NOISE EFFECTS OF CONCORDE OPERATIONS AT
JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 1977 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1978
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
April 1979
-------
Contents
Background 1
Purpose of this Publication 2
Introduction 3
Concorde Noise Levels 4
Concorde and Subsonic Aircraft Noise Levels 6
Noise Exposure Due to Concorde Operations 8
Community Response (Complaints) 14
Applications for the JFK Noise Monitoring Data 16
Conclusions 18
References 20
-------
Abstract
The FAA measured the noise at several communities in the vicinity of JFK
International Airport due to the operations of Concorde and subsonic aircraft. The
FAA reports are factual and valuable but do not provide much discussion of the
effects (current or potential) of Concorde noise on the public. This report presents
the results of an analysis by the EPA of the FAA noise data which leads to
interpretations of the effects of Concorde operations on the public that are
different in significant respect from what might be assumed from a cursory reading
of the FAA reports. , .
The EPA analysis of the noise levels shows that Concorde arrival noise was as
much as 6 dB noisier than expected from FAR 36 test results and that Concorde
operations alone establish a noise floor which under some projected numbers of
operations exceed EPA goals for noise exposure. The significance of the noise
floor is that regardless of whatever noise control is implemented in the future in
regard to subsonic aircraft, the noise exposure will not decrease below the limiting
levels set by Concordes. If there were 32 Concorde operations per day at JFK, for
instance, only 7,000 people out of 188,000 exposed to Ldn 65 (NEF 30) would
receive any relief even if the subsonic fleet were significantly silenced after 1985.
The EPA analysis of the record of complaints shows that there were about 100
times more complaints per Concorde operation than there were per subsonic
operation.
-------
Background
Route - proving flights of Concorde supersonic transports (SSTs) between London
and Paris and New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) were
conducted in October 1977 by British Airways (3A) and Air France (AF). Com-
mercial operations were initiated in November 1977. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) set-up a noise monitoring system in the vicinity of JFK in
time to record and report the results of the route-proving flights (Ref. 1).
The FAA continued monitoring the commercial operations and issued a report each
month for November 1977 through October 1978 (Ref. 2). The reports contained
listings of the types of aircraft and number of operations conducted at JFK, the
noise levels at various sites in terms of several descriptors for all Concorde and a
few subsonic aircraft operations, and a record of complaints of Concorde and
subsonic aircraft noise levels. Also included in the monthly reports are information
on separate monitoring programs for structural vibrations and sonic booms.
A summary report of the monitoring was issued by the FAA in January 1979 (Ref.
3) which included the results of additional noise monitoring conducted in November
1978.
-------
Purpose of this Publication
The FAA monthly reports contain a great deal of data which is presented with
little discussion or analysis. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), be-
lieving that the FAA reports are a valuable source of information for determining
the noise effects of Concordes, examined the reports in detail. The purpose of this
document, therefore, is to present the results of the EPA analysis with emphasis on
the following questions:
(1) What are the average single event noise levels that have been produced
at specific communities in the vicinity of JFK due to Concorde and
subsonic aircraft operations?
(2) What are the differences in single event noise levels between
Concordes operated by British Airways and Air France, and between
Concordes and subsonic aircraft?
(3) What are the noise exposure (multiple event) levels at the specific
communities due to Concorde operations alone? What would be the
exposure levels due to various projected operational rates?
(4) How do the complaints of Concorde and subsonic aircraft operations
compare?
(5) Can the JFK noise monitoring data be applied to predict noise levels
due to Concorde operations at other airports?
-------
Introduction
The FAA recorded noise levels during the monitoring program at many sites which
are identified by the town or village in which the measuring and recording
equipment were located. However, only five of the sites were used consistently to
acquire enough data for satisfactory analysis; Belle Harbor, Howard Beach,
Rockaway Park, Cedarhurst, and Laurelton. The FAA reports identify the aircraft
noise levels at each monitoring site in terms of: runway identification number;
departures or arrivals; Concordes BA or AF; and subsonic aircraft by several types
such as B707, DC-8, B747, 8727, DC-9, etc.
This report has organized the FAA noise data into the following categories:
(1) Departures at Belle Harbor, Howard Beach and Rockaway Park.
(2) Arrivals at Cedarhurst, Howard Beach, Rockaway Park and Laurelton.
(3) SST aircraft as Concordes (BA), Concordes (AF), and Concordes (All).
