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
October 1, 1980
Dear Participant:
We are pleased to be enclosing a complete three-volume set from the Conference
on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning. Sponsored by EPA,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, and conducted by the Georgia Institute
of Technology, College of Architecture, the Conference was held at the
University October 3-5, 1979.
Volume I contains summaries of each of the panel sessions. Volume II contains
the prepared papers that were presented by the speakers at the Conference, and
Volume III is the proceedings based on a transcription over the entire three
day period.
We believe this Conference has been very significant, addressing a major
subject area that has previously been overlooked. The success of the
Conference is attributable to the excellent quality and enthusiasm of the
participants.
Again, thank you for your participation. We hope that similar conferences in
the future will be held to deal further in depth with this important subject
matter. You will be notified of any such future plans.
Sincerely,
Clifford R. Bragdon, Ph.D., AICP
Conference Coordinator
Assistant Dean
College of Architecture
Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CRB:cj
Enclosure
-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
Participant Update
Do you wish to remain on our Airport Noise and Land Use mailing list? D yes D no
If so, do we have your correct address? D yes D no
Do you have any colleagues who would be interested in receiving our
mailings? D yes D no
If you would like to receive our summary of the proceedings from the October 3-5, 1979, Conference
on "General Aviation AirportNoise and Land Use Planning," and have not yet received it, please
check the appropriate box.
D yes, I .would like to receive a copy D no, I do not wish to receive a copy
Use the Spaces below to:
1. Make corrections in your name or address, if necessary
2. Add the names & addresses of colleagues who wish to be added to our mailing list
PLEASE PRINT IN BOXES LEAVING OPEN BOXES BETWEEN WORDS.
Name
Title
-Company/ Div.
Street Address
City
Country
Name
Title
Company/ Div.
Street Address
City
Country
Name
Title
Company/Div.
Street Address
City
Country
LA
,
LA
•— ^
LA
ST
ST
ST
V
*'
'
*
:
•
•
FIF
-
FIF
FIF
-
-
ST
Sfc
ST
St.
ST
St
ite
ate
..
ate
-
MB«
Zip
Zip
•BBBBM
Zip
'
Ml
Ml
•
MT
-------
Conference on
General Aviation
Airport Noise
and
Land Use Planning
October 3-5, 1979
-------
October 3-5, 1979
Application Form
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
Name
Title
LMt
Organization
First
Middle Initial
Phone Number
Address
SirMt
City
Siate
Zip
Conference on
General Aviation
Airport Noise
and Land Use
Planning
Conference Participation
(check appropriate boxes)
D Panelist
Panel(s) A B C D
(Please Circle)
D Audience Participant
D Unable to attend, please
send proceedings
D Check here if you plan to drive
your car to the campus.
Mail registration form to:
GAANLUP
Graduate City Planning Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
(404) 894-2350
Conference Fee: $25
Fee to be paid at registration desk.
Registration Deadline: August 31, 1979
-------
The conference is being sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control. It is
being conducted by the Department of City
Planning, College of Architecture, Georgia
Institute of Technology. Conference
coordinator is Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon,
professor of city planning.
The conference will address noise and land
use issues as they relate to general aviation
activities. Such topics as the regulatory
responsibilrty for aviation activity and the
impact of aviation activity on the local
economy and community residents, will be
discussed. An underlying theme of the
conference will be the identification of the
parties involved in airport land use
compatibility planning and; the examination
of the nature and extent of each party's
involvement in the inception, adoption and
implementation of planning strategies.
Representatives from both the public and
private sectors will participate as speakers,
panelists and audience participants
Conference participants will be drawn from
the full spectrum of interests affected by the
planning process.
The conference participants/are
encouraged to take part in a variety of ways
Five panels will be conducted during the
three-day conference. Each panel will
consist of speakers who will address different
topics, and persons with particular interests
in the topic area. These persons will interact
with the speakers in a panel format.
Audience participation will also be
encouraged during each panel session
-------
Registration should be made as far in
advance as possible. Since conference size is
limited to 150 persons, participation is by
mvrtation only. Space is provided on the
registration form fpr each) participant to
indicate his or her preferred level-of
participation. —
The registration f$e is $25 This fee will
cover the cost of coffee breaks, Thursday
evening banquet, and conference materials,
including proceedings. The deadline for
registration is Friday, August 31, 1979.
IPairfirf
Hotel reservations should be made directly by
.the registrant. A-block of rooms has been
reserved for conference participants af'the
Sheraton Atlanta. A card will be .enclosed
with the registration acknowledgment. This
card should be forwarded to the Sheraton
Atlanta if the registrant intends to use this
facility.
Reasonably priced meals are available at
several establishments around the Georgia
Tech Campus Parking permits, valid only in a
designated parking area, will be issued to
registrants who indicate they will be driving.
Parking space is .Limited and cannot be
guaranteed A campus map, parking permit
and restaurant listing will be sent to the
registrants upon acknowledgment of their
registration.
-------
Wednesday
Morning
INTRODUCTORY SESSION
• Registration
• Welcome
BREAK
• "Decision Matrix for Airport
and Land Use Planning"
• "The Status of General
Aviation in Land Use
Planning"
• "A State Perspective on
General Aviation and
Planning"
LUNCH
Wednesday
Afternoon
PANEL A — IMPACT OF GEN-
ERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
• "General Aviation Activity
and Land Use Planning"
• "The Noise Associated with
General Aviation Activity"
BREAK
• "The Impact of General
Aviation Activity on a Local
Economy"
• "The Impact of General
Aviation Activity on Airport
Community Residents"
• Audience Participation
Thursday PANEL B — PERSPECTIVES
Morning ON GENERAL AVIATION
PLANNING
• "Remedial Measures for
Dealing with Noise Asso-
ciation with General Avia-
tion Activity"
• A Case Study — One
BREAK
• "Preventive Measures for
Dealing with Noise Asso-
ciated with General Avia-
tion Activity"
• A Case Study — Two
• Audience Participation
LUNCH
-------
Thursday
Afternoon
PANEL C —THE REGULATORY
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
Federal
State
Local
REAK
Manufacturer
Aircraft Operator
Aircraft Owner/Pilot
Attorney
Audience Participation
Thursday
Evening
BANQUET
SPEAKER
AND GUEST
Friday PANEL D — PRIVATE SECTOR
Morning ROLE IN GENERAL AVIATION
ACTIVITY
• "The Role of the Real Estate
Industry in General Avia-
tion Airport Land Use Com-
patibility Planning"
• "The Role of Lending In-
stitutions in General Avia-
tion Airport Land Use Com-
patibility Planning"
BREAK
• "The Role of Aircraft Manu-
facturers in Alleviating
General Aviation Noise"
• "The Pilot's Role in the
Planning and Implementa-
tion of Airport Operator
Controls"
• Audience Participation
LUNCH
Friday
Afternoon
PANEL E — NON-GENERAL
AVIATION PLANNING EX-
PERIENCE
• Air Carrier Airports
• Military Airports
• Audience Participation
BREAK
• Conference Summary and
Wrap-up
-------
K. G. (JERRY) YOCOM
CHIEF, TORRANCE TOWER
T CONTROL TOWER
23311 AERO W^V
TORRANCE, CA BOBO9
-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise
and Land Use Planning
Graduate City Planning Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
MH141982
Final Program
Wednesday — October 3, 1979
Registration Space Science^Building II, Georgia.J/Dstitute of Technology
8:30 - 9:30
9:30 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:30
10:30 - 11:00
11:00 - 11:30
11:30 - 12:00
12:00- 1:30
1:30- 2:00
2:00- 2:30
2:30- 3:00
3:00 - 3:30
3:30 - 4:00
Welcome
—Clifford Bragdon, Director, Program for Interdisciplinary Studies, Georgia Institute
of Technology. Atlanta, Georgia
—William FaslvDean, College of. •Archite.qture, Georgia Institute of Technology
—Charles L. Elkins. deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Noise Abatement and
Control. US. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. D\C
BREAK
"Decision Matrix for Airport and Land Use Planning"
—Clifford Bragdon
"General Aviation i*i the U:S.r Past, Present "and Future"
—John Wesler, Office of the Sec.relary, Federal Aviation Administration,
/ Washington, D:C.
