSLY DURING ALL NORMAL
OPERATIONS IS CALLED MAXIMUM NORMAL OPERATING POWER,  THIS POWER
MAY NOT BE EXCEEDED FOR ALL NORMAL CLIMB AND CRUISE CONDITIONS, AND
WOULD RESULT IN A LOWER NOISE LEVEL, TYPICALLY L\ TO 9 DB LESS THAN
THAT WHICH THE SAME AIRPLANE WOULD MAKE AT MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS
POWER,  ALL PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONTAINTED IN THE PILOT'S
OPERATING HANDBOOKS WILL BE BASED ON THE NEW POWER LIMITATIONS,
SELECTION OF MOP is A JUDGEMENT FACTOR, VARYING AS A PERCENTAGE
OF MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER, IN DIFFERENT AIRPLANES,  CLIMB AND
HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH AIRPLANE MUST BE CONSIDERED TO
DETERMINE THE BEST SITUATION - LOUDER BUT HIGHER FASTER, AND THUS
QUIETER, OR NOT AS LOUD BUT HIGHER SLOWER.

THE IDEA OF PROVIDING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONTAINING A NOISE
REDUCTION ELEMENT IS BEING EXPLORED IN GREATER DEPTH FOR APPLICABILITY
TO OUR JET AIRCRAFT,  THIS EFFORT, CONCEPTLONALLY SIMILAR TO
REDUCED POWER TAKEOFF INFORMATION TO IMPROVE ENGINE ECONOMIES,
WOULD PROVIDE A PILOT WITH THE NECESSARY OPERATING  INFORMATION TO
KEEP THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE AIRCRAFT AT A MINIMUM,

IT WOULD ALSO BE 'USED TO DETERMINE THE EXPECTED NOISE LEVEL
OF THE AIRCRAFT UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS  SUCH AS A  LOCAL
WEIGHT, TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY,
                                142

-------
WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF PROP SIZING AND BLADING, ENGINE
DERATING AND OTHER CERTIFICATION ACTIVITIES, THIS COVERS WHAT THE
MANUFACTURERS HAVE DONE TO REDUCE THE NOISE OF THEIR AIRCRAFT,
CONTINUING RESEARCH AT A REASONABLE PACE AND COST WILL CONTINUE,
THOUGH IT IS BELIEVED FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN NOISE WILL COME IN
SMALL INCREMENTS NOT OF THE BREAK THROUGH VARIETY BROUGHT ABOUT BY
THE FAN ENGINE OVER THE STRAIGHT JET,

HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT COMPLETELY COVER OUR ROLE IN THE NOISE ISSUE,
WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT REASONABLE RULE MAKING EFFORTS, BOTH IN
THE U,S, AND ABROAD,  REMEMBER, WE EXPORT ABOUT 25% OF THE AIRCRAFT
WE MANUFACTURE,  IN FACT, FOR JET AIRCRAFT ONLY, WE EXPORT ABOUT ONE-
THIRD OF THE TOTAL MANUFACTURED,  FOR THIS REASON, WE ACTIVELY FOLLOW
ICAO ACTIVITIES AND ADVOCATE KEEPING THE U,S, REGULATIONS IN LINE WITH
THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND VICE VERSA,  CERTIFICATION COSTS ARE
TOO HIGH TO HAVE TO REPEAT TESTS IN EACH COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SELL
AIRCRAFT,

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED UNIFORM AIRPORT NOISE REGULATIONS -
UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES - APPLICABLE TO ALL AIRPORTS,
PARTICULARLY AIRPORTS THAT RECEIVED FEDERAL FUNDS,  THIS DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THE SAf^ REGULATIONS FOR EACH AIRPORT.  BUT, THE
NOISE LEVELS ESTABLISHED AT AIRPORTS MUST BE BASED ON THE SAME
CRITERIA,  MUST BE CALCULATABLE BY THE SAME METHODOLOGY AND MUST
BE SURE AND CERTAIN BEFORE A PILOT SETS FORTH ON A TRIP,  THE
NOISE LEVELS CHOSEN MUST BE REASONABLE AND MUST RELATE TO THE
LOCAL CONDITIONS,  THEY MUST NOT BE CHOSEN TO CATER TO THE
                                 143

-------
IDIOSYNCRASIES OF A FEW AIRPORT NEIGHBORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEIR
AUTOS, TRUCKS AND LAWNMOWERS HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE MORE NOISE
THAN AIRPLANES,

V!E ALSO STRIVE TO KEEP THE REGULATIONS REASONABLE AND TO KEEP
THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT THE COMMUNITY MUST DO AND MUST ACCEPT
AS THE PRICE FOR ITS AIRPORT AND ENTRY INTO THE NATION'S AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,

GENERAL AVIATION JET AIRCRAFT ARE 10 TO 15 EPNoB - OR MORE - LOWER
THAN THE NEW, LARGE, WIDE-BODY COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS.  THE FREQUENCY
OF OCCURRENCES - TAKEOFFS AND APPROACHES - FOR GENERAL AVIATION
BUSINESS JETS, IS ALSO MARKETEDLY LOWER THAN FOR THE LARGE COMMERCIAL
TRANSPORTS,  AVERAGE YEARLY UTILIZATION OF A BUSINESS JET IS
APPROXIMATELY 600 HOURS COMPARED WITH ABOUT 3,000 HOURS FOR THE AIRLINE
JET,  THERE ARE, ON AN AVERAGE, ABOUT 10 GENERAL AIVATION JET OPERATIONS,
TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS, PER DAY, AT THE MAJOR AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS,   IF A
GENERAL AVIATION FLEET MEETING THE PRESENT FAA STANDARD (AND THE
MAJORITY OF POST 1975 MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT DO MEET THIS STANDARD)
WERE OPERATED  INTO THE LARGE AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS, WE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY ATR CARRIER TRAFFIC AT THESE
AIRPORTS, EVEN IF THAT TRAFFIC MET THE EPA NOISE GOALS..
REASONABLE OBJECTIVE FOP AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES,  "BECAUSE
PRESENT LIMITED DATA INDICATE THAT, AT SOME AIRPORT, AN  LDN CONTRIBUTION
                                144

-------
OF NOISE FROM AIRCRAFT OF L£SS THAN 65 DB IS DIFFICULT TO
DISTINGUISH FROM. OTHER AMBIENT NOISE, GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE LEVEL (OTHER THAN FROM AIRCRAFT) AROUND THOSE AIRPORTS,"

G/WA CALCULATED THE EFFECT OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS
EXPECTED FROM A FLEET OF GENERAL AVIATION PROPELLER-DRIVEN
AIRCRAFT, MEETING THE FAA STANDARDS,  USING A STATISTICALLY COMPUTED
MIX OF AIRCRAFT, WE COMPUTED THE LDN'S AT A POINT 3500 METERS FROM
THE BEGINNING OF THE TAKE-OFF ROLL, AT A SELECTED 2833 AIRPORTS AT
WHICH, AN FAA STUDY SHOWS, 95% OF GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS
OCCUR,  K!E SEPARATELY CALCULATED THE L^N FOR SANTA ANA AIRPORT
WHICH HAS ABOUT 100 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS PER HOUR,  AT THIS
AIRPORT, THE CALCULATED LDN WAS 64,  SANTA ANA'S CALCULATED VALUE
WAS COMPARED WITH ITS MEASURED VALUE OF 68 FROM ALL NOISE SOURCES,
INCLUDING AIR CARRIER AIRCRAFT,

BASED ON THESE TWO VALUES, WE CALCULATED THAT IF ALL PROPELLER DRIVEN
AIRCRAFT WERE BANNED FROM SANTA A,NA, THE MEASURED VALUE WOULD GO DOWN
ABOUT 1 DB,  THE EFFECT AT OTHER AIRPORTS, WITH SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER
PROPELLER DRIVEN SMALL AIRPLANE OPERATIONS, WOULD EVEN BE LESS,

CODIFICATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT TO  INCORPORATE NOISE REDUCING
DEVICES IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.  THE PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE IS THE
PROPELLER.  To DEVELOP A NEW QUIETER PROPELLER FOR AN AIRCRAFT
REOUIRES MUCH ENGINEERING EVALUATION, TIME CONSUMING ENGINE PROPELLER
                                145

-------
VIBRATION STUDIES,  AND COMPLETE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION,  THE



COST OF THIS WORK IS UPWARDS OF ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS AFTER YOU



HAVE DESIGNED AND STRUCTURALLY PROVEN THE PROPELLER ITSELF.








ONE LAST BUT IMPORTANT POINT,  THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW (LOWER



NOISE) TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT HAS RESULTED IN A REDUCTION IN THE DAY/NIGHT



NOISE LEVELS AROUND AIRPORTS SERVED BY THESE AIRCRAFT,  As THESE NEW



AIRCRAFT BECOME AN INCREASINGLY LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE FLEET, THE



AVERAGE DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVELS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ALL GENERAL AVIATION



BUSINESS JETS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY FALL.  BASED UPON FORECAST SALES OF



EXISTING AND PRESENTLY PROPOSED MODERN TECHNOLOGY TURBOFAN POWERED



GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT, OVER THE NEXT DECADE, AND ASSUMING A NORMAL



ATTRITION OF AIRCRAFT OF OLDER TYPE DESIGNS, THE AIRPORT DAY/NIGHT



NOISE LEVELS, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION JET FLEET,



WILL DECREASE, BY APPROXIMATLEY 5 TO GoB PER DECADE, FOR A FIXED



ACTIVITY RATE.








LET'S LOOK AT THE GRAPH 3, FOR THE TAKEOFF CONDITION,  IF THERE



WERE 10 OPERATIONS PER DAY IN 1975, WITH THE TYPICAL JET AIRCRAFT



MIX PRESENT THEN, AND THIS PRODUCED A DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVEL OF 59 DB,



IN 1985, WITH ITS EXPECTED JET AIRCRAFT MIX, THE LEVEL OF NOISE WILL



DROP TO 53 oB,   IF THERE WERE 50 OPERATIONS PER DAY IN 1975, THE NOISE



LEVEL WILL GO FROM 66 DB TO 60 DB  IN 1985,








FbST  IMPORTANTLY, EVEN  IF THE NUMBER OF JET OPERATIONS AT A



PARTICULAR AIRPORT DOUBLE, THE NOISE LEVEL STILL GOES DOWN - IF 10
                                 146

-------
OPERATIONS PRODUCED A LEVEL OF 59 DB IN 1975, 20 OPERATIONS WILL
MEAN ONLY 55 DB IN 1985,
INCIDENTALLY, THE DASHED HORIZONTAL LINES, AT THE 65 AND 55
LEVELS, REPRESENT HUD AND EPA OBJECTIVES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE
LEVELS AT "BUSY" SITES AND AT SMALLER, LESS ACTIVE SITES,
CHART FOUR SHOWS A SIMILAR REDUCTION OVER THE YEARS FOR THE
APPROACH COm IT IONS,  FOR FIVE OPERATIONS PER DAY  IN 1975, THE
LDN WILL BE 56 oB,   IN 1985,  IT WILL DROP TO 51 DB,  FOR TEN
OPERATIONS PER DAY,  DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TEN YEARS EARLIER,
THE LDN DROPS TO 54  DBA, TWO  DB LESS NOISE THAN HALF THE NUMBER
OF OPERATIONS CREATED TEN YEARS EARLIER,

THE REDUCTIONS  IN  CCflMUNITY DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVELS WILL
COME ABOUT WITH PRESENTLY  KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, MOW BEING APPLIED,
    WILL ALLOW  FUTURE GROWTH  OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT  FLEETS,
 NOW,  IF  WE COULD ONLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE BARKING  DOGS,
                              147

-------
                     ADDRESS BY
                MR. HOWARD L. METCALF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND DESIGN
         OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                       TO THE


     GENERAL AVIATION LAND USE PLANNING SEMINAR


           GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY


                    OCTOBER 5, 1979
          THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY

                         ON

       AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
                         149

-------
Ladies and Gentlemen
     I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of
Defense policy for planning the use of land in the vicinity of airports.
This policy is set forth in DoD Instruction 4165.57, which is titled
Air Installations Compatible Use Zones or, for short, AICUZ.   DoD
Directives and Instructions are similar to Military regulations and set
forth general  policy and guidance on how that policy will  be carried out.
The Military Departments develop detailed procedures under this guidance
as required to fit their different missions and requirements.
     When we do develop a policy such as this one which has a substantial
impact on the  public, we cannot do it in isolation in the Pentagon - public
participation  is mandatory.  We therefore prepared a draft  Environmental
Impact Statement on the proposal and sent it to about 150 State Offices,
Area Clearing  Houses, and other Federal agencies.  As I recall, we received
around 50 comments in reply - most were detailed, thoughtful, and helpful.
We cannot satisfy all commentors, of course, but we made many substantial
changes in the original document as a result of these comments.
     The current AICUZ Instruction dated November 8, 1977 was published in
the Federal Register for public comment before we adopted it.  Very few
comments (only two, in fact) were received this time, probably because the
proposed revisions were not perceived as being major.  I have several hundred
copies of the  document here as handouts, and I hope you all have received
a copy.
                                  150

-------
     The AICUZ concept was proposed originally by the Air Force as a



concept called "GREENBELT".  Several air bases were experiencing en-



croachment in the form of intensive development immediately outside



the base boundries.  Where such development was residential, it was



almost immediately followed by complaints against the noise made by



the aircraft.  A common reaction of many people to such complaints was



"well you knew the airport was here when you bought the house didn't you?"