(4) Subsonic aircraft (B707/DC-8 only).
The FAA reported the single event noise levels in terms of several descriptors but
the only one presented here is the A-weighted level designated in the following as
dBA. However, estimates are also provided here of multiple event noise exposure
levels in terms of the day-night average sound level designated in the following as
Ldn. Detailed discussions of the above two single and multiple event noise
descriptors are given in the EPA "Levels Document" (Ref. 4).
In the following, the noise levels represent the average of all commercial
operations where the averaging is done on a logarithmic basis, which is common
when the quantities to be averaged are in decibel or decibel-like units.
-------
Concorde Noise Levels
The average single event noise levels at the five monitored sites due to Concorde
operations are shown in the bar charts of Figure 1. Concordes operated by British
Airways (BA) and Air France (AF) are identified separately. The levels represent
the average dBA resulting from Concorde operations for the thirteen months from
November 1977 through November 1978. The purpose of showing the BA and AF
levels separately is to determine if one operator produces significantly lower levels
than the other which might be attributed to more effective noise abatement flight
procedures.
For the three departure sites, Figure 1 shows that BA was lower at Belle Harbor by
1.9 dB and AF was lower at Howard Beach and Rockaway Park by 0.8 dB. Since
each operator was lower than the other by less than three decibels, neither
operator has a significantlly more effective noise abatement departure procedure
than the other.
For the four arrival sites, Figure 1 shows that BA was lower at Howard Beach by
2.1 dB and AF was lower at Cedarhurst, Rockaway Park, and Laurelton by 1.4, 0.3,
3.8 dB respectively. Since each operator was lower than other by less than 3 dB at
Howard Beach, Cedarhurst, and Rockaway Park, neither operator has demonstrated
a significantly more effective noise abatement arrival procedure than the other at
those sites. However, at Laurelton, AF averaged nearly four decibels lower than
BA which cannot be dismissed as an insignificant difference.
-------
In summary, comparing the noise levels produced by BA and AF Concordes, there is
no evidence that one operator has more effective noise abatement departure
procedures than the other. However, there is some indication that the AF arrival
procedures are capable of producing nearly four decibels less noise than those of
BA which is a difference important enough to merit more investigation. Both
operators should be requested to evaluate and compare arrival procedures to
determine if those of AF are superior for noise abatement. If the results show that
AF's arrival procedures are capable of being quieter than those of BA, then both
airlines should be requested to implement those procedures consistently.
-------
Concorde and Subsonic Aircraft Noise Levels
The noise levels due to Concorde and B707/DC-8 subsonic aircraft operations for
the five monitored sites are shown in Figure 2. In this case, the Concorde levels
are identified as Concorde (All), which is the average of the Concorde (BA) and the
Concorde (AF) levels. Just as for Figure 1, the levels shown in the bar-charts of
Figure 2 represent the average single event noise levels of all Concorde and
B707/DC-8 operations for the thirteen months from November 1977 through
November 1978.
The levels for B707 and DC~8 subsonic aircraft were combined and identified as
B707/DC-8 because they are very similar aircraft powered by the same type of
engines. Those two aircraft were chosen for comparison with Concordes in
preference to other subsonic-types because they constitute nearly half of all of the
subsonic aircraft measured by the FAA during the course of the monitoring period.
Furthermore the B707/DC-8 aircraft are in widespread use and are among the
noisiest of the subsonic air carrier fleet.
The purpose of comparing Concorde (All) and B707/DC-8 noise levrls is to
determine if the differences are as expected from a knowledge of the Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 36 (FAR 36) noise certification tests (Ref. 5). Those
tests are made to certify noise levels of aircraft and are conducted under specified
operating conditions'that are not necessarily duplicated in commercial service.
The differences expected from FAR 36 are that Concordes, would be about 8 dB
noisier than B707/DC-8 aircraft for departures, while for arrivals, the noise levels
-------
for Concordes would be about the same or slightly less than for B707/DC-8 aircraft
(Ref. 6 and 7).
For the three departure sites, Figure 2 shows that Concorde (All) was noisier than
B707/DC-8 by 8.0 dB at Belle Harbor, by 6.0 dB at Howard Beach, and by 2.9 dB at
Rockaway Park. All of the exceedances are as expected or less which indicates
that departure flight procedures may be accomplishing some noise reduction,
perhaps as much as five decibels at Rockaway Park.