"A State Perspective on General Aviation and Planning"
—Lucy Searle, Community Liaison, Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission,
Boston. Massachusetts
•LUNCH
"General Aviation Activity and Land Use Planning"
—Robert Doyle, Vice President, Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, San Francisco, California
"The Noise Associated with General Aviation Activity"
—Bill Galloway, Principal Consultant, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., Canoga Park,
California
"The Impact of General Aviation Activity on a Local Economy"
—Michael J. McCarty, Manager, Airport and Environmental Section. National
Business Aircraft Association, Washington. D.C
"The Impact of General Aviation Activity on Airport Community Residents"
—Joan Caldwell, President, Northwest Greenwich Association, Greenwich,
Connecticut
BREAK
>-^ *-f *
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
-------
Page 2
4 00 - 5 00 PANEL A IMPACT OF GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
PANEL MEMBERS
—John Tyler, Consultant, NOISE, 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 Grmdle, Citizen Representative, Orange County, California
—Angelo Companella, President, ACCULAB, Columbus, Ohio
(Panel Reaction and 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
1000-1030 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
11 30 - 12 30 PANEL B PERSPECTIVES ON GENERAL AVIATION PLANNING
PANEL MEMBERS
—Robert L Miller, Senior Consultant, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Boston,
Massachusetts
—Kenneth J Delmo, 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 Kmston,
Kinston, North Carolina
(Panel Reaction and Audience Participation)
1230- 200 LUNCH
2 00 - 5 00 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, D C
—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
-------
Page 3
Thursday Evening — BANQUET — U.S. Congressman Jerome A. Ambro, New York
6 00 - 7 00 Social Hour Sheraton - Atlanta Hotel
730- 830 DINNER
8 30 - Speaker, Congressman J Ambro, New York
Friday — October 5,1979
900- 930 "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 00 "The Role of Lending Institutions in General Aviation Airport Land Use Compatibility
Planning"
—James F Scott, Scotl Appraisal Service, Inc, Atlanta, Georgia
1000-1030 BREAK
10 30 - 11 00 "The Role of Aircraft Manufacturers in Alleviating General Aviation Noise"
—Stanley Green, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC
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
11 30 - 12 30 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
—Lyndall Hughes, President, Real Estate Aviation Chapter, national Association of
Reators, Chagrin Falls, Ohio
(Panel Reaction and Audience Participation)
1230- 200 LUNCH
200 - 230 "The Experiences of Air Carriers Airports in Noise Control Los Angeles"
—Walter V Collins, Noise Abatement Manager. Airports, Los Angeles, California
2 30 - 3 00 "The Experiences of Military Airports in Noise Control"
—Howard Metcalf, Deputy Director of Construction Standards and Design, U S
Department of Defense, Washington, D C
3 00 - 3 00 "The Experiences ol Air Carrier — General Aviation Airport Planning —
Minneapolis"
—Jeff Hamiel, Noise Abatement Manager, metropolitan Airport Commission,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
-------
Page 4
3 30 - 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,
Jnc, Anaheim, California
—Max Walker, Hartsfield International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia
—Thomas A Duffy, Director NOISE, 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
-------
GENERAL AVIATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JOHN E, WESLER
WlBMTRSTTOf
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 AND 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,
-------
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
-------
- 1,110,700 ACTIVE PILOTS—AH ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
OF 2.8 PERCENT
- 64 MILLION HOURS FLOWN--AN ANNUAL INCREASE OF
4,2 PERCENT
- NEARLY 76 MILLION RECORDED OPERATIONS AT
AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS-AN 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 AIP.PORTS HAVE FAA TOWERS,
THUS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GENERA! AVIATION TAKEOFFS AND
LANDINGS IN THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO QUESTION,
-------
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 MBER
OF NOISE EVENTS. ADDING TO THE ABSOLUTE GROWTH AT THE
SMALLER AIRPORTS VilLL EE THE LESSENED USE OF LARGER HUB
AIRPORTS BY GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT. THE POTENTIAL
DANGERS OF MIXING OPERATIONS AT LARGER AIRPORTS HAS
TRAGICALLY ILLUSTRATED LAST YEAR AT SAN DIEGO, NITH 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 If] 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
-------
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, AMD
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
-------
6
BUT THE FEDERAL EFFORTS ALONE CAM NEVER SOLVE THE
AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM, AIRCRAFT WILL NEVER BE SILENT,
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 LAUD-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
-------
PURPOSES IS AN 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-IKE AIRPLANE--BOTH
ITS INHERENT NOISE PRODUCTION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS
FLOWN, SO WHATS LEFT?
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
-------
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 flOISE 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, AND 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 H» CFR 36, AND HAVE AVAILABLE A NONARBITRARY
AND NONDISCRIMIHATORY 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, AND, 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,
-------
IT IS OFTEN TEMPTING TO INSTALL A MICROPHONE OFF THE RUNWAY
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
-------
10
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
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Panelists
Herman Barnard (C)
President, N.O.I.S.E.
Councilman, City Hall
College Park, GA
Charles Blair (C)
Airport Planning Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Southern Region
Atlanta, GA 30354
Jesse Borthwick (B)
National Association of Noise
Control Officials
P.O. Box 373
Shalimar, FL 32579
Angelo J. Campanella (A)
ACCULAB
3201 Ridgewood Drive
Columbus, OH 43220
Robert Clark (B)
Director, Department of Planning and
Research
City of Kinston
P.O. Box 339
Kinston, NC 28501
Kenneth J. Delino (B)
Manager, Airport Noise Control Programs
System Control, Inc.
1440 6A South State College Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Frank Gammon (C)
Teterboro Aiport
399 Industrial Avenue
Teterboro, NJ 07608
Maurice E. Gosnell (C)
President
Pilots-Lawyers Bar Association
P.O. Box 737
Lawrenceville, IL 62439
Stanley Green (C)
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
Shirley L. Grindle (A)
19051 Glen Aaron Lane
Orange, CA 92669
Lyndall Hughes (D)
Secretary
Real Estate Aviation Chapter
National Association of Realtors
32 N. Main Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Joseph R. Lewis (A)
Executive Director
Town-Village Aircraft Safety and
Noise Abatement Committee
196 Central Avenue
Lawrence, NY 11559
Terrence Love (D)
Professor, School of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Robert L. Miller (B)
Senior Consultant
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
Robert P. Montgomery (C)
State Aviation Administration
P.O. Box 8766
BWI Airport, MD 21240
Steve Schwenk (C)
National Pilots Association
1571 Scheffield Drive
College Park, GA
Jack Swing (A)
Senior Acoustical Engineer
Office of NOISE Control, Room 514
California Department of Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Panelists
Page 2
John M. Tyler (A)
Consultant
N.O.I.S.E.
25 Knob Hill
Glastonbury, CT 06033
James Vernor (D)
Professor of Real Estate
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
Maxwell Walker (D)
Aviation Department
Atlanta International Airport
Atlanta, GA 30320
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
-ROSTER-
Maria Allman
Airport Planner
Robert & Company, Associates
Garrison & Sullivan Road
College Park, GA 30337
Calvin Ashborg
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Ten Pryor Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Randy Barnes
Research Assistant
City Planning
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Selby Bearden
Mayes, Sudderth and Etheredge, Inc.