Such a reaction does not win friends and it is not really fair.  People



tend to buy houses on weekends when flying activities are at a minimum,



and it is a rare case when a potential  homeowner can sleep-in a few



nights to see if his rest is disturbed by night time flying.  In any



case, some complaints escalated into suits, and it became clear that



something must be done to stop encroachment.




     A large modern military jet installation represents hundreds of



millions of dollars in investment in land and fixed facilities which, if



flying were curtailed or stopped, would have to be duplicated in another



area.  Even if an air base is built in a remote area, the population of the



base and the jobs it creates immediately invite development to start and



the process could be repeated.




     Also, and aside from the general  cost to the taxpayers of building a



new base, the economic impact of closing a major base can be enormous.



Jobs are lost, people uprooted, business declines.  The Department of Defense



is not insensitive to these impacts and we strive to avoid them or lessen



them wherever and whenever possible.  Therefore, it is usually in the



economic interests of the Department of Defense, the taxpayers in general



and the local areas in particular, that a base be protected so that it can



continue to operate over long periods.



                                           151

-------
     As I said, the first proposal  was the Greenbelt concept, wherein
the Government would buy a strip of land five miles long and two miles
wide centered on our major runways  and permit no uses of that land
other than agriculture, parks or just letting the trees and grass grow.
In its favor, the Greenbelt concept was simple to apply, and it would
have kept development far enough away from our runways that noise would  not
have been a problem, and the areas  of high aircraft accident potential
would have been contained within the Government-owned land.
     However, it would have cost billions of dollars; it would have re-
moved hundreds of thousands of acres from local  tax rolls; it would have
displaced tens of thousands of persons and businesses, and it would have
prevented the development of a tremendous amount of highly desirable de-
velopmental land.  But weren't we trying to prevent development?  In part,
yes.    But not all development is undesirable or incompatible with airfield
operation.  Most industrial activities are not sensitive to noise.  Many
sensitive activities can be carried out satisfactorily in high noise areas
if the buildings in which they are  located are adequately insulated.  Some
apparently compatible uses of land  in the high noise and accident potential
area, such as agriculture, or sanitary land fills, are not really compatible
since they can attract flocks of birds which are highly dangerous to air-
craft.
     Thus, it was obvious that what we needed to do was to identify those
uses of land which are compatible with aircraft operations, and those which
are not.   Then a further refinement needed to be made to judge just how
incompatible certain uses are.  We  started with noise.
                                   152

-------
     Fortunately, many studies of the psychological impact of noise had
been made.  The Air Force had been making such studies since, at least,
the early 1950s, the FAA, VA, HUD, and many other agencies and foreign
Governments had all been studying aircraft noise.  The excellent FHA
Guide to Control of Airborne Impact and Structure Borne Noise in Multi-
Family Dwellings had been published in 1967, and the Joint Army-Navy-
Air Force Manual on Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise in
1964.  Therefore, we did not have to reinvent the wheel to come up with
compatible land uses, only make it a little rounder.
     Our first policy concentrated on noise and was rather general  with
respect to land uses that were compatible with high noise levels.   Ac-
quisition of land or restrictive easements on land was permitted although
we preferred local zoning action to control  land use.
     I think I should emphasize at this point that our first policy, and
our policy today, requires that as a first step, we will  take all  reasonable,
economical, and practical measures to reduce or control noise from air-
craft.  These steps will  include adjustment of traffic patterns, sound
suppression measures on ground facilities, and reduction of night time
activities, if practical.  However, airplanes will still  make noise.
     When I said that acquisition of land was permitted, I should also
state that the Department of Defense does not want to buy land.  We do
not like to take land off local tax rolls, we do not like to spend
money on land instead of airplanes or tanks, we do not like to have to
manage land we don't need.  Further, we have to get authority from the
Congress and appropriations from the Congress in order to acquire land.
It is not something that we can just do by ourselves.
                                          153

-------
     It was in the early stages of the program when we were first
asking for the Congressional  approvals that we needed, that the Congress
gave us some rather clear direction as to how the program should be
restructured for the years ahead.   The Congress stated that the acquisi-
tion of land for noise reasons alone might not be in the best interest
of the United States, that even more emphasis should be placed on local
zoning actions or other state and  municipal actions to control en-
croachment and that we should concentrate more on the potential  of air-
craft accidents in the vicinity of airfields.
     As a result of this Congressional direction, studies of aircraft
accidents were undertaken and we determined that, for our major airfields,
we should increase the size of the clear zone at the end of runways.  That
is, that zone wherein no buildings or obstructions to flight are permitted
It is a zone 3,000 feet long and 3,0000 feet wide centered on the runway
centerline.  Because almost nothing is permitted in this zone, the De-
partment of Defense will usually buy the land or a restrictive easement on
the land to assure that it does remain clear.
     Beyond the clear zone we have identified Accident Potential Zones I
and II.  These continue at 3,000 feet wide, APZ I for 5,000  feet, and
APZ II for an additional 7,000 feet.  We identify APZ I as having a
significant potential for accidents and APZ II as having a measureable
potential  for accidents.  Beyond these zones, the potential  for accidents
is not significantly above that of the country as a whole.
                                      154

-------
     We do not state that any specific probability exists that an



aircraft will have an accident in these zones in any given time period.



This could be calculated if aircraft and flying techniques remained



static, but they do not.  Both are constantly changing.  But these



zones do represent a reasonable delineation of the fact that accident



frequency decreases as distance from the runway increases.  The AICUZ



instruction lists in its Enclosure 4 those uses which we believe to be



compatible with the clear and accident-potential  zones.  Since I hope you



all have copies, I will  not repeat them all now.




     There is a portion of the AICUZ instruction  which I believe is important



enough to read or paraphrase at this time, however.   This is the part



that deals with acquisition of land by the Department of Defense and is a



direct outgrowth of the instructions we received  from Congress.  It states



that the first priority for acquisition, either in fee simple or appropriate



restrictive easements will  be the clear zone, the 3,000 x 3,000 foot zone



on the end of major runways.  At most of our air  installations, we already



own all or a substantial portion of these areas.




     If it appears that we should acquire some interest in land beyond the



clear zones, action to program for such acquisition may be taken   for



accident-potential zones first, and for high noise areas second   only when



all possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning or similar protection



have been exhausted, and the operational integrity of the base is manifestly



threatened.
                                        155

-------
      If procurement actions are considered necessary, complete records
 of all discussions, negotiations, testimony, etc., with or before all
 local officials, boards, etc., must be maintained.  This will ensure
 that documentation is available to indicate that all  reasonable and
 prudent efforts were made to preclude incompatible land use through
 cooperation with local  government officials, and that all recourse to
 such action has been exhausted.  By this policy, we do run the risk
 that development and encroachment may progress so far that we are unable
 to effectively stop or change it.  However, we believe so strongly that
 land use decisions should be made by an informed public and its local
 representatives, rather than by the Federal Government, that we are willing
 to accept that risk.
      I referred to an informed public.  We recognize that it is our responsi-
 bility to inform.   This is a very important part of our AICUZ policy.  We
 require that the Military Departments develop procedures for  coordinating
 AICUZ studies with the land use planning and regulatory agencies in the af-
 fected area.  They will work with local governments,  planning agencies,
 state agencies, and legislators, and provide technical assistance to them
 to aid in developing their land use planning and regulatory processes, to
 explain the implications of an AICUZ study and generally work toward
compatible planning and development in the vicinity of air installations.
      The Military  Departments must have programs to inform local governments,
 citizens groups, and the general public of our requirements for flying ac-
 tivities and the reasons for them, what we have done  and can do to reduce
 noise and hazards,  and  to generally promote an awareness of what we are
 doing and our willingness to work with them.   Through such mutual  under-
 standing, we hope  to achieve a cooperation that will  benefit both us and
                                   156

-------
the local community.  In this line, the Air Force has elected to publish



its AICUZ studies in the form of reports to the people in the area of the



installation being studied.  Complete information is thereby made available



to the people, and they can base their planning on facts.




     While I said we will provide technical assistance, the Department



of Defense does not provide any funding of local planning processes.   We



do not have Congressional authorization to fund this type of activity,



although several  other Federal agencies do.  By technical assistance, we



mean providing information and making our planners and other professionals



available to the extent we can to explain and to advise and assist if



requested.





    Does  the  system work?  Do we get the kind of  local planning and  control



we would  like to see?  Sometimes,  but not  always,  A few examples may serve



as illustrations.




     As of the date I am writing this, the Air  Force has completed and



published 73 AICUZ studies.  Twenty-five jurisdications have included the



AICUZ studies in their comprehensive land  use planning process and in their



plans.  Two areas have fully incorporated  the AICUZ recommendations  in



their zoning regulations.  Thirty-three areas have incorporated parts of



the AICUZ recommendations in their zoning  plans,  In ten areas, requests



for zoning changes or building permits that would have resulted in in-



compatible uses have been denied, two state legislatures have enacted



enabling legislation to permit zoning based on  AICUZ where such authority



was previously not available.  Arizona has passed legislation that allows






                                       157

-------
for zoning for AICUZ, allows local  governments to acquire land to assure
compatible uses, and permits state-owned land to be traded for other land
in compatible use zones as a method of acquisition.  Acquisition of land
and interests in land by local  governments has occurred at two bases,
most notably Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah where the State Legislature
appropriated funds to acquire compatible use zones.
      On the Navy side, Jacksonville, Florida enacted zoning regulations
that include compatible use zones for the three Naval Air Stations in the
area (Jacksonville, Mayport, and Cecil Field), and Jacksonville Airport,
the local commercial airport.
      In Patuxent River, Maryland,  Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
were included in the local  zoning laws, and some planned uses that would have
been incompatible have been stopped.   Here is an example, however, that does
show that zoning is not the solution  to all of our problems since it has
been held that certain land uses permitted prior to the revised zoning
are still permitted - in effect, a  Grandfather Clause.
      There are many areas where we have not been successful.  One of these
is the Navy's complex of airfields  in the Norfolk, Va. area.  Encroachment
there is so extensive that the  only viable solution seems to be to purchase
properties.  Overall, however,  I think that the record shows that the ap-
proach we have been using can work  and has worked in many cases.
      Therefore, we do not plan any significant changes in our policy in the
immediate future.  We believe that  by fully informing the public  of what we
are doing,  what we must do, and what  the impacts of these actions are, we will
stimulate informed, reasonable, and correct responses on the part of that
public and  their elected officials.
                                 158

-------
      In some cases, where the viability of an air installation is in



danger and where the Congress agrees that acquisition actions are appro-



priate to alleviate the condition, we will buy land or restrictive ease-



ments on land to assure compatible use.  However, it must be understood



that the Department of Defense, indeed the Federal Government as a whole,



does not have one dollar to spend on such acquisitions that does not come



from the taxpayers of this country, from you and me.   Therefore, action



by local governments to make good land use plans, to zone for compatible



uses, will save you and me money.  Further, properly done, it can make



money by promoting the development of land to higher though  compatible



uses while preserving and enhancing the economic value of airfields,



military, commercial and general.