For the four arrival sites, Figure 2 shows that Concorde (All) was noisier than
B707/DC-8 by 0.9 dB at Cedarhurst, by 3.9 dB at Howard Beach, by 0.1 dB at
Rockaway Park, and by 6.1 dB at Laurelton. Therefore, at three of the four arrival
sites, Concorde noise was greater than expected from FAR 36 tests.
In summary, comparing the noise levels produced by Concordes and B707/DC-8
aircraft, the monitored results indicate that:
(1) On departure, Concordes can be as noisy as expected (about 8 dB
greater than B707/DC-8) but can be quieter by as much as 5 dB,
possibly as a result of conducting noise abatement flight procedures.
(2) On arrival, Concordes can be as noisy as expected (about the same as
B707/DC-8) but as much as 6 dB noisier, possibly as a result of not
conducting noise abatement flight procedures.
-------
Noise Exposure Due To Concorde Operations
The average noise levels of Concordes operating singly are discussed in the
foregoing and shown in Figures 1 and 2. However, the daily cumulative noise
exposure due to multiple events of Concordes is a meaningful measure of the
effect of Concorde noise on the population of the monitored communities. The
measure of noise exposure chosen for this analysis is the day-night average sound
level, Ldn and the projected numbers of daily operations chosen are as follows:
(1) 4 (current),
(2) 14 (British/French market estimate, Refs. 6 and 8),
(3) 32 (FAA lower limit, Ref. 6), and
(4) 50 (FAA upper limit, Ref. 6).
The predicted noise exposure levels due to Concordes operating at the five selected
sites are shown in Figure 3 and Table 1. The noise exposure levels are based upon
the average single event levels for Concorde (All) shown in Figure 2. Each site is
assumed to be exposed to the noise of Concordes operating with the summer-time
percent runway use indicated in Figure 3, taken from the FAA August report
(Ref.l). Also included for each site is the special case of 50 operations per day and
100 percent runway use. The bar-charts of Figure 3, therefore, represent envelopes
where the lower bar at each site represents the noise exposure due to the current
number of operations of Concordes and summer-time runway use, and the upper bar
represents the noise exposure due to the maximum number of Concorde operations
projected by the FAA operating from one runway exclusively.
-------
Since 50 operations per day may seem unreasonable in view of the promulgation of
the SST rule (Ref.5), the following explanation for including them is presented.
The FAA points out in the Environmental Impactment Statement (EIS) (Ref.6) that
their projections of 32 to 50 operations per day are based upon an assumed first
generation fleet of 30 to 40 Concordes operating at 13 airports within the United
States even though the SST rule limits the U.S. Concorde fleet to only 16. Although
32 operations per day can be conducted at JFK by 16 Concordes, and 50 per day
may be conducted under the most favorable conditions, it is unlikely that the
number of daily operations will exceed the British and French market estimate of
14, providing the U.S. Concorde fleet remains limited to the original 16.
Nevertheless, the EIS identifies a specific number of Concorde operations at each
of the 13 U.S. airports, and 50 is the upper limit number assigned to JFK. The
"Probable Noise Impact" for JFK is determined in the EIS for 50 operations per
day (25 departures and arrivals each) in terms of the increase in population within
specific noise exposure contours. Furthermore, the FAA has stated that it would
not be necessary to prepare another EIS relative to Concorde operations at any of
the 13 airports provided the number of operations does not exceed those assigned in
the EIS.
In view of the above, it is reasonable to predict the noise exposure at the
monitored sites for the maximum number of operations considered by the FAA. In
the event that the market demand for Concordes increases, renewed pressure from
the Concorde operators and developers to relax the 16 aircraft limit may be
expected. The full range of predicted community noise exposures at each site
shown in Figure 3, based upon the FAA noise monitoring program, provides
-------
additional insight on the probable noise impact beyond that contained in the EIS.
The results of the JFK monitoring program, as well as the EIS, furnish background
for determining whether amendments to the SST rule should be permitted, in the
event that they are requested.
The maximum noise exposure (top bar) for each site shown in Figure 3 assumes that
all Concorde operations at JFK occur on a single runway which, of course, is not
likely on a permanent basis due to weather variations, runway maintenance,
accidents, etc. However, it is possible that 100 percent runway utilization may
occur for a significant length of time (from several days to several weeks) which
may be enough to cause a noticeable degradation in community noise environment
during that period.