1775 The Exchange
Atlanta, GA
Judy Beaver
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs,"HD 20910
William A. Beckwith
Director
Aviation Administration Program
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
Howard Bellinger
Executive Director
Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1027
Savannah, GA 31402
Theodore Bergland
Citizens Against Noise
2729 Lunt Avenue
Chicago, IL 60645
Patrick Bienvenu
Landrum & Brown
290 Central Trust Building
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Clifford Bragdon
Graduate City Planning Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
'Atlanta, GA 30332
David Braslau
President
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
2829 University Avenue, #342
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Joan Caldwell
364 Riverside Road
Greenwich, CT
Jimmy Cawthorn
Aero-Space Technologist
NASA-Langley Research Center
Noise Effects Branch, Mail Stop 463
Hampton, VA 23665
Robert Chadkis
Vice President
Dytec Engineering, Inc.
2750 East Spring Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
Lloyd B. Chaisson, Jr.
Office of Membership Services
National League of Cities
1620 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Bill Cleary
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs, MD 20910
Walter V. Collins
Noise Abatement Division
Los Angeles Department of Airports
1001 World Way
Los Angeles, CA
Mike Connor
Georgia Department of Transportation
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, GA 30331
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 2
William G. Cornell
Acoustics and Aerodynamics Engineer
General Electric, Aircraft Engine
Group
H-77, General Electric
Cincinnati, OH 45215
Bill Critchfield,
Manager
Torrance Municipal Airport
3115 Airport Drive
Torrance, CA 90505
Julian Diaz, III
International Appraisal and Research
Group, Inc.
2150 Parklake Drive NE
Atlanta, GA 30345
Robert H. Doyle
Peat, Marwich, Mitchell and Company
P.O. Box 8007
San Francisco, CA 94128
Thomas N. Duffy
Director
N.O.I.S.E.
1620 Eye Street
Washington, DC 20006
Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20410
Theodore Elmgren
President, Torrance Pilots Association
2927 W. 135th Place
Gardena, CA 90249
Peter Q. Eschweiler
Commissioner of Planning
Westchester County Department of Planning
White Plains, NY 10601
Jeff Fegan
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
1001 International Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30354
States R. Finley, III
Transportation Planner
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
E. Ray Fletcher
Georgia Department of Transportation
5025 New Peachtree Road
Chamblee, GA 30341
Richard Forbes
Georgia State University
Department of Real Estate
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
John C. Ford
Manager Comprehensive Plans
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
Robert G. Frye
Florida Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304
William J. Galloway
Principal Consultant
Bolt Beranak & Newman, Inc.
P.O. Box 633
Canoga Park, CA 91305
Toni D. Gardner
Transportation Planner
Georgia Department of Transportation
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, GA 30336
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 3
Lewis Goodfriend
Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates
Consulting Engineers in Acoustics
Seven Saddle Road
Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927
Ferdinand M. Grosveld
Project Manager, Noise Research Group
University of Kansas, Flight Research Lah
2291 Irving Hill Drive
Lawrence, KS 66045
-James H. Hahne
Office of Noise Abatement
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jeff Hamiel
Office of Planning
Twin Cities Airport
Box 1700
St. Paul, MN 55111
Shirley Harris
Airport Engineers, Inc.
Harrison at Sullivan Road
College Park, GA 30337
Dudley S. Hinds
Associate Professor
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Real Estate Department
Atlanta, GA 30303
E. H. Hooper
Structural Dynamics
Beech Aircraft
Wichita, KS
Gordon Jackson
Deputy Regional Manager
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
1001 International Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30354
John R. Jansen
Environmentalist
Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 Spring Street, Room 702
Atlanta, GA 30303
Richard J. Kleber
Chief, Mission Analysis Branch
NASA-Lewis Research Center
21COO Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH 44135
R. J. Koenig
Environmental Protection Agency
Trans Point Building, ARO 500
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dave Lackey
Urban Engineers, Inc.
Nine N. Rhodes Center, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Helen T. LaVance
Senior Transportation Planner
Atlanta Regional Commission
200 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Bernard Martin
Director of Airport Planning
Robert & Company Associates
96 Poplar Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Michael J. McCarty
Manager, Airport & Environmental Section
National Business Aircraft Association
One Farrasut Square South
Washington, DC 20006
Sam McCullough
Cobb County Planning Department
P.O. Box 649
Marietta, GA 30060
Howard Metcalf
U. S. Department of Defense
Deputy Director
Construction Standards & Design Office
Office of Secretary of Defense
Pentagon, Room 3E763
Washington, DC 20301
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 4
Gordon A. Miller
Deputy Chief
California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics
1120 "N" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Michael J. Moroney
Peat, Harwich & Mitchell and Company
P.O. Box 8007
San Francisco, CA 94128
Michael F. Nechvatal
Environmental Specialist
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2700 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62701
Susan Neugent
Transportation Planner
Georgia Department of Transportation
1988 Tuxedo Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Milton L. Newton
Deputy Executive Director
Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1027
Savannah, GA 31402
Richard W. Procunier
Regional Noise Chief
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jim Reese
Research Assistant
City Planning
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Richard Ross
Director, Ross Aviation Associates
Route 1
Sedgewich, KS 67135
Ted Sandier
Fulton County Planning Department
Atlanta, GA 30303
John C. Schettino
Chief, Technology & Federal Programs
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20410
James F. Scott
Scott Appraisal Service, Inc.
6745 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard
Atlanta, GA
Lucie Searle
Community Liaison
The Commonwealth of
Logan Airport
East Boston, MA 02128
Massachusetts
William M. Schoenfeld
Deputy General Manager'
Los Angeles Department of Airport
No. 1, World Way
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Leroy Simpson
Vice President
R. Dixon Speas Associates
Manhasset, Long Island, NY 11030
William C. Sperry (AW 471)
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Steven E. Starley
Airports Program Manager, (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Patrick J. Steen
Vice President
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs, MD 20910
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 5
Thurman M. Thotnes
Community Planner
USAF Regional Civil Engineer—Central
Region
Environmental Planning Division
Main Tower Building, 1200 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75202
James K. Thompson
Consultant
ORI, Inc.
2806 South Grant Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Leonard R. Thompson
Senior Land Use Planning
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
Marvin Toliver
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Ten Pryor Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tom Ulbricht
Senior Planner
Fulton County Planning Department
165 Central Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30303
John Wesler
Director
Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Lisa H. Wogen
Staff Assistant
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
ADDENDUM
Thomas Horsch
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
W&Her
Vice fV^
'^- P) vc'ri
A 1 Ic n f
-------
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.
-------
3.
The reauthorization 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 ge^neeaY 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
-------
5.
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
-------
6.
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 bom 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 30% even after the noise source
was removed. It is too early to draw conclusions from this 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 nake pronouncements that airport expansion is for
the public good and tat private individuals must give up their property
rights and suffer in order that others might fly or otherwise have the
convenience of the airport.
-------
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.
-------
9.
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 Tittle 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
-------
10.
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
-------
11.
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.
-------
12.
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.
-------
13.
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.
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Panelists
Herman Barnard (C)
City Councilman
College Park, GA
Charles Blair (C)
Federal Aviation Administration
Jesse Borthwick (B)
, National Association of Noise
Control Officials
vf Angelo Campanella (A)
ACCULAB
Robert Clark (B)
Department of Planning and Research
City of Kinston, NC
Kenneth Delino (B)
Systems Control, Inc.
Frank Gammon (C)
Teterboro Airport, NJ
v Maurice Gosnell (C)
Pilots-Lawyers Bar Association
,' Stanley Green (C)
General Aviation Manufacturers
Association
JShirley Grindle (A)
Orange, CA
Lyndall Hughes (D)
Real Estate Aviation Chapter
National Association of Realtors
QJoseph Lewis (A)
Town-Village Aircraft Safety and
Noise Abatement Committee
^ Terrence Love (D)
Georgia Institute of Technology
^ Robert Miller (B)
Bolt Beranek & Newman
Robert Montgomery (C)
\, State Aviation Administration
State of Maryland
Steve Schwenk (C)
National Pilots Association
Jack Swing (A)
"'Department of Public Health
State of California
/John Tyler (A)
^N.O.I.S.E.