      For these reasons, I was particularly pleased to be invited here



today, and you have my sincerest wishes for a successful  seminar and



successful planning in the future.









                            THANK YOU
                                         159

-------
                                                NUMBER  4165.57

                                                DATE    November 8,  1977
                                                        AS_D(MRA&L)
              Department  of Defense  Instruction
SUBJECT:

References:
Air Installations Compatible Use Zones

(a)  Department of the Air Force Manual 86-8,  "Airfield
       and Airspace Criteria," November 10,  1964
(b)  Department of the Navy Publication,  NavFac P-272,
       "Definitive Designs for Naval Shore Facilities,"
       July 1962
(c)  Department of the Navy Publication,  NavFac P-80,
       "Facility Planning Factor Criteria for  Navy and
       Marine Corps Shore Installations"
(d)  through (j), see enclosure 1.
A.  PURPOSE
    This Instruction:  (1) sets forth Department of Defense policy on
achieving compatible use of public and private lands in the vicinity of
military airfields;  (2) defines (a) required restrictions on the uses
and heights of natural and man-made objects in the vicinity of air
installations to provide for safety of flight and to assure that people
and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft
accidents; and (b) desirable restrictions on land use to assure its
compatibility with the characteristics, including noise, of air instal-
lations operations;  (3) describes the procedures by which Air Installa-
tions Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) may be defined; and (4) provides
policy on the extent of Government interest in real property within
these zones which may be retained or acquired to protect the operational
capability of active military airfields (subject in each case to the
availability of required authorizations and appropriations).

B.  APPLICABILITY

    This Instruction applies to air installations of the Military Depart-
ments located within the United States, its territories, trusts, and
possessions.

C.  CRITERIA

    1.  General.   The Air Installations Compatible Use Zone for each
military air installation shall consist of  (a) land areas upon which
certain uses may obstruct the airspace or otherwise be hazardous to
aircraft operations, and (b) land areas which are exposed to the health,
safety or welfare hazards of aircraft operations.

    2.  Height of Obstructions.  The land area and height standards
defined in AFM 86-8  (reference (a)), NavFac P-272 (reference  (b)), and
P-80  (reference (c)), and TM 5-803-4 (reference  (d)) will be used for
purposes of height restriction criteria.
                                161

-------
    3.   Accident Potential

        a.   General

            (1)  Areas immediately beyond the ends of runways and along
primary flight paths are subject to more aircraft accidents than other
areas.   For this reason, these areas should remain undeveloped, or if
developed should be only sparsely developed in order to limit, as much
as possible, the adverse effects of a possible aircraft accident.

            (2)  DoD fixed wing runways are separated into two types for
the purpose of defining accident potential areas.  Class A runways are
those restricted to light aircraft (see enclosure 2) and which do not
have the potential for development for heavy or high performance aircraft
use or for which no foreseeable requirements for such use exists.
Typically these runways have less than 10% of their operations involving
Class B aircraft (enclosure 2) and are less than 8000 feet long.  Class
B runways are all other fixed wing runways.

            (3)  The following descriptions of Accident Potential Zones
are guidelines only.  Their strict application would result in increasing
the safety of the general public but would not provide complete protec-
tion against the effects of aircraft accidents.  Such a degree of protec-
tion is probably impossible to achieve.  Local situations may differ
significantly from the assumptions and data upon which these guidelines
are based and require individual study.  Where it is desirable to restrict
the density of development of an area, it is not usually possible to
state that one density is safe and another is not.  Safety is a relative
term and the objective should be the realization of the greatest degree
of safety that can be reasonably attained.

        b.   Accident Potential and Clear Zones (See Enclosure 3)

            (1)  The area immediately beyond the end of a runway is the
"Clear Zone," an area which possesses a high potential for accidents,
and has traditionally been acquired by the Government in fee and kept
clear of obstuctions to flight.

            (2)  Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I) is the area beyond
the clear zone which possesses a significant potential for accidents.

            (3)  Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) is an area beyond
APZ I having a measurable potential for accidents.

            (4)  Modifications to APZs I and II will be considered If:

                 (a)  The runway is infrequently used.

                 (b)  The prevailing wind  conditions are such that a
large percentage (i.e., over 80 percent) of the operations are in one
direction.
                                         162

-------
                                                                 4165.57
                                                                Nov 8,  77


                 (c)  Most aircraft do not overfly the APZs as defined
herein during normal flight operations (modifications may be made to
alter these zones and adjust them to conform to the line of flight).

                 (d)  Local accident history indicates consideration of
different area.

                 (e)  Other unusual conditions exist.

            (5)  The takeoff safety zone for VFR rotary-wing facilities
will be used for the clear zone; the remainder of the approach-departure
zone will be used as APZ I.

            (6)  Land use compatibility with clear zones and APZs is
shown in enclosure 4.

    4.  Noise

        a.  General.  Noise exposure is described in various ways.  In
1964, the Department of Defense began using the Composite Noise Rating
(CNR) system to describe aircraft noise.  Several years ago the Noise
Exposure Forecast (NEF) system began to replace CNR.  In August 1974,
the Environmental Protection Agency notified all Federal agencies of
intent to implement the Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) noise
descriptor, and this was subsequently adopted by the DoD.  This Ldn
system will be used for air installations.  Where AICUZ studies have
been published using the CNR of NEF systems or where studies have pro-
gressed to the point that a change in the descriptor system is imprac-
tical or uneconomical, such studies may be published and continued in
use.  However, in such cases, data necessary for conversion to Ldn
should be collected and studies should be revised as soon as time and
budgetary considerations permit.  However, if state or local laws require
some other noise descriptor, it may be used in lieu of Ldn.

        b.  Noise Zones

            (1)  As a minimum, contours for Ldn 65, 70, 75 and 80 shall
be plotted on maps as part of AICUZ studies.

            (2)  See section G. for a further discussion of Ldn use and
conversion to Ldn from previously used systems.

D.  POLICY

    1.  General.  As a first priority step, all reasonable, economical
and practical measures will be taken to reduce and/or control the
generation of noise from flying and flying related activities.  Typical
measures normally include siting of engine test and runup facilities in
remote areas if practical,  provision of sound suppression equipment
where necessary, and may include additional measures such as adjustment
                                   163

-------
of traffic patterns to avoid built-up areas where such can be accomplished
with safety and without significant impairment of operational effective-
ness.  After all reasonable noise source control measures have been
taken, there will usually remain significant land areas wherein the
total noise exposure is such as to be incompatible with certain uses.

    2.  Compatible Use Land

        a.   General

            (1)  DoD policy is to work toward achieving compatibility
between air installations and neighboring civilian communities by means
of a compatible land use planning and control process conducted by the
local community.

            (2)  Land use compatibility guidelines will be specified for
each Clear Zone, Accident Potential Zone, Noise Zone and combination of
these as appropriate.

            (3)  The method of control and regulation of land usage
within each zone will vary according to local conditions.   In all
instances the primary objective will be to identify planning areas and
reasonable land use guidelines which will be recommended to appropriate
agencies who are in control of the planning functions for the affected.
areas.

        b.   Property Rights Acquisition

            (1)  General.  While noise generated by aircraft at military
air installations should be an integral element of land use compatibility
efforts, the acquisition of property rights on the basis of noise by the
Department of Defense may not be in the long term best interests of the
United States.  Therefore, while the complete requirement for individual
installations should be defined prior to any programming actions, ac-
quisition of interests should be programmed in accordance with the
following priorities.

            (2)  Priorities

                 (a)  The first priority is the acquisition in fee
and/or appropriate restrictive easements of lands within the clear zones
whenever practicable.  }

                 (b)  Outside the clear zone, program for the acquisition
of interests first in Accident Potential Zones and secondly in high
noise areas only when all possibilities of achieving compatible use
zoning, or similar protection, have been exhausted and the operational
integrity of the air installation in manifestly threatened.  If program-
ming actions are considered necessary, complete records of all dis-
cussions, negotiations,  testimony, etc., with or before all local
                                         164

-------
                                                                4165.57
                                                               Nov 8,  77


officials, boards, etc., must be maintained.  This will ensure that
documentation is available to indicate that all reasonable and prudent
efforts were made to preclude incompatible land use through cooperation
with local government officials and that all recourse to such action has
been exhausted.  Such records shall accompany programming actions and/or
apportionment requests for items programmed prior to the date of this
Instruction.  In addition, a complete economic analysis and assessment
of the future of the installation must be included.

                       (i) Costs of establishing and maintaining com-
patible use zones must be weighed against other available options, such
as changing the installation's mission and relocating the flying acti-
vities, closing the installation, or such other courses of action as may
be available.  In performing analyses of this type, exceptional care
must be exercised to assure that a decision to change or relocate a
mission is fully justified and that all aspects of the situation have
been thoroughly considered.

                      (ii) When, as a result of such analysis, it is
determined that relocation or abandonment of a mission will be required,
then no new construction  shall be undertaken in support of such activ-
ities except as is absolutely necessary to maintain safety and opera-
tional readiness pending  accomplishment of the changes required.

            (3)  Guidelines.  This Instruction shall not be used as sole
justification for either  the acquisition or the retention of owned in-
terests beyond the minimum required to protect the Government.

                 (a)  Necessary rights to land within the defined com-
patible use area may be obtained by purchase, exchange, or donation, in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

                 (b)  If  fee title is currently held or subsequently
acquired in an area where compatible uses could be developed and no
requirement for a fee interest in the land exists  except to prevent
incompatible use, disposal actions shall normally  be instituted.  Only
those rights and interests necessary to establish  and maintain  compatible
uses shall be retained.   Where proceeds from disposal would be  inconse-
quential, consideration may be given to retaining  title.

                 (c)  If  the cost of acquiring a required interest
approaches closely the cost of fee title, consideration shall be  given
to whether acquisition of fee title would be to the advantage of  the
Government.

    3.  Rights and Interests Which May Be Obtained.  When it  is  deter-
mined to be necessary for the Federal Government to acquire  interests in
land, a careful assessment of the type of interest to be acquired  is
mandatory.  Section F. of this Instruction contains a listing of possible
interests which should be examined for applicability.


                                  165

-------
    4.  Environmental Impact Statements

        a.   Any actions taken with respect to safety of flight, accident
hazard, or noise which involve acquisition of interests in land must be
examined to determine the necessity of preparing an environmental impact
statement in accordance with DoD Directive 6050.1,  "Environmental Con-
siderations in DoD Actions," March 19, 1974 (reference (e)).

        b.   All such environmental impact statements must be  forwarded
to appropriate Federal and local agencies for review in accordance with
reference (e).

        c.   Coordination with local agencies will be in accordance with
OMB Circular A-95 (reference (f)).