Also, it must be emphasized that the noise exposure levels of Figure 3 represent
noise floors due to the predicted number of Concorde operations and runway use.
Regardless of whatever noise control is implemented in the future in regard to
subsonic aircraft (such as retrofit or design of the source, noise abatement flight
procedures, and operational restrictions) the noise exposure will not decrease below
the noise floors set by Concordes.
The implications of the Concorde floor can be illustrated in terms of land areas and
people by analyzing the two examples of Concorde operatons at JFK given in the
EIS (Ref. 6). The first example considers 8 Concorde operations per day mixed
with the 1978 subsonic air carrier fleet, many of which do not comply with the FAR
36 noise level requirements. The second example considers 32 Concorde operations
per day mixed with an assumed 1978 subsonic air carrier fleet, all of which comply
with at least the 1969 requirements of FAR 36.
10
-------
In the first case, 185 square miles and 487,000 people are exposed to Ldn 65 dB or
greater due to the combined operations of subsonics and Concordes. If only
subsonics were operating, the land area and population would be 175 square miles
and 485,000 people, respectively. And, if only Concordes were operating, about 29
square miles and 85,000 people would be exposed which is the noise floor in terms
of area and people due to 8 Concorde operations per day alone.
In the second case, 90 square miles and 188,000 people are exposed to Ldn 65 dB or
greater due to the combined operatons of subsonics and Concordes. If only
subsonics were operating, the land area and population would be 45.5 square miles
and 164,000 people, respectively. And, if only Concordes were operating, about 64
square miles and 181,000 people would be exposed which is the noise floor in terms
of area and people due to 32 Concorde operations per day alone.
For the first example, the addition of only 8 Concorde operations per day to a
relatively noisy subsonic fleet adds 10 square miles and 2,000 people to the Ldn 65
dB exposure. Although that increase may appear modest, the relatively few daily
Concorde operations would insure that at least 29 square miles and 85,000 people
would be exposed to Ldn 65 dB or greater, even if the subsonic fleet was
substantially silenced or rerouted.
The second example shows that the addition of 32 Concorde operations per day to
relatively quiet subsonic fleet adds 44.5 square miles and 24,000 people to the Ldn
65 dB exposure. What is more significant, however, is that regardless of how much
noise abatement is applied in the future to the subsonics, at most only 7,000 out of
188,000, people would be relieved from the Ldn 65 dB or greater noise exposure.
11
-------
There are three values of Ldn that are significant to the EPA as national goals
(Ref. 9):
(1) . "Reduce environmental noise exposure of the population to an Ldn value
no more than 75 dB immediately, utilizing all available tools, except in
those isolated cases where this would impose severe hardship."
(2) "Through vigorous regulatory and planning actions, reduce environ-
mental noise exposure levels to Ldn 65 dB or lower, and concurrently
reduce noise annoyance and related activity interference caused by
intrusive noises."
(3) "In planning future programs concerned with or affecting environmental
noise exposure, to the extent possible, aim for environmental noise
levels that do not exceed an Ldn of 55 dB. This will ensure protection
of the public health and welfare from all adverse effects of noise based
upon present knowledge."
Examining Figure 3 and Table 1, it is seen that for the current departure and
arrival operations (4 operations per day, 2 each departures and arrivals), the noise
exposure floor established by Concorde operations is less than Ldn 55 dB. Thus the
EPA lower goal is not exceeded, at least not solely by Concordes. For the British
and French market estimate of 14 operations per day, the Ldn 55 dB goal is
exceeded for departures at Belle Harbor and Rockaway Park, and exceeded for
arrivals at Cedarhurst and Howard Beach. For the FAA lower limit of 32
operations per day, the Ldn 55 dB goal is exceeded at all sites for departures and
exceeded for arrivals at Cedarhurst and Howard Beach. For the FAA upper limit
of 50 operations per day and normal runway use, the Ldn 55 dB goal is exceeded at
all sites for departures and exceeded at all sites except Rockaway Park for
12
-------
arrivals. For the special case of 50 operations per day and 100 percent runway use,
the Ldn 65 dB goal is exceeded at Rockaway Park for departures and at Howard
Beach for arrivals.