James D. Vernor (D)
^Georgia State University
Maxwell Walker (D)
V Atlanta International Airport
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
-ROSTER-
Maria Allman
Robert & Company, Associates
Calvin Ashborg
' Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Randy Barnes
Georgia Institute of Technology
Judy Beaver
ORI
Howard Bellinger
N- Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Theodore Bergland
Citizens Against Noise
Clifford Bragdon
Georgia Institute of Technology
Joan Caldwell
Northwest Greenwich Association
.Jimmy Cawthorn
NASA-Langley Research Center
Robert Chadkis
J Dytel Engineering, Inc.
^ Lloyd Chaisson
National League of Cities
Bill Cleary
ORI
., Mike Connor
Georgia D.O.T.
•J
William Cornell
General Electric Aircraft Engine Group
Bill Critchfield
J Torrance Municipal Airport
Robert Doyle
" Peat, Marwich, Mitchell and Company
Thomas Duffy
' N.O.I.S.E.
xCharles Elkins
v Environmental Protection Agency
Theodore Elmgren
Torrance Pilots Association
Peter Eschwieler
Westchester County Department of
Planning
Fegan
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
^/ State's Finley
DeKalb County Planning Department
Richard Forbes
'Georgia State University
/John Ford
DeKalb County Planning Department
V/
V
Robert Frye
Florida D.O.T.
William Galloway
Bolt Beranak & Newman, Inc.
Lewis Goodfriend
Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates
James Hahne
Environmental Protection Agency
Jeff Hamiel
Twin Cities Airport
,Shirley Harris
''Airport Engineers, Inc.
Dudley Hinds
' Georgia State University
Thomas Horsch
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Gordon Jackson
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
./ R. J. Koenig
Federal Aviation Administration
-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise
and Land Use Planning
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 2
David Lackey
Urban Engineers, Inc.
Helen LaVance
Atlanta Regional Commission
Bernard Martin
x- Robert & Company, Associates
Michael McCarty
National Business Aircraft Association
/Sam McCullough
' Cobb County Planning Department
Howard Metcalf
-' U. S. Department of Defense
Michael Moroney
Peat, Harwich, Mitchell and Company
Michael Nechyatal
' Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Milton Newton
' Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
'Richard Procunier
Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Reese
Georgia Institute of Technology
Richard Ross
•Ross Aviation Associates
John Schettino
'Environmental Protection Agency
James Scott
Scott Appraisal Service
Lucy Searle
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
/Leroy Simpson
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
,William Sperry
Environmental Protection Agency
.James Thompson
' ' ORI, Inc.
v
Leonard Thompson
DeKalb County Planning Department
/Marvin Toliver
V Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Richard Weber
NASA-Lewis Research Center
Eileen Weinstein
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
John Wesler
'Federal Aviation Administration
./ Lisa Wogen
National League of Cities
; William Shoenfeld
' Los Angeles Department of Airports
-------
NUMBER 4165.57
DA7£ November 8, 1977
ASD(MRA&L)
Department of Defense Instruction
SUBJECT: Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
References: (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.
-------
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.
-------
A165.57
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).
j(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. Generaj.. 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 SO 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
-------
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
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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 shall:
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
-------
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 U.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.
-------
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. The 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.
-------
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 decisiorunaking, areas quieter than Ldn 65
shall be considered approximately equivalent to the previously used CNR
Zone 1 and to areas quieter than NKF 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.
10
-------
4165.57
Nov 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
11
-------
4165.57 (End 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)
-------
4165.57 (Fncl 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
-------
Accident Potential Zone Guidelines
Claaa A Runway
.Runwa
(Clear Zone
[*- 3000 *
APZ I ^
<• 2500, »
^AP^U
* 2500 •»
A
1000
¥
All Dimensions in Feet
Class B Runway
/
Runwa
r f
2000 2284 APZ I
5000
APZ II
7000
3000
•Width of clear zone may be based on individual service analysis of
highest accident potential area for specific runway use and varied
based on acquisition constraints. 3000 foot wide clear zone is
desirable for new construction.
a
o
<
00
n
»—>
w
-------
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
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
-------
4165.57 (Encl 4)
Nov 8, 77
Land Use Category Compatibility
Clear Zone APZ I
3
Industrial/Manufacturing (Cent.)
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, uomefurnishing-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
-------
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
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
-------
4165.57 (End A)
Nov 8, 77
Land Use Category Compatibility
APZ II
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Outdoor Recreation (Cent.)
Water based recreational areas
Resort and group camps
Entertainment assembly
Other outdoor recreation
Resource Production & Extraction and
Agriculture
Livestock farming, animal breeding
Forestry activities
Fishing activities & related services
Mining activities
Permanent open space
Water areas
Clear Zone
NO
NO
NO
NO
Open Land
YES
NO
NO13
14 NO15
NO
YES
YES
APZ I
YES
NO
NO
YES7
YES
YES
YES
YES14
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.
-------
4165.57 (Encl 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 5-803-1 (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.
-------
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
-------
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, A1CUZ. 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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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
t
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 governments3
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
7
-------
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
8
-------
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 ir 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.
-------
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
10
-------
THE WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT
Al.BANV
.-.
NEW YORK
MASS.
,r.ONN. i ! ' .'
PENNSVI VANIA
!'
7
./ -:-r"^--r<
CONN
i, NEW HAVEN
WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT
| ^
rNfet^t
*N. .. /"NEW>-~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.20591
-------
NOTICE
This document was prepared by Ms. Joan E. Caldwell, 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.
-------
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.
-------
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 airpdrt
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 frequencv 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.
-2-
-------
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,
VestchfSter 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 l.estchester County Pilots Association. l\'ith pernission 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 Tcderal 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.
'"IJorthwc-hL Greenwich Association
-3-
-------
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.
-A-
-------
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 owner, of instrument guidance systems to
assist in compliance with noise abatement and safety procedures
ngreed upon nt WCA.
9. Nationwide publication that WCA is a noise sensitive airport
and that noise abatement procedures are in effect and must be
obeyed by al] pilots.
10. Representation of homeowners on the WCA Master Plan Policy
Liaison Board. The Board will provide the citizen-resident
input for development of n long range plan for WCA.
These results were not easily achieved. The first few meetings were
tense and nt times alir.est hostile. The hostility stemmed from the home-
owners lont, frustration nnd 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; the^J 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 d.itc hns 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.
-5-
-------
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.
(c) The feasibility and desirability of establishing a preferential
runway systeir.
(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 (4,000') 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 <\ VAST svstem on Runways 11, 29 and 16.
(j) Tin- 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
I rocedurts which will reduce noise and emissions and increase
safet> from the operation of Ivestchester County Airport.
The list set forth above may be supplemented by other items which may be
undertaken bv the Committee.
*Thf information in this appendix is contained in the Settlement of
Stipulation as npreed to by all the parties in the lawsuit.
A-l
-------
"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 LLJCIE 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, IT IS ENTITLED "AIRPLANE, STAY 'llAY FROM MY
ROOF,'"' 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? WHY, ALONG WITH A BIG MORTGAGE, NEIGHBORS,
A MANGY LAWN AND A LEAKING BASEMENT, YOU GET PLANES, IT 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 POST! IT
WAS CITED AT AN EARLIER AVIATION CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL
AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION IN 1947 AND USED IN A SPEECH ENTITLED ''MAKING
GOOD NEIGHBORS OF AIRPORTS,"
TODAY IN HASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE A GENERAL AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM
THAT IMPACTS NOT ONLY AIRPORT NEIGHBORS LIKE THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE,
-------
2
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,1 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, OUR ''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,
-------
3
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 MIT 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 12,4"QO 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 R.PMs,
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
-------
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 I 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 Wo 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,
-------
5
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,
+*uck 1 f*
REQUIREMENTS THAT AIRPLANES BE AIRBORNE IN THE FIRST HALF OF
A
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,
-------
6
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 LANDj 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; (2) PROMOTING
AIRPORTS AS ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS,1 (3) JAWBONING
AND MORAL SUASION,1 AND (4) INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS IN THE CAUSE,
ON THE FIRST: PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEANS
-------
7
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 COFFERSj 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,
-------
8
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, IT 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
-------
9
THE DESIRED FEDERAL FUNDING, As IT TURNED OUT, V-lORCESTER 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 Luc IE 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
-------
10
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
-------
11
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 HA 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,
-------
12
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,
-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise
and Land Use Planning
Graduate City Planning Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
-T
Aivfoc t
October 4 1919
-------
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
cooperation 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
(ANCL.UC). 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
of land use, 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.