E.  THE AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE PROGRAM

    1.  The Secretaries of the Military Departments will develop, im-
plement and maintain a program to investigate and study all air instal-
lations in necessary order of priority to develop an Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program for each air installation consistent
with Section D.  AICUZ studies which contain an analysis of land use
compatibility problems and potential solutions shall be developed and
updated as necessary.  As a minimum, each Study shall include the
following:

        a.   Determination by detailed study of flight operations, actual
noise and safety surveys if necessary, and best available projections of
future flying activities, desirable restrictions on land use  due to
noise characteristics and safety of flight;

        b.   Identification of present incompatible  land uses;

        c.   Identification of land that if inappropriately developed
would be incompatible;

        d.   Indication of types of desirable development for  various
land tracts;

        e.   Land value estimates for the zones in question.

        f.   Review of the airfield master plans to  ensure that existing
and future facilities siting is consistent with the policies  in this
Instruction.

        g.   Full consideration of joint use of air  installations by
activities of separate Military Departments whenever such use will
result in maintaining operational capabilities while reducing noise,
real estate and construction requirements.
                                        166

-------
                                                               4165.57
                                                              Nov 8,  77


        h.  Recommendations for work with local zoning boards, necessary
minimum programs of acquisition, relocations, or such other actions as
are indicated by the results of the Study.

    2.  Procedures.   In developing AICUZ Studies the Secretaries of
Military Departments sha.ll:

        a.  Follow the review and comment procedures established under
OMB Circular A-95 (reference (f));

        b.  Ensure that appropriate environmental factors are considered;
and

        c.  Ensure that other local, State or Federal agencies engaged
in land use planning or land regulation for a particular area have an
opportunity to review and comment upon any proposed plan or significant
modification thereof.

    3.  Coordination with State and Local Governments.  Secretaries of
the Military Departments shall develop procedures for coordinating AICUZ
Studies with the land use planning and regulatory agencies in the area.
Developing compatible land use plans may  require working with local
governments, local planning commissions,  special purpose districts,
regional planning agencies, state agencies, state legislatures, as well
as the other Federal agencies.  Technical assistance to local, regional,
and state agencies to assist them in developing their land use planning
and regulatory processes, to explain an AICUZ Study and its implications,
and generally to work toward compatible planning and development in the
vicinity of military air fields, should be provided.

    4.  Property Rights Acquisition.  The AICUZ Study shall serve as the
basis for new land acquisitions, property disposal, and other proposed
changes in Military Departments real property holdings in the vicinity
of military airfields where applicable.

    5.  Required Approvals.  Based on the results of the AICUZ Studies,
each Military Department will prepare recommendations for individual
installations AICUZ programs for approval as follows:

        a.  The Secretaries of the Military Departments or their designa-
ted representatives will review and approve the AICUZ Studies establish-
ing the individual air installation AICUZ program.

        b.  When relocation or abandonment of a mission or an instal-
lation is apparently required, the Secretaries of the Military Depart-
ments will submit the proposed plan for the installation, with appro-
priate recommendations, to the Secretary  of Defense for approval.

        c.  A time-phased fiscal year plan for implementation of the
AICUZ program in priority order, consistent with budgetary considera-
tions, will be developed for approval by  the Secretary of the Military
                                   167

-------
Departments, or their designated representatives.  These plans will
serve as the basis for all AICUZ actions at the individual installations.

    6.  Coincident Actions.   The Secretaries of the Military Departments
will also take action to assure in accordance with section D.I.  and D.2.
that:

        a.   As the first priority action in developing an AICUZ  program,
full attention is given to safety and noise problems.

        b.   In all planning,  acquisition and siting of noise generating
items, such as engine test stands,  full  advantage is taken of available
alleviating measures, such as remote  sites  or sound suppression  equipment.

        c.   The noise exposure of on-installation facilities personnel
are considered together with  that off the installation.

        d.   There is  development or continuation with  renewed emphasis,
of programs to inform local governments,  citizens groups,  and the general
public of the requirements of flying  activities,  the reasons therefore,
the efforts which may have been made  or  may be taken to  reduce noise
exposure, and similar matters which will  promote and develop a public
awareness of the complexities of air  installation operations, the problems
associated  therewith, and the willingness of the Department of Defense -
to take all measures  possible to alleviate  undesirable external  effects.

    7.  Responsibilities for  the acquisition,  management and disposal of
real property are defined in  DoD Directive  4165.6,  "Real Property,  Acqui-
sition, Management and Disposal," December  22, 1976 (reference (g)).

    8.  The Deputy Assistant  Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Housing) will examine the program developed pursuant to  this Instruction,
and from time to time review  the progress thereunder to  assure conformance
with policy.

F.  REAL ESTATE INTERESTS TO  BE CONSIDERED  FOR CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT
    POTENTIAL ZONE

    1.  The right to  make low and frequent  flights over  said land and to
generate noises associated with:

        a.   Aircraft  in flight, whether  or  not while directly over said
land,

        b.   Aircraft  and aircraft engines operating on the ground at
said base,  and,

        c.   Aircraft  engine test/stand/cell operations at said base.
                                        168

-------
                                                               4165.57
                                                              Nov 8, 77
    2.  The right to regulate or prohibit the release into the air of
any substance which would impair the visibility or otherwise interfere
with the operations of aircraft, such as, but not limited to,  steam,
dust and smoke.

    3.  The right to regulate or prohibit light emissions, either direct
or indirect (reflective), which might interfere with pilot vision.

    4.  The right to prohibit electrical emissions which would interfere
with aircraft and aircraft communications systems or aircraft navigational
equipment.

    5.  Th? right to prohibit any use of the land which would unneces-
sarily attact birds or waterfowl, such as, but not limited to, operation
or sanitary landfills, maintenance of feeding stations or the growing of
certain types of vegetation attractive to birds or waterfowl.

    6.  The right to prohibit and remove any buildings or other non-
frangible structures.

    7.  The right to top, cut to ground  level, and to remove trees,
shrubs, brush or other forms of obstruction which the installation
commander determines might interfere with the operation of aircraft,
including emergency landings.

    8.  The right of ingress and egress  upon, over and across said land
for the purpose of exercising the rights set forth herein.

    9.  The right to post signs on said  land indicating the nature and
extent of the Government's control over  said land.

   10.  The right to prohibit land uses  other than the following:

        a.  Agriculture.

        b.  Livestock grazing.

        c.  Permanent open space.

        d.  Existing water areas.

        e.  Rights or way for fenced two lane highways, without sidewalks
or bicycle trails and single track railroads.

        f.  Communications and utilities right of way, provided all
facilities are at or below grade.

   11.  The right to prohibit entry of persons onto the land except in
connection with activities authorized under 1., 2., 3., and 6., of this
section.
                                   169

-------
   12.  The right to disapprove land uses not in accordance with enclosure
4.

   13.  The right to control the height of sturctures to insure that
they do not become a hazard to flight.

   14.  The right to install airfield lighting and navigational aids.

G.  AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONE NOISE DESCRIPTORS

    1.  Composite Noise Rating (CNR) and Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
values as previously required by Sections III., IV., and V. of DoD
Instruction 4165.57, "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones," July 30,
1973 (reference (j)) will no longer be  used.

    2.  Where CNR 100 (or the quietest  boundary of CNR Zone 2 if other-
wise computed) or NEF 30 would previously have been used, data shall be
collected sufficient to permit computation of Ldn 65 noise contours and
these noise contours shall be plotted on maps accompanying AICUZ studies.

    3.  Where CNR 115 (or the boundary  of CNR Zone 3 if otherwise com-
puted) or NEF 40 would previously have  been used, data shall be collected
sufficient to permit computation of Ldn 75 noise contours and these
noise contours shall be plotted on maps accompanying AICUZ studies.

    4.  Where previous studies have used CNR or NEF, for matters of
policy, noise planning and decisionmaking, areas quieter than Ldn 65
shall be considered approximately equivalent to the previously used CNR
Zone 1 and to areas quieter than NEF 30.  The area between Ldn 65 and
Ldn 75 shall be considered approximately equivalent to the previously
used CNR Zone 2 and to the area between NEF 30 and 40.  The area of
higher than Ldn 75 shall be considered  approximately euqivalent to the
previously used CNR Zone 3 and to noise higher than NEF 40.  The proce-
dures shall remain in effect only until sufficient data to compute Ldn
values can be obtained.

    5.  When computing helicopter noise levels using data collected from
meters, a correction of +7db shall be added to meter readings obtained
under conditions where blade slap was present until and unless meters
are developed which more accurately reflect true conditions.

    6.  Noise contours less than Ldn 65 or more than Ldn 80 need not be
plotted for AICUZ studies.

    7.  Since CNR noise levels are not normally directly convertible to
Ldn values without introducing significant error, care should be exer-
cised to assure that personnel do not revise previous studies by erro-
neously relabeling CNR contours to the approximately equivalent Ldn
values.
                                         170

-------
                                                                 4165.57
                                                                New  8,  77

    8.  Where intermittent impulse noises are such as are associated
with bombing and gunnery ranges are of importance, such noises will  be
measured using standard "C" weighting of the various frequencies to
insure a description most representative of actual human response.

H.  EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION.  This Instruction is effective
immediately.  Forward two copies of implementing regulations to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics)
within 90 days.  (Final Rule of this Instruction was published in the
Code of Federal Regulations under 32 CFR 256.)
                                           JOHN P. WHITE
                                  Assistant Secretary of Defense
                             (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics)
 Enclosures - 4
   1.   List of additional references.
   2.   Runway Classification by Aircraft Types
   3.   Accident Potential Zone Guidelines
   4   Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Accident Potential Zones
                                     171

-------
                                                         4165.57 (Encl 1)
                                                           Nov 8, 77
                         Additional  References
(d)   Department of the Army Technical  Manual,  TM 5-803-4,  "Planning of
       Army Aviation Facilities,  "March 1970
(e)   DoD Directive 6050.1,  "Environmental  Considerations  in DoD Actions,"
       March 19,  1974
(f)   Office of Management  and Budget Circular  A-95,  "Evaluation,  Review
       and Coordination of  Federal  and Federally Assisted  Programs  and
       Projects," February  9,  1971
(g)   DoD Directive 4165.6,  "Real  Property, Acquisition, Management  and
       Disposal," December  22,  1976
(h)   DoD Instruction 4170.7,  "Natural  Resources  - Forest Management,"
       June 21,  1965
(i)   DoD Instruction 7310.1,  "Accounting and Reporting  for Property
       Disposal and Proceeds  from Sale of  Disposable  Personal  Property
       and Lumber or Timber Products," July 10,  1970
(j)   DoD Instruction 4165.57,  "Air  Installations Compatible Use Zones,"
       July 30,  1973 (hereby  cancelled)
                                 172

-------
                                        4165..57 (Kncl 2)
                                          Nov 8,  77
Runway Classification by Aircraft Type
Class
S-2
VC-6
C-l
C-2
TC-4C
C-7
C-8
C-12
C-47
C-117
U-l
U-3
U-6
U-8
U-9







A Runways
U-10
U-ll
LU-16
TU-16
HU-16
U-21
QU-22
E-l
E-2
0-1
0-2
OV-1
OV-10
T-28
T-34
T-41
T-42






A-l
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-38
AV-8
P-2
P-3
F-9
F-14
F-4
F-8
F-lll
YF-12
SR-71
F-100
F-101
F-102
F-104
F-105
Class B
F-106
F-5
F-15

S-3
T-29
T-33
T-37
T-39
T-l
T-2
T-38
B-52
B-57
B-57F
B-66
C-9
C-54
C-97
C-118
C-119

Runways
C-121
EC-121
WC-121
C-123
C-130
HC-130B
C-131
C-140
C-5A
KC-97
C-124
EC-130E
HC-130
C-135
VC-137
C-141
KC-135
EC-135
RC-135
U-2


                 173

-------
    Accident Potential Zone Guidelines
Clasa A Runway
  .Runwa
Clear Zone
k- 3000 *
APZ I ^
*- 2500, *
^APZ II
* 2500 -*
A
LOOO
f

All Dimensions in Feet


Clasa B  Runway
Lunway
^_ — —
~~^T~ Clear
HHBBi 1560

v
i^ne
J*[ ~T
*- 3000 -*•

I
2000
J


\
\
\
\

I
2284 APZ I
J
|
5000 ->
X
APZ II /
^^^
	 — •
*- 7000 — ^
1
3000
1
\





^-Width of clear zone may be based on individual service analysis of
highest accident
potential area for specific runway use and varied




h-1
2 Ln
O •
< Ln

^j tn
**-j 3
n
                based on acquisition constraints.  3000 foot wide clear zone is
                desirable for new construction.