In summary, Concorde operations at JFK at the current rate of 4 per day do not
impose an environmental degradation that violates the EPA lower limit goal of Ldn
55 dB. However, increasing Concorde operations to the extent of the British and
French market estimate of 14 per day and to the FAA lower limit projection of 32
per day would prevent achieving the EPA lower goal at all communities except
Laurelton. In fact, for 32 operations per day, the noise exposure at Belle Harbor
and Rockaway Park would exceed Ldn 60 dB. For the FAA upper limit projection
of 50 operations per day and normal runway use, the EPA lower goal would be
exceeded at all communities, and Ldn 60 dB would be exceeded at all communities
except Laurelton. For the worst case of 50 operations per day and 100 percent
runway use, Ldn 60 dB would be exceeded at all communities, Ldn 65 dB would be
exceeded at Howard Beach and Rockaway Park, and Ldn 70 dB would be exceeded
at Howard Beach.
13
-------
Community Response (Complaints)
Figure 4 shows the monthly record of complaints rceived from all communities of
Concorde and of all subsonic aircraft operations. The maximum number of
Concorde complaints were received in the months of May through August, and of
subsonic complaints in the months of May through September. The maximum
number of complaints per month was 657 for Concordes in May and 1,674 for
subsonics in August which is about 2.5 times as many complaints of subsonic
aircraft as there were of Concordes on the basis of the maximum month for each.
The fact that complaints of subsonic aircraft exceed those of Concordes is
expected, considering that the number of operations of subsonic aircraft far exceed
those of Concordes. The operational comparisons are shown in Figure 5 which
gives the monthly record of operations of Concordes and of all subsonics. The
maximum number of operations of Concordes and subsonics occurred in the months
of May through October. The maximum number of operations per month was 155
for Concordes in October and 31,230 for subsonics in July which is about 200
subsonic operations for every Concorde operation on the basis of the maximum
month for each.
Table 2 lists the 13-months total of complaints and operations of Concordes and of
all subsonics. For the thirteen months, there were 2.35 times as many complaints
of Concordes as there were of subsonics but 234 subsonic operations for every
Concorde operation. The result is a complaint density of 232 complaints per 100
operations for Concordes compared to 2.33 for the subsonics which translates to
about 100 times as many complaints per operation of Concordes as there were per
operation of subsonic aircraft.
14
-------
In summary, while it is true that complaints of Concordes were less than half of
those of all subsonic aircraft, when the numbers of operations of the aircraft were
considered, the complaints of Concordes exceeded by about 100 times the
complaints of subsonic aircraft. That result is unexpected considering that the
Concorde complaints were based upon about four operations per day (two each
departures and arrivals) which produced a noise exposure contribution less than Ldn
55 dB. That fact leads to concern for the extent of community response if
Concorde operations ever reach the British and French market estimate of 14 per
day or the FAA projections of 32 or 50 per day.
15
-------
Applications for the JFK Noise Monitoring Data
Monitoring of aircraft noise in the vicinity of a specific airport and the subsequent
analysis should include as objectives: (1) providing information for quantifying the
noise exposure due to present and projected operations; (2) determining the need
for and extent of noise abatement; and (3) developing operational methods for
reducing noise exposure. However, in addition to the site specific information,
there is a potential for acquiring data useful for translation to aircraft operations
at other sites and other airports. In the case of the FAA monitoring program at
JFK, it is the differences in noise levels between Concorde and B707/DC-8 aircraft
which may be the data useful for application to other airports that may have
Concorde operations in the future.
The reason that the actual levels of Concorde noise measured at the JFK
monitoring sites have no real significance for airports other than JFK is because of
lack of supporting data (distance to aircraft, thrust setting, aircraft weight, engine
type, etc.). However, the differences in noise levels between Concordes and
subsonic airplanes are meaningful because the JFK results can be applied to other
airports where Concordes and subsonic aircraft would use the same runways and
produce nearly the same flight tracks.
For example, Concordes departing from JFK averaged 3 to 8 dB noisier than
B707/DC-8 subsonics, depending upon the effectiveness of the Concorde noise
abatement procedures. Therefore, at another airport, the same range of
differences would be expected to hold. For the case of Concordes arriving at JFK,
the measured levels indicated that the best to be expected is that Concordes would
16
-------
be about as noisy as the B707/DC-8 subsonics. However, at some sites, Concorde
operations were as much as 6 dB noisier than subsonic operations, possibly as a
result of not conducting noise abatement arrival procedures. Therefore, at another
airport, Concordes might be expected to be about as noisy as B707/DC-8 subsonics
provided rather strict arrival procedures were maintained.