-------
- 2 -
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
tluit 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 and suggestions thereon.
The County will provide the Town with copies of all information
reports and discussion papers prepared during the Airport Master
Plan and the ANCLUC 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.
-------
- 3 -
WHAT THC TOWN WILL DO
The, Town will cooperate with the County and its consultants
on tlie Airport Master Plan and consult with them on matters of
local development affecting or affected by the airport and its
opera' ions.
Ti-i; Town will provide a copy, to the County, of appropriate
and pertinent local da:a 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 from the
Town and nominated by it on the Airport Advisory Board, and on the
\irport Master Plan Policy Liaison Board. The Town may also designate
an addit > onal person specifically to represent.the Town Board on
Lllil '\1 rliPJlL P°lii ,y Liaison Ronrd andI other master plan working
c-onni t icos during the master plan proco&s. The County will give
dur nn
-------
- 4 -
IT IS FURTHEH AGREED
That the town shall have the right to participate in the master
planning process as fully as though it wero a co-sponsor but shall
not bear any responsihili tin.? 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 AUCLUC study
shall he coordinated and supervised by the County Commissioner of
Planning and by the Tovn 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 Westchester and not trie Town will be responsible
for the obligations under the FAA Master Plan Grant Agreement with
the United State Government.
To«n of Kyo
By : !< • •'
Supervisor
.'..<<- -/•
Date:
/ />'//
As authorised by Resolution
of , 1979
County of Westchester
Commissioner
Date:
»•-<, 22,
As authorized by the
Board of Acquisition and
Contract by Resolution
Da ted at/fcAs*. 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 westchester County Airport
and its accompanying Airport Noise control and Land Use Compatibility
study.
The ""own of Kye is contiguous with t'.:e Westchester County
Airport, and i.s 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 its
economic benefits. As a part of the master plan and AJJCLUC studies,
the Town and the County are cooperating in the study of the appropriate
forir. and type of development 'or 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
-------
actively seek the appropriate development of this land by
such developers and with sucn land usot> as mill 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 us the vi.-.mity of the County Airport. Both the County
and Ji" Town agree that a necessary and immediate priority of this
joint economic development effort will ue the planning of an
effective and appropn&tp access road system, linking route 684
with tho developable land in the Town of Rye, designed to improve
the va 1 in- and viability for the land for prudent economic development.
In support of tins agreement, the Tovn pledge:, to pursue in
pood faith its responsibilities In the preparation of the Airport
Master Plan and ANCLUC study agreement, and to cooperate with the
County in seek ing arid "importing appropriate development options.
Tin County of 'AVstchestcr pledges the staf' support of the County
I* rsor.nel , particularly thosi- of the Office of Economic Development,
tne Department of Planning, the Department of Public Works, and the
Department of Transportat:on, in obtaining and promoting the
appropriate development of this critical area of the Town of Rye.
Signed this 32& day of /?*/»*•«*•_- 1979 by
Anthony ;J. Posilllpo - Alfre B. DelBello
Supervisor County Executive
Town of Rye Couoty of Westchester
-------
Effectiveness of Aircraft Takeoff
Thirty-six airplane departures, consisting of two weights for each of three types of
aircraft executing six takeoff procedures, were evaluated for noise abatement
effectiveness by William C. Sperry. t The evaluation was based upon comparisons
of noise levels on the ground and population highly annoyed. The results indicate
that although no single takeoff procedure is most effective for noise abatement
everywhere, two complementary procedures offer the greatest benefit for the
most people.1
*.*
Aircraft are capable of utilizing a variety
of safe departure procedures, each of
which generates different noise levels
and different noise exposure patterns
for people on the ground In general,
aircraft initiate takeoff roll with high
thrust and small-to-moderate flap set-
tings (takeoff thrust and flaps) Shortly
after lift-off, they retract landing gear
and by 400 ft (122 m) height above
the airport (HAA) reach a stabilized
all-engine climb speed which permits
them to climb at a safe but relatively
large gradient At specified values of
HAA, depending upon the takeoff pro-
cedure, the aircraft will retract flaps
(cleanup) and reduce or cut back the
thrust to a specified setting At some
point in space below 10,000 ft
(3048 m) HAA, the aircraft will climb in
a clean configuration, at climb thrust.
and at an equivalent airspeed not ex-
ceeding 250 keas (463 krn/hr)
•5 January 7978, revised 28 March 7979
1 US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
**This paper is submitted as partial ful-
fillment of the INCL membership re-
quirements.
This paper reviews six takeoff proce-
dures and evaluates their effectiveness
for noise abatement The supporting
analysis consisted of five calculations
the noise levels along the flight track
(projection of the flight path on the
ground) produced by two weights each
of three airplanes, the areas enclosed
within six single-event noise level con-
tours, ihe areas enclosed within six
multi-event noise exposure contours.
assuming 200 takeoffs per clay, the
numbers of people enclosed within the
noise exposure contours, assuming a
constant population density of 5000
people/mi^ 1931 people/km2), and the
number of people highly annoyed as a
result of each takeoff procedure
The six takeoff procedures are used
or are capable of being used in routine
departures except as noted Their effec-
tiveness is evaluated, however, only in
regard to noise abatement, while other
factors such as safety, fuel consump-
tion, air pollution, cost, block time, and
maintenance must also be considered
in determining the most feasible com-
mercial takeoff procedures
Takeoff Procedures
A noise abatement takeoff proce-
dure is an aircraft departure schedule
consisting of three flight path segments
which can be identified by their princi-
pal operational activities roll and initial
climb, thrust reduction, and normal
climb Within each segment may be
several sections in which the a'rplanc
conducts additional activities such as
gear and flap retractions, accalerations
to specified speeds, and thrust changes
The locations at which the activities are
initiated and their magnitude and dura-
tion are the factors that deletmme the
takeoff procedures' effectiveness for
noise abatement
The pnncipal differences in takeoff
procedures that influence the noise ex-
posure patterns on the ground are
cleanup before initiation of thrust cut-
back (C/B), or vice versa, extent of cut-
back thrust (CBT), HAA for cleanup
and initiation of CBT. and HAA for
reapplication of thrust when CBT is less
than maximum climb thrust (MCT)
Following are bnef descnptions of six
-------
Nomenclature
AC = advisory circular Issued by the
FAA
ALPA = Airline Pilots Association
ATA = Air Transport Association
C/B = cutback or reduction in thrust
CBT = cutback thrust in newtons or
pounds
DCA = Washington National Airport
identification symbol
DFBR = distance from brake release in
metres or feet
EPA = Environmental Protection
Agency
EPNL = Effective Perceived Noise Level
in decibels
FAA = Federal Aviation Administration
FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation
HAA = height above airport in metres or
feet
HAP = highly annoyed population in
number of people or percent
HZT = Horizontal thrust in newtons or
pounds
keas = equivalent airspeed in knots
Lan = Day-Night Average Sound Level
in decibels
MCT = maximum climb thrust in newtons or
pounds
NEF = Noise Exposure Forecast in
decibels
NRC = National Research Council
NWA = Northwest Airlines
OECD= Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
QN = quiet nacelle
SAM = sound absorption material
TOT = takeoff thrust in newtons or
pounds
VZF = zero flap speed in knots
V2 = takeoff safety speed in knots
takeoff procedures that are interesting
from the standpoint of noise abate-
ment.