-------
                                                  4165.57  (Encl 4)
                                                   Nov  8,  77
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Accident Potential
Zones and Footnotes
Land Use Category

Residential
Single family
2-4 family
Multi-family dwellings
Group quarters
Residential hotels
Mobile home parks or courts
Other residential
3
Industrial/Manufacturing
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Apparel
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing, publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related
Rubber and misc. plastic goods
Stone, clay, and glass products
Primary metal industries
Fabricated metal products



Compatibility
Clear Zone

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
industries NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
APZ I

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
APZ II

YES2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
                            175

-------
                                                    4165.57 (Encl 4)
                                                      Nov 8,  77
Land Use Category                                 Compatibility
Clear Zone APZ I
3
Industrial/Manufacturing (Cont.)
Professional, scientific and controlling
instruments
Misc. manufacturing
4
Transportation, Communications & Utilities
Railroad, rapid rail transid (on-grade)
Highway and street ROW
Auto parking
Communication
Utilities
Other transportation, communications
& utilities
Commercial/Retail Trade
Wholesale trade
Building materials-retail
General merchandise-retail
Food-retail
Automotive, marine, aviation-retail
Apparel and accessories-retail
Furniture, homefurnishing-retail
Eating and drinking places
Other retail trade
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES4
YES
YES
YES
YES4
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
APZ II
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
                                      176

-------
                                                    4165.57  (End 4)
                                                       Nov 8,  77
Land Use Category
Compatibility
Clear Zone
Personal and Business Services
Finance, insurance and real estate
Personal services
Business services
Repair services
Professional services
Contract construction services
Indoor recreation services
Other services
Public and Quasi-Public Services
Government services
Educational services
Cultural activities
Medical and other health services
Cemeteries
Non-profit organization incl. churches
Other public and quasi-public services
Outdoor Recreation
Playground's neighboring parks
Community and regional parks
Nature exhibits
Spectator sports incl. arenas
8 q
Golf course , riding stables
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
APZ I
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES6
NO
NO
NO
YES7
YES
NO
YES
APZ II
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES5
NO
NO
NO
YES6
NO
YES
YES
YES7
YES
NO
YES
                                  177

-------

Outdoor Recreation (Cont.)
Water based recreational areas
Resort and group camps
Entertainment assembly
Other outdoor recreation
Resource Production & Extraction and
Agriculture
Livestock farming, animal breeding
12
Forestry activities
Fishing activities & related services
Clear Zone

NO
NO
NO
NO
Open Land
YES
NO
NO13
14 NO15
APZ I

YES
NO
NO
YES7

YES
YES
YES
YES14
                                                    4165.57 (Encl 4)
                                                       Nov 8,  77
Land Use Category                            Compatibility

                                                               APZ II
                                                                 YES

                                                                 NO

                                                                 NO

                                                                 YES
                                                                 YES

                                                                 YES

                                                                 YES

                                                                 YES

Mining activities                            NO        YES       YES

Permanent open space                         YES       YES       YES

Water areas14                                YES       YES       YES


Footnotes

     1.  A "Yes" or "No" designation for compatible land use is to be
used only for gross comparison.   Within each, uses exist where further
definition may be needed as to whether it is clear or normally acceptable/
unacceptable owing to variations in densities of people and structures.

     2.  Suggested maximum density 1-2 DU/AC. possibly increased under
a Planned Unit Development where maximum lot covered less than 20%.

     3.  Factors to be considered:  Labor intensity, structural coverage,
explosive characteristics, air pollution.

     4.  No passenger terminals and no major above ground transmission
lines in APZ I.

     5.  Low intensity office uses only.  Meeting places, auditoriums,
etc., not recommended.


                                          178

-------
                                                       4165.57  (End 4)
                                                          Nov 8,  77
     6.   Excludes chapels.

     7.   Facilities must be low intensity.

     8.   Clubhouse not recommended.

     9.   Concentrated rings with large classes not recommended.

    10.   Includes livestock grazing but excludes feedlots and intensive
animal husbandry.

    11.   Includes feedlots and intensive animal husbandry.

    12.   No structures (except airfield lighting), buildings or above
ground utility/communication lines should be located in the clear zone.
For further runway safety clearance limitations pertaining to the clear
zone see AFM 86-6 (reference (a)), TM 5-803-4 (reference (d)) and NAVFAC
P-80 (reference (c)).

    13.   Lumber and timber products removed due to establishment, expan-
sion or maintenance of clear zones will be disposed of in accordandce
with DoD Instruction 4170.7, "Natural Resources - Forest Management,"
June 21, 1965 (reference  (h)) and DoD Instruction 7310.1, "Accounting
and Reporting for Property Disposal and Proceeds from Sale of Disposable
Personal Property and Lumber or Timber Products," July 10, 1970 (reference
(i)).

    14.   Includes hunting and fishing.

    15.   Controlled hunting and fishing may be permitted for the purpose
of wildlife control.
                                      179

-------
              SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

             BIBLIOGRAPHY: AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT

                Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon*

                    Mr. Randy  Barnes+
                     Prepared  for  the

              CONFERENCE  ON  GENERAL  AVIATION

           AIRPORT  NOISE  AND LAND  USE  PLANNING

                     Atlanta,  Georgia

                      October  3-5,  1979
                          Held at

               THE GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

                    College of Architecture

                  Department of City Planning

                    Atlanta, Georgia  30332
^Professor of City Planning,
Director of Interdisciplinary Programs
+Graduate Research Assistant
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia  30332
                         181

-------
               SELECTED  ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

               BIBLIOGRAPHY:  AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT
       The following  is a selected bibliography of environmental
noise references  that apply to airports and associated aircraft.
This compilation  has  involved reviewing the literature published
between 1960  -  1979,  using various data bases.

       These  references are divided into five major categories
including:

       1.   General  -  Those references comprehensive in
       nature with  general application.

       2.   Noise  Measurement/Analysis - Physical measure-
       ment and analysis of noise.

       3.   Noise  Impact - Impact of noise on the population
       and land resources.

       4.   Land Use - The application of land use planning
       for controlling noise.

       5.   Legislation   Legislative/regulatory approaches
       to control  noise.
                           182

-------
A.       GENERAL


Abelson. P.W.,  "Policy Problems and Economics  of Aircraft  Noise,"
        Transportation Research,  11(5):  357-64,  October  1977.

Airport Operators Council International,  Policy  Handbook,  Uachinqton,
        1971.

Anderson, Homer B.,  "Airport  and  Community  Interface, " Aircraft  and the
        Environment;  Conference Proceedings (Washington: U.S.  Department
        of Transportation,  1971).  Part I, p.  32-24.'

Bell, G.E.,  "The Noise Problem at Airports," Air:  Noise  Measurement and
        Control, ed.  by  P.  Lord and F.L.  Thomas,  (London,  Heywood,  1963),
        Chapter 9.

Beranek, Leo L., ed., Noise and  Vibration Control,  New York,  McGraw-Hill,
        1971.

Bishop, Dwight E.,  and W.E. Clark,  Analysis of Community and Airport
        Relationships, Prepared for the  Federal  Aviation Agency  by  Bolt
        Beranek and Newman, Inc.,  Springfield,  Virginia, Clearinghouse
        for  Federal Scientific and Technical Information,  1964,  3 vols.
         (FAA-RD-64-148).

Blevins, Michael K.,  "Airport Noise Problem Escalates Around Major
        Airports,"  Professional  Engineer 48(12): 16-17,  December 1978.

Bragdon, Clifford R.,  "Environmental Noise  Control Programs in the
        United States,"  Journal of Sound and Vibration,  11(12):  12-16
        December 1977.

Bragdon, Clifford R., Noise Pollution: A Guide to Information Sources,
        Gale Research Corporation,  Detroit, 1973

Bragdon, C.R., Noise Pollution:  The Unquiet Crisis, Philadelphia,
        University  of Pennsylvania Press,  1971.

Bragdon, C.R.,  "The Community Noise Problem: Factors Affecting Its  Man-
        agement " NaturaJL^esoj,^es_J^urnal_ 10(4): 637-718, October, 1970.

Bragdon, C.R., The  Unquiet  Crisis: Community Noise and the 'Public Interest,
        Dissertation, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of
        Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1970.

Brinckloe, W.D.,  "Multi-purpose  Use Potential of Offshore  Airports,"
        Proceedings,  First  International Conference on Offshore Airport
        Technology, Bethesda, Maryland,  April 29-May 2,  1973, Vol.  1,
        p. 5-14, published  by AIAA, New  lork,  1974."

Browne, Secor  D._,  Conflicts and  Identities  of Interests—The Airport and
         the  Community, New  York,  Society of Automotive Engineers,  1967.

Bryan,  M.E.,  D.  Tolcher, "Preferred Noise Levels I'lhile Carrying  Out
        Mental Tasks," Journal of Sound  and Vibration 45(if: 137-156, 1976.
                                 183

-------
Chug, Klee M., and Karen B. Alschuler,  "Integration  of Airport Plan-
      ning and Environmental- Assessment: A Focus  on  Air  Quality
      Analysis,"  Proceedings of the  24th Annual  Technical  Meeting
      Institute of Environmental Science., Mt. Prospect,  III.  p. 139-48.

Cunniff, Pat, Environmental Noise Pollution, New  York: Wylie,  197?

Dove, R.A.,  "Basic Principles of Noise  Control,"  Plastics and Rubber
      Institute 3(1)22-26, January-February  197S.

"F.H.A. Withholds Loans from Homes Near Airports," Noise Control
       7(4)39-  , 1961.

Fromme, William R., Metropolitan Washington  Airport  Policy  Analysis,
      Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Policy,
      Report No. 18, November 1977.

Goodhart, Nicholas, "The Noise That Need flat Be;  A Fresh Look at Noise
      Abatement Procedures," Flight,  January 22,  1970  p. 111-112.

Greenfield, Stanley M., "Some Environmental  Aspects  of Air  Transporta-
       tion, " Air: Air Transportation  and Society, American  Institute
      of Aeronautics and Astronautics,  N.Y., 1971, Vol.  2,  p.  27-42.

Eabercom, Guy A., Airport Noise: A Bibliography With Extracts,  Spring-
      field, Va.J National Technical  Information  Service, August 1978.

Hamilton, William S., "Practical Noise  Abatement  for a General Aviation
      Airport," Sound and Vibration ll(2):24-27,  February 1977.

Harris, Andrew S., "Noise Abatement at  General Aviation  Airports,"
      Noise Control Engineering 10(2):  82-84, March-April 1978.

Hoydyah, Walter G., "Environmental Considerations for  Offshore Airports,"
      Proceedings, First International  Conference on Offshore Airport
      Technology, Bethesda, Maryland, April  29-May 2, 1972,  Vol.  2,
      p. 11-20, published by AIAA, New  York, 1974.

Hurtabise, F.G., "Aircraft Noise and  Other Types  of  Pollution," Pro-
      ceedings Anglo-American Aeronautical Conference, London,  1977.

Jones, W., Groeneweg, J. F. _, "State of the Art of  Turbo fan Engine Noise
      Control," National Aeronautics  and Space Administration,  Lewis
      Research Center, NASA Report TM-73734, October 1977.