All that is necessary, therefore, for another airport to predict the range of
approximate noise levels of Concorde operations, is a knowledge of the noise
produced by B707/DC-8 subsonic aircraft at that airport and the differences
measured at JFK. The assumption, of course, is that the Concordes would use the
same runways and produce approximately the same flight tracks as the subsonic
aircraft.
The same reasoning may not be valid in regard to complaints. If another airport
has a record of complaint density for subsonic aircraft (complaints per 100
operations), the complaint density of Concorde operations cannot necessarily be
predicted from a knowledge of the relative density of complaints at JFK.
Nevertheless, the results of the analysis of complaints at JFK may be of some use
as background information.
17
-------
Conclusions
The noise monitoring program conducted by the FAA at JFK has provided the data
necessary for determining the noise exposure of present Concorde operations at
selected sites at JFK and for estimating the effects of projected Concorde
operations at those sites and other airports. The data should be particularly useful
to airport operators in deciding the number of-Concorde operations they can
tolerate or whether they want Concordes at all.
Specific conclusions are as follows:
(1) Concorde departures can be about 8 dB noisier than B707/DC-8
departures, which was as expected from FAR 36 test results, but noise
abatement procedures possibly can reduce the exceedance to about 3
dB.
(2) Concorde arrivals can be about as noisy as B707/DC-8 arrivals, which
was as expected, but unfortunately can be as much as 6 dB noisier,
possibly as a result of not conducting noise abatement flight
procedures.
(3) Air France's arrival procedures may be capable of. producing nearly four
decibels less noise than those of British Airways.
(4) Concorde operations establish a noise floor which under some projected
numbers of operations will exceed EPA goals. Regardless of whatever
noise control is implemented in the future for subsonic aircraft (retrofit
or design at the source, noise abatement flight procedures, etc.) the
noise exposure will not decrease below the floor set by Concordes.
18
-------
(5) In terms of future expectations at JFK in reducing noise exposures due
to the introduction of Stages 2 and 3 and even lower noise level aircraft
as replacements for current Stage 1 aircraft, the operation of even a
small number of Concordes will to a large extent vitiate these
expectations.
(6) The EPA goal of Ldn 55 dB is not exceeded at any monitoring site solely
by the present Concorde operations of 4 per day. However, that goal
would be exceeded solely by Concorde operations at four sites by the
British and French market estimate of 14 per day and by the FAA lower
projection of 32 per day, and at all five sites by the FAA upper
projection of 50 per day.
(7) Ldn 60 dB would be exceeded solely by Concorde operations at two sites
by the FAA lower projection of 32 per day, at four sites by the FAA
upper projection or 50 per day and normal runway use, and at all five
sites by 50 operations per day and 100 percent runway use. In fact for
the latter projection, Ldn 65 dB would be exceeded at two sites and Ldn
70 dB exceeded at one site.
(8) Although the total number of Concorde complaints was less than half of
those of subsonics, Concorde complaints per operation were about 100
times those of subsonics. That result is surprising considering that the
four Concorde operations per day do not exceed the EPA lower goal of
Ldn 55 dB.
19
-------
References
1. "Concorde Monitoring, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Route-Proving
Flights", U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, October 1977.
2. "Concorde Monitoring, John F. Kennedy International Airport", U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, November
1977 through October 1978.
3. "Concorde Monitoring Summary Report, John F. Kennedy International
Airport", U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, November 1977 - November 1978.
4. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
5. "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification", Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 36, Amendment 36-10, "Civil Supersonic Airplanes,
Noise and Sonic Boom Requirements", 43 FR 28406, 29 June 1978.
6. "Final Environmental Impact Statement: Noise Regulation and Type
Certification Alternatives for Civil Supersonic Aircraft", Federal Aviation
Administration, June 1978.
7. "Measured or Estimated (Uncertificated) Airplane Noise Levels", Federal
Aviation Administration Advisory Circular; AC No: 36-2A, 6 February 1978.
8. "Oral Testimony by Concorde Spokesman", Hearing before the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 15 December 1977.
9. "Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, April 1977.