AC 91-39. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has recom-
mended a departure procedure in Ad-
visory Circular 91-39 which until re-
cently was supported by the Air Trans-
port Association (ATA) as beneficial for
the reduction of community noise and
pilot work load.' The procedure would
reduce takeoff thrust (TOT) to MCT
before cleanup.
ALPA/NWA Max. C/B. The Airline
Pilots Association (ALPA) recom-
mends a procedure which, except for
10000 FT-
(3O48m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION TO 250 KT
• NORMAL CLIMB IMCTI
SECOND SEGMENT
• THRUST REDUCTION (MCT)
• PARTIAL FLAP RETRACTION
(SPEED PERMITTING)
400 FT (122m)
35 FT (llm)
AIRPORT ELEVATION
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB (TOT)
• GEAR RETRACTION
tr\
Figure la — Flight profile: small cutback before cleanup (AC 91-3$)
FIGURE IB. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION^!
SMALL CUTBACK BEFORE CLEANUP (AC 91-39)
BB
B'C
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release; takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb to
35 ft (11 m) height above airport (HAA); and accelerate to V2 keas
Retract gear; climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
Climb to 1500 ft (457 m) HAA with thrust = TOT, speed = V2 + 10*
keas, flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (thrust cutback)
C At 1500 ft (457 m) HAA, maintain speed, reduce thrust to maximum
climb thrust (MCT), and perform partial flap retraction if speed permits
Climb to 3000 ft (914 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = V2 + 10*
keas, flaps = takeoff or partial retraction if speed permits, and gear =
retracted
CD
Third Segment (normal climb)
D At 3000 ft (914 m) HAA, maintain MCT, retract flaps per Hap retraction
schedule, and accelerate to 250 keas with 500 to 1000 fpm (152 to 305
metres per minute) rate of climb
Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = MCT, speed = V2 + 10*
to 250 keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
When a speed of 250 keas and flap retraction are achieved, maintain
MCT and initiate normal climb schedule
Climb to 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = MCT. speed = 250 keas.
flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA continue climb at 250 keas or reduce thrust
and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
DE
EF
•indicates speed acceleration beyond V2 + 10 keas if pitch attitude is limited, or to enable a
lesser flap setting during second segment, or if required for practical or safety reasons
-------
minor details, is similar to the one
routinely used by Northwest Airlines
(NWA).2 Both organizations claim
benefits for community noise impact,
fuel consumption,- wear and tear on
engines, and safety. The procedure
would reduce TOT to a CBT equal to
the one-engine-out certification re-
quirement for thrust after cleanup. The
ATA has revised their recommended
takeoff procedures such that this pro-
cedure would be acceptable.3
. FAR 36. The test conditions for air-
craft noise certification permit demon-
stration of compliance with noise re-
quirements at the takeoff measuring
point by reducing TOT to a CBT before
cleanup equal to the thrust required for
one-engine-out level flight or a four
percent climb gradient, whichever
thrust is greater.4 The FAR 36 proce-
dure, however, is not used in routine
operations at airports. It should be in-
vestigated, therefore, for its suitability
as a standard operation procedure. If it
is determined to have less noise control
advantage than the others, considera-
tion should be given to eliminating it
from the FAR 36 takeoff test conditions
and replacing it with some more effec-
tive procedure.
DCA. Noise abatement operations
are prescribed by the FAA for depar-
tures at Washington National Airport
(DCA).5 The noise control benefits of
the DCA procedure should be com-
pared with those of the others to de-
termine whether the DCA procedure
should be used at other airports or
whether it should be supplanted at
Washington National Airport by a more
effective method. The DCA procedure
would reduce TOT to a CBT equal to
that required to give approximately
500 ft/min (152 m/min) rate-of-climb
before cleanup.
ALPA/NWA Min. C/B. This pro-
cedure is similar to ALPA/NWA Max.
C/B except that TOT would be reduced
to a CBT equal to MCT after cleanup.
The ATA recommended procedures
are broad enough to include this one.3
Maximum Thrust. This procedure
would maintain TOT until 10,000 ft
(3048 m) HAA was reached. It is not a
practical procedure at this time because
of the strain that would be placed upon
10000 FT
(3048 m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• THRUST INCREASE (MCTI
• ACCELERATION TO 250 KT
• NORMAL CLIMB
4000 FT-
(1219 m)
SECOND SEGMENT
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION
• THRUST REDUCTION (CBT)
i 400 FT (122m)
35 FT (Mm)
AIRPORT ELEVATION
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB [TOTI
• GEAR RETRACTION
Figure 2a — Flight profile: large cutback after cleanup (ALPA/NWA Max. C/B)
FIGURE 2s. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION
LARGE CUTBACK AFTER CLEANUP (ALPA/NWA MAX. C/B)
BB'
B'C
CC'
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release; takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb to
35 ft (11 m) height above airport (HAA); and accelerate to V2 keas
Retract gear; climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
Climb to 1000 ft (305 m) HAA with thrust = TOT. speed = V2 + 10 keas
(or greater if required), flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (thrust cutback)
C At 1000 ft (305 m) HAA lower nose and accelerate to zero flaps speed
(VZF). retract Haps per schedule, maintain TOT and a pitch attitude
wiihin 1/2 initial value plus 0 to 3 deg. and a rate of climb not less than
500 fpm (152 metres per minute)
Climb and accelerate to VZF with thrust = TOT, speed = V2 + 10 to VZF
keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
When a speed of VZF and flap retraction are achieved, reduce thrust to
the greater cutback thrust (CBT) that will give a rate of climb of 1000 fpm
(305 metres per minute) or the following positive climb gradients if one
engine should become inoperative: two-engine aircraft = 1.2 percent,
three-engine aircraft = 1.5 percent, and four-engine aircraft = 1.7 per-
cent
Climb to 4000 ft (1219 m) HAA with thrust = CBT, speed = VZF keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
Third Segment (normal climb)
D At 4000 ft (1219 m) HAA. gradually increase thrust to maximum climb
thrust (MCT). and accelerate to 250 keas with 500 to 1000 fpm (152 to
305 metres per minute) rate of climb
Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = CBT to MCT, speed =
VZF to 250 keas, flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
When a speed of 250 keas and a thrust of MCT are achieved, initiate
normal climb schedule
Climb to 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = 250 keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
At 10.000 ft (3048 rn) HAA continue climb at 250 keas or reduce thrust
and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
C'D
DE
EF
-------
10000 FT
(3048 m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• THRUST INCREASE (MCT)
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION TO 250 KT
• NORMAL CLIMB
°J3 3000 FT-
(914 m)
SECOND SEGMENT
• THRUST REDUCTION (CBTI
400 FT (122m)
FT (Mm)
1 AIRPORT ELEVATION
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB (TOT)
• GEAR RETRACTION
figure 3a — Flight profile: large cutback before cleanup (FAR 36)
FIGURE SB. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION
LARGE CUTBACK BEFORE CLEANUP (FAR 36)
BE'
B'C
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release; takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb 35 ft
(llm) height above airport (HAA); and accelerate to V2 keas
Retract gear; climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
Climb to 1000 ft (305 m) HAA with thrust = TOT. speed = V2 + 10 keas
(or greater if required), flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (thrust cutback)
C At 1000 ft (305 m) HAA, maintain speed and reduce thrust to the cutback
thrust (CBT) which will give level flight with one engine inoperative or a 4
percent climb gradient, whichever thrust is greater
CD Climb toSOOO ft (914 m) HAA with thrust = CBT, speed = V2 + 10 keas,
flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Third Segment (normal climb)
D
DE
EE'
E'
EF
At 3000 ft (914 m) HAA, maintain speed and gradually increase thrust to
achieve maximum climb thrust (MCT) at not less than 4000 ft (1219 m)
HAA
Climb to the HAA required to achieve MCT with thrust = CBT to MCT,
speed = V2 + 10 keas, flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
At the HAA required to achieve MCT, retract flaps per schedule and
accelerate to 250 keas with 500 to 1000 fpm (152 to 305 metres per
minute) rate of climb
Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = MCT, speed = V2 + 10 to
250 keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
When a speed of 250 keas and flap retraction are achieved, maintain MCT
and initiate normal climb schedule
Climb to 10.000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = 250 keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear - retracted
At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA, continue to climb at 250 keas or reduce
thrust and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
current types of engines, due to the
excessive length of time they would be
forced to operate with maximum heat
and stress. The purpose of considering
this procedure is mainly for reference;
that is, to compare the noise control
benefits of other takeoff procedures
with those of one which would position
aircraft as high as possible in the least
time and shortest flight track distance.