Kenton, Edith, Urban Noise Pollution: A Bibliography With Extracts,
      Springfield, Va., National Technical Information Service,  July
      1978.

King, Richard L., Airport Noise Pollution, Metuchen, N.J.:  Scarecrow
      Press, Inc., 1972.

Koenig, Robert J., "Air Transport Noise Reduction,"  Noise Control
      Engineering 8(3):120-130, May-June 1977.

McDonald, John A., "Airport Noise,"   Town and Country  Planning  31:297-
      300, July 1963.


                              184

-------
Lane, Samuel R., "California Airport Monitor Noise Data," Proceedings,,
      International Conference on Noise Control Engineering, San Fran-
      cisco, May 8-10, 1978.  Published by Noise Control Foundation,
      Poughkeepsie, N.Y., p. 739-42.

McPike, A.L.,  " Airport Noise Reduction—What Next?"  American Society
      of Civil Engineers Air Transportation Division, Special Conference
      Proceedings, p. 347-360, April 1977.

Miller, R.J., et al., Procedures for Determining Needs, Methods, and
      Costs for Insulating Existing Homes Near Airports Against Aircraft
      Noise, Washington, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development  1966.
       (NTIS - N68 - 25625).

Naugle, D.F.; Grams, B.C.- and Daley, P.S.., Air Quality Impact of Air-
      craft at 10 U.S.A.F. Bases, Final Report, Civil and Environmental
      Engineering Development Office, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida,
      April 1977.

"Noise Complaints Filed in Chicago Outnumber Those on Smoke."  Environ-
      mental Reports: Current Developments, 2(20):588-90, September 17,
       1971.

Pendley, Robert E.,  "Recent Advances in the Technology of Aircraft
      Noise Control," Journal of Aircraft 13(7):513-519.  July 1976.

Poertner, Herbert G., "Requirements for Community Noise Control Programs,"
      Purdue Noise Control Conference, Proceedings,  West Lafayette, In.,
      Purdue University, 1971.

Powers, John 0., "Airborne Transportation Noise - Its Origin and Abate-
      ment," Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 42:1176,  1967-

Quirt, J.D., "Insulating Buildings from Aircraft  Noise,"  Journal  of  the
      Acoustic Society of America 63(3):  823-31,  March 1978.

Ringheim, M.,  "Airplane Noise: Dimensions and Means  of Noise Reduction,"
       Technical University of Norway, Akustisk  Lab,  October 1976.

Sciarra, John J., et al., Helicopter Transmission Vibration and  Noise
      Reduction Program, Phi ladeIphia: Boeing Vertol  Company, Report No.
      D210-11236-2, March 1978.

Shelly, H.  Stanton,  "Developing a Successful Municipal Noise Abatement
       Program," Sound and Vibration  12(2):  23-24,  December 1978.

Sims,  William  R., and Cherchone, Angela J.,  "In Search  of an Aviation
       Environment Master Plan,"  Air University Review,  20:64-72,
       October  1969.

Spears, R.  Dixon,  "Noise Reduction  - A Must  for Air Transportation
       Progress,"   Canadian Aeronautics and  Space  Journal 16:333,
       October  1970.
                                185

-------
Sperry, William C., Chairman, "Noise Abatement Technology and  Cost
     Analysis, Including Retrofitting," E.P.A. Aircraft/Airport  Noise
     Study Report. Task Group 4, June 1, 1972.

Sperry, William C.; Gray, Damon C. _, noise Standards for Aircraft Type
     Certification, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
     Noise Abatement and Control, E.P.A./550/9-76/0~12, August  1976.

Stevenson, Gordon M., The Politics of Airport Noise, Belmont Ca.,
     Duxbury Press, 1971.

U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
     Aircraft Noise Problems, Hearings, S6th and 87th Congresses,
     Washington, 1963.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  loise Abatement  and
     Control Policy, April 1977.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Environmental Data Bank, Federal
     Aviation Administration, Office of Environmental Quality, June
     1978.

U.S. Department of Transportation, The Feasibility, Practicability,  and
     Cost of the Soundproofing of Schools, Hospitals, and Public Health
     Facilities Located Near Airports, July 1977.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environ-
     mental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With
     An Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to the President  and Con-
     gress on Noise, Washington, 1971.
     (NEC500.1).

Vahovick, Stephen G., "Income and Cost Impact on General Aviation Hours
     Flown by Individual Owners,"  Transporation Research 12(5):315-19,
     October 1978.

Yaniv,  Simone L.; Flynn, Daniel R.,  "Noise Criteria for Buildings: A
     Critical Review, Washington, D.C., National Bureau of Standards,
     Center for Building Technology, Report NBS-SP-499, January  1978.
                              186

-------
B.   NOISE MEASUREMENT  §  ANALYSIS
Auzolle, S. and Hay, J.,  '-'ethod of Measurement and Analysis of Noise
     of Aircraft in Flight,  ''resented at the Tenth International
     Aeronautical Congress of AFITA, Paris, June 1-2, 1971, Washington,
     U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1971 (NASA
     Technical Translation Series TT-F-140S8).
Arneson, G.,  "Aircraft Noise Measurement, Evaluation and Control,"
     Journal  of the Acoustical Society of America, 40:1567, 1966.

Bishop, t}uight E. and Pearsons, Karl S., Recent Studies in Evaluating
     Aircraft Noise and Its Subjective Effects, New York, American
     Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1965.   (AIAA Paper
     65-802).

Bishop, D. E., "Variability in the Day to Day Noise Environment Near
     Airports.," Journal of The Acoustics Society of America  58(1)..
     1975.

Bishop, Dwight E., Variability of Flyover Noise Measures for Repeated
     Flights  of Turbojet and Piston Engine  Transport Aircraft, Washing-
     ton, U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,  1971.
     (NASA Contractor Report CR-1752).

Bolt Beranek  and Newman, Inc. ., Aviation Noise Evaluation and Projections,
     San Francisco Bay Region: Environmental Studies,  Canoga Park,
     Calif.,  1971.
     (Available from NTIS-PB-204055).

Bolt Beranek  and Newman, Inc., The Establishment of  Criteria for Evalu-
     ating the Subjective Noisiness of Aircraft Sounds; Final  Report,
     Cambridge, MA., 1964.

Bowsher, J.M.3 et al.,  "A Further Experiment on Judging Noisiness of
     Aircraft in Flight," Acoustics,  17(5) :245-67, \966.

Chessell, C.  I., Meteorological and Ground  Effects on  the  Propagation
     of Aircraft Noise Close to the Earth 's Surface, Salisbury,  Austra-
     lia, Weapons Research Establishment, Report No.  18, December 1977.
     (Available from NTIS).

Chowns, R. rl., et al.,  "Estimation of the Subjective Effects  of Aircraft
     Noise from Sound-Level Meter Readings,"  Noise  Control 7(2):46-47,
     March-April  1969.

Colaruotolo,  Joseph,  "A Sound Monitoring System for  Measuring Aircraft
     Noise in the  Vicinity of Airports,"  Instrumentation  in  the Aero-
     space Industry,  Proceedings of the International  Aerospace Instru-
     mentation Symposium  of  the Instrument  Society of America, 16:280-37,
     1970.
                               187

-------
Dygert, Paul K., On Measuring the Cost of Noise from Subsonic Air-
       craft, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation and Traffic  Engi-
       neering, University of California, 1970.

Edge, Phillip M., Jr. et al., "Evaluation of Measures of Aircraft
       Noise," Aircraft Safety and Operating Problems, Langley Station,
       Virginia, Langley Research Center, U.S. National Aeronautics  and
       Space Administration, 1:429-27, 1971.

Fukushima, K., Aircraft Acoustics: Community Noise Prediction, Eenton,
       Washington, Boeing Co., Airplane Division, 1964.
       (NASA N68-32202).

Galloway, W.J., Community Noise Exposure Resulting from Aircraft
       Operations: Technical Review, United States Air Force, AMRL
       TR-73-106, November 1974.

Gasaway,  D.C., "Noise Levels Measured Within Aircraft During Conditions
       of Takeoff Climb, and Low, and Normal and High Cruise, " Journal
       of the Acoustics Society of America 58(1). 1975.

Green, Thomas H., Discussions of the Utility of Available Techniques
       for Measuring Aircraft Noise and Predicting Community Response,
       Atlantic City, N.J., National Aviation Facilities Experimental
       Center, 1966.

Harris, B.; Grantner, L., "Community Noise Survey Technique for  Large
       Cities," Journal of the Acoustics Society of America 58(1) 1975.

Becker, Michael H.L. and Kryter, Karl D., Comparisons Between Subjec-
       tive Ratings of Aircraft Noise and Various Objective Measures,
       Washington, U.S. Federal Aviation Agency, 1968, Technical Report
       NO-68-33.

H.M.S.O.   Wilson Committee, Second Survey of Aircraft Noise Annoyance
       Around London (Heathrow) Airport, 1971.

Holger, David K., "Sensitivity of Noise Map Contours to Changes  in
       Aircraft Operations," Iowa State University, Ames Engineering
       Research Institute, Report ISU-ERI-AMES-78292, May 1978.

Ingerslev, Fritz, "Measurement and Description of Aircraft Noise in
       the Vicinity of Airports," Journal of Sound and Vibration 3:95-
       99, January 1966.

Judd, S.H.; Dryden,  S.L.; Tornkeim, L.., "Development of a Community
       Noise Prediction Model,:  Journal of the Acoustics Society of
       America 58(1), 1975.

Kanagasabay, S., "Noise Levels and Their Measurements and Interpreta-
       tions in the Vicinity of Military Airfields, " Conference  Pro-
       ceedings 202, Advisory Group on Aerospace and Residential
       Development,  1976.
                                188

-------
Kapuskar, i-'isu T. and Balanforth, Christopher J.,  "Monitoring Airport
     Noise,"  Hewlett Packard Journal, 20:11-15, July  1969.

Kundert, Warren,  "Everything You  Wanted to Know About  Measurement Micro-
     phones," Sound and Vibration 12(3), March 1978.

Large, J.B., "Ground Monitoring of Aircraft Noise," Noise  Control and
     Vibration Insulation  7(5)151-157, M.ay 1976.

Little, John W. andMabry, J.E.,  "Empirical Comparisons of Calculation
     Procedures for Estimating Annoyance of Jet Aircraft Flyovers,"
     Journal of Sound and  Vibration  10(1):71-80, July  1969.

McPike, A.L., Recommended  Practices  for Use in Measurement and Evalua-
     tion of Aircraft Neighborhood Noise Levels, :!ew York, Society of
     Automotive Engineers, 1965.

Odell, Albert H., "Problems in Predicting Aircraft Noise Exposure,"
     Noise Control Engineering 9(1):32-37, July-August, 1977.

Ollerhead, J.B.,  Subjective Evaluation of General  Aircraft Noise,  Wash-
     ington, U.S. Federal  Aviation Administration,  1968, Technical
     Report No. 68-35.

Porter, M.A.,  "On the Sampling and Models  of  Urban Noise," Journal of
     of the Acoustics Society of America  58(1),  1975.

Richards, E.J., The Constraining Order of Airport  Noise, Southampton,
     Institute of Sound and Vibration Research,  University of South-
     ampton, 1966.

Robinson, Douglas W., A New Basis for Aircraft  Noise Rating,  Teddington,
     England, National Physical  Laboratory,  1971.   (Available from
     NTIS-N72-10035).
Robinson, Douglas W.,  "Towards a Unified  System of Noise Assessment,"
     Journal "of Sound and  Vibration  14 (3) .-279-98,  February 8, 1971.

Russell, R. E.,  "Aircraft  Noise," Noise and Fluids Engineering,  Decem-
     ber 1977, p. 29-37.

Safeer, H.B.,  "Analysis of the Costs, Effectiveness,  and Benefits of
     Aircraft Noise Reduction Programs,"   Society  of Acoustical Engi-
     neers, Report  750595, p.  1-? ,  1975.