20
-------
BELLE
HARBOR
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
CEDARHURST
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
LAURELTON
75
80
75
80
75
85
85
90
90
95
100
CONCORDE (BA) |
CONCORDE (AF)
CONCORDE (BA)
CONCORDE (AF) |
DEPAF
CONCORDE (BA) |
CONCORDE (AF)
TURES
95
80 85 90 95
A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL, dBA, dB
100
CONCORDE (BA) |
CONCORDE (AF) |
CONCORDE (BA) |
CONCORDE (AF) |
CONCORDE (BA) |
CONCORDE (AF) |
ARRr
CONCORDE (BA)
CONCORDE (AF) |
/ALS
100
FIGURE 1. AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS FOR CONCORDE (BA)
AND CONCORDE (AF).
-------
75
80
85
BELLE
HARBOR
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
CEOARHURST
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
LAURELTON
75
80
75
80
85
85
90
90
90
95
95
95
A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL, dBA, dB
100
CONCORDE (ALL)
B 707/DC-8
CONCORDE (ALL)
B 707/DC-8
DEPAf
CONCORDE (ALL) |
B 707/DC-8
TURES
100
_
CONCORDE (ALL)
B 707/DC-8 |
CONCORDE (ALL) |
B 707/DC-8
CONCORDE (ALL) |
B 707/DC-8 |
CONCORDE (ALL) |
B 707/DC-8 |
ARRI
/ALS
100
FIGURE 2. AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS FOR CONCORDE (ALL)
AND B707/DC-8.
-------
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
BELLE
HARBOR
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
50 OPS/0 AY 4 1 00% R/W USE |
50497
32 4 97 |
14 4 97 |
4497
50 OPS/DAY
I
4 100% R/W USE |
50 4 57 |
32 4 57 |
14 4 57 |
4 4 57 |
50 OPS/DAY
DEPAF
4 100% R/W USE |
50 4 40 |
32 4 40 I
14440
1
4440 |
I
TURES
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
CEDARHURST
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
LAURELTON
50 OPS/0 AY & 1 00 % R/W USE |
50 & 45 |
32 & 45 |
14445 |
4&4S
50 OPS/DAY & 100% R/W USE |
50&10 |
32 & 10 |
14410 |
4&10 |
50 OPS/0 AY & 1 00 % R/W USE |
50&25 |
32 & 25 |
14 425 |
4425 |
50 OPS/DAY & 100% R/W USE |
50 & 20 |
32 & 20 |
14&20 |
4&20 |
ARRI
fALS
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL, Ldn, dB
FIGURE 3. PREDICTED NOISE EXPOSURE DUE TO CONCORDES ONLY.
-------
1977
1978
1977
1978
(
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
)
1
i
1
1
J
500
'
COMPLAINTS
1000 1500 2000
CONCORDES
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
500
1000
1500
2000
. ALL
SUBSONICS
500
1500
1000
COMPLAINTS
FIGURE 4. COMPLAINTS FROM ALL COMMUNITIES
2000
-------
1977
1978
1977
1978
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
15,000
N
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
50
OPERATIONS
100
150
200
CONCORDES
50
20,000
100
OPERATIONS
25,000
150
30,000
200
35,000
ALL
SUBSONICS
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
OPERATIONS
FIGURE 5. DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS.
35,000
-------
BELLE
HARBOR
HOWARD
BEACH
ROCKAWAY
PARK
CEDARHURST
LAUR ELTON
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL, Ldn, dB
OPS
4 DAY
DEP
52.1
46.8
52.3
NA
NA
ARR
NA
50.5
43.7
49.9
45.4
OPS
14 DAY
DEP
v7 y
522
©
NA
NA
ARR
NA
(56.0)
49.1
(55.4)
50.5
32
"" DAY
DEP
0
0
v'y
NA
NA
ARR
NA
(59.5)
52.7
(59.o)
54.5
en OPS
50 DAY
DEP
H33.0J
©
(63.o)
NA
NA
ARR
NA
©
54.7
(eo.gj
©
•50
OPS
DAY
DEP
©
©
67.3
NA
NA
ARR
NA
71.5
(eo.Tj
©
©
100% RUNWAY USE
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
(^ ) EXCEEDS Ldn 55 dB
EXCEEDS Ldn 65 dB
TABLE 1. PREDICTED NOISE EXPOSURE DUE TO CONCORDES ONLY
-------
TOTAL
COMPLAINTS
TOTAL
OPERATIONS
COMPLAINTS
PER 100
OPERATIONS
CONCORDES
3,620
1,560
232
ALL
SUBSONICS
8,500
365,000
2.33
RATIO
2.35
234
99.6
TABLE 2. COMPLAINTS FROM 13-MONTHS OF OPERATIONS
------- |