If, however, the comparisons indicate
that the Maximum Thrust climb proce-
dure would result in superior noise
abatement, the environmental consid-
erations would add support to ongoing
research and development directed
toward increasing allowable engine
operating times under maximum thrust
conditions.
Detailed descriptions of these takeoff
procedures are included in Figs. 1 to 6.
The procedures can be placed into one
of three broad categories regarding
noise abatement, depending upon the
location of noise-sensitive areas relative
to the takeoff runway: close-in, near-
downrange, and far-downrange. Each
category would permit less noise at the
designated location than would result
from the others. All of the procedures
except Maximum Thrust involve reduc-
tion in thrust, the differences being the
position of the airplane when thrust
cutback occurs, the extent of the cut-
back, and the position of the airplane
when cleanup is initiated.
From Figs. 1 to 6 it is apparent that to
determine the performance of an
airplane in terms of its position, thrust,
airspeed, and noise-generating capabil-
ity, a great deal must be known about
the airplane. Most of the necessary in-
formation, however, is not readily
available except to the airplane manu-
facturer and operator. Some data used
for this investigation were found in the
open literature, other data were ob-
tained by request from the manufac-
turers and operators, and the remain-
der were determined by interpolation
and extrapolation of given data.
Examples of published data are Refs.
6 to 19, which report the results of an
FAA-sponsored study on the noise
generated by eight types of aircraft
while performing certain flight proce-
dures. The airplane takeoff perform-
-------
ance data, although limited in scope,
and the airplane noise characteristics
given in Refs. 6 to 19 were invaluable
for this investigation.
Each of the six takeoff procedures
was evaluated with respect to its noise
abatement capability for three types of
turbofan airplanes. Two weights were
chosen for each airplane, representing
high-use heavy and light takeoff
weight, to determine whether the noise
abatement capabilities of each proce-
dure arexonsistent for practical ranges
of airplane weights. The three types of
airplanes chosen for this investigation
are the B727-200 (QN), B737-200
(QN), and B707-320B. The notation
QN means quiet nacelle, which desig-
nates that appropriate portions of the
gas flow passages of the engine nacelles
have been lined with sound absorption
material (SAM).
This investigation consisted of
analyzing the climbout performance
and noise levels for thirty-six aircraft
operations — six airplanes (three types,
two weights each) performing six
takeoff procedures. Two of the three
airplanes considered are among the
noisiest of all jet aircraft and among the
most numerous. Thus, the most effec-
tive noise abatement takeoff proce-
dures for the two airplanes could effect
a significant reduction in aircraft noise
exposure on a national basis.
Analytical Approach and
Assumptions
The evaluation of the effectiveness
for noise abatement of the six takeoff
procedures delineated in Figs. 1 to 6
was based upon an analysis of the six
airplanes operating in an assumed
airport/community configuration. The
airport was assumed to have a single
runway, with all departures in the same
direction. The land around the airport
was assumed to have a population
density of 5000 people/mi2 (1931
people/km2), which is representative of
a moderately urban community.
The airplanes were assumed to fly to
a particular point in space along flight
• 10000 FT •
(3048 m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• THRUST INCREASE (MCT)
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION TO 2SO KT
• NORMAL CLIMB
CQI500FT-
(457m)
400 FT (122 m)
35 FT (Mm)
AIRPORT ELEVATION-
10 NM
SECOND SEGMENT
• THRUST REDUCTION ICBTI
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB (TOT)
• GEAR RETRACTION
Figure 4a — Flight profile: medium cutback before cleanup (DCA)
FIGURE 46. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION
MEDIUM CUTBACK BEFORE CLEANUP (DCA)
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release: takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb to
35 ft (11 m) height above airport (HAA); and accelerate to V2 '.;eas
BB' Retract gear, climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
B'C Climb to 1500 ft (457 m) HAA with thrust = TOT, speed = V2 + 10 keas
(or greater if required), flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (thrust cutback)
C At 1500 ft (457 m) HAA. maintain speed and reduce thrust to a cutback
thrust (CBT) computed for hoi day conditions at maximum gross takeoff
weight to give approximately 500 fpm (152 metres per minute) rate of
climb
CD Climb to not less than the HAA required to reach ten nautical miles
distance from brake release (DFBR) with thrust = CBT, speed = V2 + 10
keas, flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Third Segment (normal climb)
D At ten nautical miles distance from brake release (DFBR), maintain speed
and gradually increase thrust to achieve maximum climb thrust (MCT) at
not less than 4000 ft (1219 m) HAA
DE Climb to the HAA required to achieve MCT with thrust = CBT to MCT,
speed = V2 + 10, flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
E At the HAA required to achieve MCT. retract flaps per schedule and
accelerate to 250 keas with 500 to 1000 fpm (152 to 305 metres per
minute) rate of climb
EE' Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = MCT. speed = V2 + 10 to
250 keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
E' When a speed of 250 keas and flap retraction are achieved, maintain
MCT and initiate normal climb schedule
E'F Climb to 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = 250 keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear - retracted
F At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA. continue climb at 250 keas or reduce thrust
and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
-------
10000 FT •
(3048m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• ACCELERATION TO 250 KT
• NORMAL CLIMB
4000 FT -
(1219 m )
SECOND SEGMENT
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION
• THRUST REDUCTION (MCT)
400 FT (122m)
S35 FT (Km)
! AIRPORT ELEVATION
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB (TOT)
• GEAR RETRACTION
Figure 5a — Flight profile: small cutback after cleanup (ALPA/NWA Min. C/B)
FIGURE SB. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION
SMALL CUTBACK AFTER CLEANUP (ALPA/NWA MIN. C/B)
BB'
B'C
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release; takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb to
35 ft (11 m) height above airport (HAA); and accelerate to V2 keas
Retract gear; climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
Climb to 1000 ft (305m) HAA with thrust = TOT. speed = V2 + 10 keas
(or greater if required), flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (thrust cutback)
C At 1000 ft (305 m) HAA, lower nose and accelerate to zero flap speed
(VZF), retract flaps per schedule, maintain TOT and a pitch attitude within
1/2 initial value plus 0 to 3 deg. and a rate of climb not less than 500 fpm
(152 metres per minute)
Climb and accelerate to VZF with thrust = TOT, speed = V2 + 10 to VZF
keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
When a speed of VZF and flap retraction are achieved, reduce thrust to
maximum clirnb thrust (MCT)
Climb to 4000 ft (1219 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = VZF keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
Third Segment (normal climb)
D At 4000 ft (1219 m) HAA, maintain MCT and accelerate to 250 keas with
500 to 1000 fpm (152 to 305 metres per minute) rate of climb
Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = MCT, speed = VZF to
250 keas, flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
When a speed of 250 keas is achieved, maintain MCT and initiate normal
climb schedule
Climb to 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = MCT, speed = 250 keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear - retracted
At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA continue climb at 250 keas or reduce thrust
and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
CC'
C'D
DE
EF
paths lying in the vertical plane contain-
ing the center line of the airport run-
way. Each airplane was assumed to fly
to 10,000 ft (3048m) HAA while
executing each of the six takeoff proce-
dures. At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA, the
airplanes were assumed to level off. re-
duce thrust to horizontal thrust (HZT),
and proceed horizontally to a 220,000
ft (67,056 m) distance from brake re-
lease (DFBR). The latter distance is ar-
bitrary; it was chosen to be somewhat
greater than the DFBR at 10,000 ft
(3048 m) HAA required for the
airplane having the lowest ratio of
thrust to weight.