Schulz,  Theodore,  "Some Sources of Error in  Community Noise Measure-
     ment," Sound and  Vibration  February  1972,  p.  18-[7.

Shepard, K.P.,  "The  Subjective Evaluation of Noise from Light A: rcro.fi, "
      Salt  Lake  City,  Utah  University, Dept.  of Mechanical and InJus-
      trial Engineering,  December 1976.

Sperry,  William C.^,  Aircraft  Noise  Evaluation,  Washington, U.S. Federal
      Aviation Administration,  Office of Noise Abatement,   :96S.
      (Technical Report 550-003-03H).
                                189

-------
 Technique for Developing Noise Exposure Forecasts, New York, Society
       of Automotive Engineers, 1967.  (Available from NTIS AD 660T05).

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, The Urban Noise Survey, August
       1977.

Winer, David E., "Airport Noise Exposure: The Problem of Definition,"
       Sound and Vibration 13(2);22-27, February 1979.

Yeowart,  ,7.5..,  "An Acceptable Exposure Level for Aircraft Noise in Resi-
       dential Communities,"  Journal of Sound and Vibration 25(2):245-
       254, 1972.

Young, Robert W., and Peterson, Arnold P.O., "On Estimating Noisiness
       of Aircraft Sounds,"  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
       45:834-38, April 1969.
                                190

-------
C.    XOISE  IMPACT

Abey---'ickrama I., et al,  "Mental  Hospital  Admissions  and Aircraft Noise,"
     Lancet 2(7633):1275-77,  December 13,  1969.

Ahrlin, I'., "Medical Effects  of Environmental  Noise on Eumans," o9(l):79-
     87, 1978.

"Airport Studies,"  Review of  the  Society of Residential Appraisers,  23:13-
     14, March  1957.

Alluisi, Earl A.,  "Reactions  to Aircraft Noise:  A Symposium Report,"
     Journal of Auditory  Research 15(3): 187-^.5,  July 1975.

Ando, Y., Eattori,  E.,  "Effects of Noise on the  Sleep of Babies," Journal
     of Acoustical  Society of America 62(1):199-204,  1977-

Bakke,  P.; Egli,  E.; Euser, S.- tiehrl,  B.  I.,  "Noise  Effects on Annoyance
     and Behavior in Dwellings,"  Ergonomics 19(3), 1976.

Baron,  Robert A.,  "Noise  and  Urban Man,"  American Journal of Public
     Eealth 58(11):2060-£6, November 1968.

Barsari, George,  "The  Influence of Airport Operations on Value of Adjacent
     Eeal Estate,"   International Conference on  Assessment Administration,
     1969, Proceedings,  1961, p.  20-26.

Beranek, Leo L.,  et al,  "Reaction of People to Exterior Aircraft Noise,"
     Noise Control  5:287-95.,  (Sept., 1959).

Bolt Beranek and  Newman,  Inc.,  The Speech Interference Effects of Aircraft
     Noise, prepared for  the  Federal Aviation Agency, Springfield, Va.,
     Clearinghouse  for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, 1967.
      (Available from NTIS &D6607123).

Borsky,, Paul N.,  "Sleep Interference and Annoyance by Aircraft Noise, "
     Sound and  Vibration  10(12):18-21,  December 1976.

Broadbent, Donald E.,  "Effects of Noise on Behavior,"   In: Handbook on
     Noise Control.,  ed.  by Cyril  M. Harris, :.<../.., McGraw-Hill, 1957,
     Chap. 10.
Burns,  William, Noise  and Man,  Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1969.

Cohen,  Alexander, "Airport Noise, Sonic Ecomr,, and Public Eealth, '' Air-
      craft and the  Environment; Conference Proceedings, N.Y.,  Society  of
     Automotive Engineers, 1971,  p. 42-55.

Conger, George M.,   "Noise Damage,"  Appraisal Journal   ?,Q (2): 253-54,  April
      1968.

Cornell University, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory,   Inc., A  Report  on
      Evaluation of Airport Noise and Community Reaction,  Ithaca, ,7.v.3
      1960.
      Available from U.S.  Dept. of  Commerce, Office of Technical  Service,
      (PB 171979).


                               191

-------
Filotas, L.T., "Effect of Flight Path Dispersion on Airport Noise,"
       Journal of Sound and Vibration 48(4):451-460, October 22,  1976.

Galloway, W.J., "Quantifying the Impact of a Community Noise Environ-
       ment," Journal of the Acoustics Society of America 58(1),  1975.

Garrelich, J.M.,  "Urban Noise Impact," Journal of the Acoustics Society
       of America 58(1), 1975.

Gebman, Jean R.,  The Mechanics of Forecasting the Community Noise Impact
       of a Transportation System, Santa. Monica, Rand Corporation, 1971.

Goodman, Robert F.., and Clary,  Bruce B., "Community Attitudes and Action
       in Response to Airport Noise,"  Environment and Behavior 8(3):441-
       470, September 1976.

Graeven, David B., "The Effects of Airplane Noise on Health: An Exami-
       nation of Three Hypotheses,"  Journal of Health and Social Behavior
       15(41:336-343, December 1974.

Griefahn, B.,  "Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbances and Their Effects on
       Health,"  Journal of Sound Vibration 59(1):99-106, 1978.

Guignard, J.C., "Noise,"  In: Gillies, J.A. (ed.), A Textbook on Avia-
       tion Physiology, (Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 895-967.

Hoover, Isaac H., "The Aircraft Noise Problem,"  In: How Transportation
       Affects Real Estate Values, American Institute of Real Estate
       Appraisers, Chicago (n.d.) p. 28-31.

Jerison, Henry J. _, "Effects of Noise on Human Performance, "  Journal of
       Applied Psychology, 43(4):96-101, April 1959.

Johnston, G.W., Haass, A.A.,  "Influence of Background Noise Level and
       Signal Duration on the Judged Annoyance of Aircraft Noise,"
       Toronto University Institute for Aerospace Studies, VTIAS Reprint
       No. 228, August 1978.

Jones, Nowell F., "Residence Under An Airport Landing Pattern As  a
       Factor in Teratism,"  Archives of Environmental Health, 33:10-12,
       1978.

Jonsson, A., "Noise As A Possible Risk Factor for Raised Blood Pressure
       in Man,"  Journal of Sound and Vibration. 59(1):123-129, 1978.

Kent on, Edith, Airport Development: Social and Economic Effects  (A Bib-
       liography with Extracts), Spring fieU, Va._, National Technical
       Information Service, May 1978.

Knight, J.J.,  "Effect of Jet Aircraft Noise on Hearing,"  Journal of
       the Naval Medical Service, 48:23-27, Winter 1963.

Krichagin, V.J.,  "Health Effects of Noise Exposure,"  Journal of  Sound
       and Vibration  59(1):65-71, 1978.
                                192

-------
Kryter, Karl D., "Evaluation of Psychological Reactions of People to
       Aircraft Noises," In: U.S. Office of Science and Technology, Jet
       Aircraft Noise Panel, Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Air-
       ports, Washington 1966, p. 12-27.

Kryter, Karl D. and Carl E. Williams,  "Masking of Speech by Aircraft
       Noise," Journal of  the Acoustical Society of America, 39:138-50,
       January 1966.

Kryter, Karl D., "Prediction of Effects of Noise on Man,"  In: U.S.
       National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and
       Technical Information Division, Progress of NASA Research Relating
       to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft, Washington,
       1968, p. 547-60.

Kvitke, V.; Melnikov, B.N.; Tokarer, V.I.,  "Reduction in the Noise in
       Vicinities of Airports with  the Aid of the Optimum Methods of
       Piloting Jet Aircraft on Takeoff," Foreign Technology Division,
       Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Report No. FTD-ID(RS)T-
       1455-77, August 29, 1977.

Loeb, M.,  "Relationships Between Comfort Annoyance by Aircraft and
       Endurance," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America  59(1),
       1976.

Lukas, Jerome S.,  "Effects of Aircraft Noise on Human Sleep,"  Paper
       presented at the American Industrial Hygiene Association  Confer-
       ence, Toronto, Canada, May 24-28,  1971.
       (Available from AIAATIS  &71-32250}).

Miller, James D., Effects  of Noise  on  People, Washington Office  of
       Noise Abatement and Control, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
       Agency,  1971.   (NTID  300.7)  EP1.2:N69/10.

Newell, Margaret,  "The Effects  of Acoustic  Disruption  on Short-Term
       Memory," Psychonomic Science,  12(2):61,  1968.

 "Noise of Jets  Breaks Down Body  Tissue,"  Science  Digest 34:64,  July
       1953.

 "Noise Pollution Can Harm  Circulatory  System,"   Journal of the American
       Medical  Association,  211(6):909, February  9,  1970.

 Ocates,  G.D.,  et al.,  "Human Performance  and Aircraft Type Noise
       Interactions,"  Journal of Auditory Research  15(3):197-207, 1976.

 Ollerhead, John B.,  "Variation  of Community Response to Aircraft Noise
       with Time  of Day," Noise Control Engineering.,  ll(2):68-78,
        September-October 1978.

 Rice, C.G., "Investigation of the  Trade-Off Effects of Aircraft Noise
        and Number,"  Journal of Sound and Vibration,  52(3):325-44,
        June 8, 1978.
                                193

-------
Rylander, P., "Medical Effects of Noise Exposure,"  Journal of Sound
       and Vibration  59 (1).-61-63, 1978.

Stouder, D.J., "Evaluation of Proposed Standards for Aircraft  Flyover
       Noise Analysis Systems.,"  Journal of Aircraft, August 1977.

Tarnopolsky , A. 3 "Effects of Aircraft Noise on Mental Health.," Journal
       of Sound and Vibration  59(l):89-97, 1978.

Tracor, Inc.,  Community Reactions to Airport Noise, Vol.  1, Washington,
       U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1971.
        (NASA Contractor Report CR 1761.)

Yuganov, Ye. M., et al, "Effect of Airplane Noise on Man and Noise  Con-
       trol Measures,"  Aviation and Space Medicine, December  1964,  p.
       434-36.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Effects of Mobile-Source Air  and
       Noise Pollution on Residential Property Values: Final Report, 1975.
       Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia  (DST-TST-75-76).

U.S. National Bureau of Standards, The Economic Impact of  Noise,  Washing-
       ton, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, 1971,  (NTID300.14)  (EP 1.2:N69/17).

U.S. National Library of Medicine, Effects of Noise on Man, Bethesda,
       Maryland, 1968.

Wesler, John, "Aircraft Noise and Structural Vibration, " Sound and
       Vibration 12(2) .-24-28, February 1978.

Wick, Robert L., Jr., et al., "Light Aircraft Noise Problems," Aerospace
       Medicine  34:1133-37^ December 1963.

Williams} Kent C., Environmental Noise Assessment: Mountain View,  Georgia,
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta,  Ga.,  1977.
                             194

-------
D.       LAND  USE


American Society of Planning Officials, Planning the Airport Environ-
      ment, Chicago,  1968,  (PAS  231).

Arde, Inc., and Town  and  City, Inc., Study of Optimum Use of Land Ex-
      posed to Aircraft Landing  and Takeoff  Noise,  Washington,  U.S.
      National Aeronautics  and Space Administration, 1966.  (NASA Con-
      tractor Report  CE 410).

Berland, R. Dale, et  al., Airport  Noise Impact-Planning  Guidelines for
      Local Agencies,  U.S.  Dept. of HUD,  November  1971.

Bixler, O.C., Jr.,  "Community  Noise Survey:  Its Purpose, Techniques,
      and Results as  Related to  Land Use  Planning," Journal of the
      Acoustical Society  of America  58(1),  1975.

Bolt Beranek and Newman,  Inc., Development of Aircraft Noise Compati-
      bility Criteria for Varied Land  Uses,  Cambridge, MA., 1964,
       (Report No. 1086: U.S. FAA SRDS  RD-64-148, II).

Bolt Beranek and Newman,  Inc., Land Use Planning Relating to Aircraft
      Noise, Washington,  U.S.  Federal  Aviation Agency, 1964.   (Report ,
      AD 615015).

Bragdon, Clifford R.,  "Urban Planning  and Noise Control," Sound and
      Vibration, May  1973.

Branch, Melville C.,  "Outdoor  Noise, Transportation, and City  Planning,"
      Traffic  Quarterly,  April 1971, p.  167-168.

Branch, Melville C.,  "Urban Air  Traffic and City  Planning:  A  Case  Study
      of Los Angeles  County,"  Traffic Quarterly,  July  1973,  p. 377-397.

Brown, Richard H.,  and Miller, James F.,  "Land Use Strategies  for  Air-
      craft Noise Alleviation,"  Aircraft and the  Environment, Con-
      ference Proceedings,  Washington, U.S.  Dept.  of Transportation,
      Part I, p. 64-74.

Guild, Elizabeth, et  al., "Land Use  Planning with Respect  to  Aircraft
      Noise: Discussion of a New Procedure."  Aerospace  Medicine
      35:719-23  (August,  1964).

Large, J.B.; Sinchirms, A.  Garcia, de  Andes, J.A., "Strategies for Land
      Use Planning  Around Spanish  Airports,"  Proceedings,  International
      Conference on Noise Control  Engineering, San Francisco,  May  8-10,
       1978 p.  717-722.  Published by  Noise  Control Foundation, Pough-
      keepsie, N.Y.  1978.

Mann, Patrick  P., Los Angeles  Airport/Land Use Planning Study, Phase I
      Report:  Short Term  Noise Abatement Options,  City of Inglewood,
      Dept.  of Planning,  March 1978.
                                195

-------
McArthur, Neil M., Airport and Community: Five Case Studies  of Local
      Land Use, Ottawa, Canadian Department of Transport,  1966.

McGrath, Dorn C., Jr.,  "Aircraft Noise: Fugitive Factor in Land Use
      Planning,"  Journal of Urban Planning and Development;  Proceed-
      ings of the American Society of Civil Engir, -crs  95(UP1):  73-80
      April 1969, A.S.C.E. Paper (No. 6520).

Orlick, Steven C., "Airport/Community Environment n'J Planning," American
      Society of Civil Engineers, Transportation Engineering Journal
      204(2):287-99, March 1978.

Otto, Robert D.,  "Aircraft, Noise, and Land Use,"  Environmental
      Science and Technology 11(2):248-9, February 1977.

Preston, J.O., "Resolving Land Use Conflicts Near  Growing  Airports,"
      American City  71:111-12, April 1956.

Poach, Maurice W. _, and Miller, James F.,  Environs Study and Plan,
      Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Detroit,  Detroit
      Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission,  1964.

Ross, Richard B., "Strategies of Noise Abatement Through Land Use."
      Aircraft and Environment Conference Proceedings  (Washington,  U.S.
      Dept. of Transportation; New York, Society of Automotive Engineers,
      1971), Part I, p. 261-166.

Schimpeter, Charles  C., "Airport Planning and the  Environment,"
      Airport World, March 1971, p.  15-17.

Schoner, P.D., Eomans,  B.L., User Manual: Interior Procedure for
      Planning Rotary Wing Aircraft  Traffic Patterns and Siting Noise
      Sensitive Land Uses, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. Army  Construction
      Engineering Research Lab, Report CERL-IR-N-10, September 1976.

Stratford, Alan H.,  "Environmental Aspects of Airport  Development,"
      Airport Forum  7(2):23-20, April 1977.

Transportation Consultants, Inc., Washington, D.C.3 Compatible Land
      Use Planning on Land Around Airports.  Washington, U.S.  Federal
      Aviation Agency,  1966,  (FAA Contract Report  No.  FA65WA-2357).
      Available from NTIS  (AD 650267).

Urban Land Institute, Home Builders  Manual for Land Development,
      Washington, 1958.

U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, Civil Engineering Planning and Program-
      ming; Land  Use Planning with Respect  to Aircraft Noise, Washington,
      1965  (AF Manual 86-5).

U.S. Department of Defense, Air Installation Compatibility Land Use
      Zones, December 1973.
                               196

-------
U.S. Department of Defense, Tri-Service Manual for Land Use Planning
      Related to Aircraft Noise., 1977.

U.S. Department of Transportation., Airport-Land Use Compatibility
      Planning, FAA, 1977.  (AC150/5050-6).

U.S. Department of Transportation,  Planning for the Airport and Its
      Environs: The Sea-Tao Success Story, April 1978.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Compatible Land Use Planning
      in the Vicinity of Airports, Washington, 1967, Advisory Circular
      150/5050-2

U.S. President  (Lyndon B. Johnson), "Aircraft Noise and Land Use Near
      Airports.  The President's Memorandum to Heads of Departments and
      Agencies with the Report  of the Science Advisor to the President,
      March 22, 1967,"  In: Weekly Compilations of Presidential Docu-
      ments, 3:527-28, March  27, 1967.

Vogel, A. 0.,  "Noise Zoning Around Airports in the Federal Republic
      of Germany According to the Air Traffic Noise Act. "  Noise Control
      Engineering,12(1):22-25,  January-February 1979.

Wesler, John,  "Airport Noise  Abatement: How Effective Can It Be?"
      Sound and Vibration 9(2), February  1975.

Winger, G. E.,  "Noise Abatement Through Land Use Planning,"  Journal
      of the Acoustics Society  of America 58(1), 1975.
                              197

-------
E.      LEGISLATION

"Aircraft Noise Abatement: Local Versus National Control,"  Law and the
      Social Order, 1970:678.

"Airport Noise: A Taking Without Compensation?"  Ohio State Law Journal
      24(3):579-83, Summer 2963.

"Airport Noise Cases: Condemnation by Nuisance and Beyond,"  Wake Forest
      Law Review  7:272-  ,  March 2972.

"Airport Noise: Problem in Tort Law and Federalism,"  Harvard Law Eeview
      74(8):2582-96  (June 29,  2962).

"Airplane Noise, Property Rights, and the Constitution,"  Columbia Law
      Review  65:1428-47, December 2965.

Alekshun, Joseph J., Jr.,  "Aircraft Noise Law: A Technical Perspective,"
      American Bar Association Journal, 55:740-45, August 2969.

Bohannon, Marshall T., "Airport Easements,"  Virginia Law Review 54:355-
      382  (March 2968).

Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Discussion of Some Legal Aspects of Air-
      craft Noise,   Cambridge, MA., 1964.

Boszormenyi, Laszlo, San Diego, California: Case History of a Municipal
      Noise Control  Program, 1978.

Bragdon, C. R., et al.,  "Establishing Georgia's Statewide Noise Control
      Program,"  Sound and Vibration  8(12), December 1974.

Bragdon, C. R.,  "Municipal Noise Ordinances,"  Sound and Vibration 8(22),
      December 2974.

Bragdon, C. R., The  Status of Noise Control In the United States: 2978,
      Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.

Caccavari, Cosimo, et al,  "S/V  Status Report: 3 Community Noise Programs,"
      Sound and Vibration  May  1973, p. 42-44.

Childs, R. W.,  "Law  of Nuisances as Applied to Airports,"  Air Law Review
      4:232, April  1933.

City of Chicago, Chicago Noise  Ordinance, 1970.

Council of State Government, Model State Noise Control Act,  1973.

Dunning, Harold  C.,  An Investigative Study of the  California Experience
      in Airport Noise Regulation, Environmental Protection  Agency,
      June  12, 1975.

"Federal v. State  Control  of Aeronautical Noise Pollution,"   Suffolk
      University Law Review,  5:2093-   ,  Spring 2971.


                                  198

-------
Fink, Lowell S.,  "Canadian Lou and Aircraft Noise Disturbance: A Com-
      parative Study of American, British, and Canadian Law," McGi11
      Law Journal,n:55-69, 1966.

Gatley, W.S.   "Noise Control by Legislation: An Engineering  Challenge"
      American Society of Mechanical Engineers Paper No.  77-EC-16,
      Prepared for Annual Meeting, May  16-18, 1977.

Goodwin, John R., "Environmental Airport Regulations,"  American Society
      of Civil Engineers Air Transportation Division, Special Conference
      Proceedings, p. 105-118, April 1977.

Gotllieb, A.   "Land Use Controls for Airport Planning"  Urban Lawyer
      Vol.  2, No. 2, p. 266-276, 1971.

Haar, Charles M., "Airport Noise and the Urban Dweller: A proposed
      Solution,"  New York Law Journal   159:4, May 24, 1968.

Harrison, Orval C.,  "Use and Enjoyment  of Land—Compensation for Noise
      Damage,"  Natural Resources Lawyer   4(2):  429-52, April 1971.

Hildebrand, James L., ed., Noise Pollution and the Law, Buffalo, W.S.
      Hein, 1970.

Hurlburt, Randall L.,  "Noise Control Experience in Local  Government"
      Testimony of the City of Inglewood at the Environmental Protection
      Agency's Hearings in San Francisco, CA., September  27-29, 1971.

Informatics, Inc., An Assessment of Noise Concern in Other Actions,
      Washington, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,  U.S. Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, 1971,  2 Vols.

Mason, M.P.,  "Brief Survey of Airport  Noise and the Law," Lincoln
      Law Review, 6:99, June 1971.

"Mental Discomfort as a Basis for Equitable Relief, "   Oregon Law Review
      35:216, April 1956.

Meyer, Alvin F.,  "E.P.A. 's Implementation of  the  Noise  Control Act,"
      Sound and Vibration 9(2), December 1975.

"Model Ordinance  to Control Urban Noise Through Zoning Performance
      Standards"  Harvard Journal of Legislation   8:608 (May,  1971).

National Environmental Health Association,  Community Noise  and Vibra-
      tion  Control Ordinance, 1977.

Noise Control Act of 1972; Public Law  92-574.

Olson, Donald E. J  "Inglewoods ' Ten Point Noise Abatement  Program,"
      The Municipal Attorney 19(3):38-42,  1969.

Osgood, Frank  W., The Control and Protection  of Land Uses in the
      Vicinity  of Airports, Master's Thesis  (City Planning)  Georgia
      Institute of Technology,  1960.
                                   199

-------
Juiet Communities Act of 197S

Richards., E. J., and Caplan, H.,  "Control of Aircraft No-is*. Perceived
      at Ground Level: Technical Aspects; Legal Aspects,"  l:o]'al Aero-
      nautical Society Journal 68:15-53, January 1964.

Seago, Erwin, "The Airport Noise Problem and Airport  Zoning."   '• 'aryland
      Law Review  28:120-135 (Spring 1968).

Shelly, Stanton,  "developing a Successful frfunicipal  Noise Program, "
      Sound and Vibration, December 1978, p. 12-15.

Simmons, Robert A.,  and Chanand, Bob,  "The Soft Fuzz  Approach  to Noise
      Ordinance Enforcement, "  Sound and Vibration,   September, 1974.

State of Illinois, Noise Pollution Control Regulations, August 1973.

Tondell, Lyman M., Jr., "Legal and Related Aspects of Airport  Land use
      Planning"  John E. Stephen, Legal and Related Aspects of Aircraft
      Noise Regulation, (Washington, D.C., 1967)   (Item 1640.  )

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aircraft Noise  Emission  Standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Model Noise  Ordinance, '-larch 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Control Program: Progress
      to Date,  March 1978.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State and Municipal Noise Control
      Activities, 1972-1974.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Model Airport Zoning Ordinance,
      Washington, 1967.   (Advisory Circular AC 150/5190-3).

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Noise Abatement, Technology,  Public
      Law and Rules, FAA Noise Abatement Programs, Washington  1970.
                                   200

-------