The purpose of including a horizon-
tal flight segment was that in normal
operations, aircraft are frequently di-
rected to proceed rapidly away from
the airport before reaching cruise al-
titude. This vectoring process usually
occurs at any height above 3000 ft
(914 m) HAA — the lower the height,
the greater the potential for adverse
noise impact. Consequently, for this in-
vestigation, the performance model
chosen for all airplanes assumed that
vectoring, if done at all, would not
occur until after the airplanes reached
10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA. That as-
sumption permitted evaluation of the
takeoff procedures, uncomplicated by
vectoring, to a significant height;
showed the influence of vectoring at a
height that would have little or no po-
tential for adverse noise impact; and
served as an implicit recommendation
(by the author) that 10,000 ft (3048 m)
HAA be the lower limit for vectoring
unless safety requirements should dic-
tate otherwise.
The first step in the analysis consisted
of calculating the single-event noise
levels, in terms of Effective Perceived
Noise Level (EPNL), along the flight
track that would be produced by each
of the six airplanes flying to the particu-
lar point in space (10,000 ft [3048 m]
HAA and 220,000 ft [67,056m]
DFBR) while executing the takeoff pro-
cedures. The results of those calcula-
tions are plotted in Figs. 7a to 7f for the
two weights of the B727-200 (QN)
airplane.
The second step consisted of cal-
culating the areas enclosed by the con-
-------
tours of six EPNL levels: 85, 90, 95,
100, 105, and 110 dB. The closure
points of the contours are indicated by
the corresponding noise levels along
the flight tracks determined in the first
step. The results of the second step rep-
resent land areas around the airport
exposed to specific noise levels result-
ing from single-event departures of the
individual airplanes. No assumption
was made about the proportion of the
noise-exposed areas that would lie
within airport property.
The third step in the analysis as-
sumed that each of the six airplanes
executed 200 departures per day, from
0700 to 2200 hours, for each of the six
takeoff procedures. The areas enclosed
by the contours of six Noise Exposure
Forecast (NEF) levels were calculated:
20,25,30,35,40, and 45 dB. The NEF
levels were converted to Day-Night
Sound Levels (Ldn) by adding a con-
stant 35 dB to the NEF levels, yielding
Ldn 55, 60, 65, 70. 75, and 80 dB. The
constant 35 dB is the approximate rela-
tionship between NEF and L()n recom-
mended by the US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) in the Levels
Document.20
The results of the third step represent
land areas around the airport exposed
to specific cumulative noise levels pro-
duced by multi-event departures of the
individual airplanes. The choice of 200
departures per daytime hours was arbi-
trary: it represents a high but possible
operational rate that emphasizes the
differences between the effectiveness
of the takeoff procedures for noise
abatement.
The fourth step in the analysis in-
volved calculating the numbers of
people enclosed within each of the six
Ldn contours, assuming a constant
population density of 5000 people/mi'
(1931 people/km2). Also calculated
were the numbers of people enclosed
within each 5-dB increment of L,,n (that
is, 55 to 60 dB, 60 to 65 dB, and so on),
which were required for determining
the population impacted by noise.
The fifth step consisted of calculating
the highly annoyed population (HAP)
in accordance with the method de-
veloped by the National Research
Council (NRC).2' Three relationships
10000 FT
(3048 m)
THIRD SEGMENT
• FLAP RETRACTION
• ACCELERATION TO 250 KT
• CLIMB (TOT)
C, D
1500 FT-
(457m)
FT (122 m)
FT (llm)
J AIRPORT ELEVATION-
FIRST SEGMENT
• ROLL
• INITIAL CLIMB (TOT)
• GEAR RETRACTION
Figure 6a — Maximum thrust with no cutback (reference only). This procedure would
permit an airplane to achieve 10.000ft (3048 m) HAA in the least time and shortest flight
path. It is not a valid procedure because it could require takeoff thrust for a period greater
than allowable.
FIGURE CB. FLIGHT PROFILE DESCRIPTION
MAXIMUM THRUST WITH No CUTBACK (REFERENCE ONLY)*
First Segment (roll and initial climb)
OAB Brake release; takeoff roll with takeoff thrust (TOT); rotate and climb to
35 ft (11 m) height above airport (HAA): and accelerate to V2 keas
Retract gear; climb to 400 ft (122 m) HAA; and accelerate to V2 + 10
keas
Climb to 1500 ft (457m) HAA with thrust = TOT. speed = V2 + 10 keas
(or greater if required), flaps = takeoff, and gear = retracted
Second Segment (no change)
C,D There is no second (thrust cutback) segment
Third Segment (climb)
BB'
B'C
D
DE
At 1500 ft (457 m) HAA, maintain thrust, retract flaps per schedule and
accelerate to 250 keas with 500 to 1000 fpm (152 to 305 metres per
minute) rate of climb
Climb and accelerate to 250 keas with thrust = TOT, speed = V2 + 10 to
250 keas, flaps = retract, and gear = retracted
When a speed of 250 keas and flap retraction are achieved, initiate
normal climb schedule with TOT
Climb to 10.000 ft (3048 m) HAA with thrust = TOT, speed = 250 keas,
flaps = retracted, and gear = retracted
At 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA, continue climb at 250 keas or reduce thrust
and proceed in horizontal flight at 250 keas
"This procedure Is not technologically practicable and is included only for comparison pur-
poses
-------
Q 140 KIB fc 16' T/O FIAP1
D 1W KLB t IS' T/O FLAPS
SO
80 100 120 140 160 180
FROM BRAKE RELEASE , DFBR, 1000 FT
200
220
between HAP and Ldn are illustrated in
Fig. 8. Earlier relationships used by the
EPA and the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) are presented simply for back-
ground.20'21 The NRC relationship was
used in this analysis.21
Calculations of the numbers of
people highly annoyed by noise expo-
sures of LAn 55 dB and greater were
made for all thirty-six departure combi-
nations (three types of airplanes, two
weights each, and six takeoff proce-
dures). The results of those calculations
formed the basis for evaluating the ef-
fectiveness for noise abatement of the
six takeoff procedures.
Figure 7a — B727-200 (QN) at 190,000 and 140,000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
weight. Takeoff procedure AC 91 -39.
120
AIRPORT TSiHH
AIRPORT ALT.
HIADWINO
ENGINES
77'- F & 70%
0 FT
OKT
JT8O-15
Q 140 KLB It 15° T/O HAPS
U 190 KLB 1 15 T/O FLAPS
so.
Figure
weight.
7b —B727-200 (QN) at 190.000 and 140.000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
Takeoff procedure ALPA/NWA Max. C/B.
Flight Track Noise Levels
Figs. 7a to 7f illustrate for two weights
of the B727-200 (QN) type airplane the
variation of noise levels along the flight
track for each of the six takeoff proce-
dures. The lettered symbols refer to lo-
cations or activities of the airpk-.nes that
are important to the takeoff procedures
and correspond to the identification let-
ters given in the illustrations and de-
scriptions of Figs. 1 to 6. For example,
the letter F always indicates the noise
levels on the ground at the given DFBR
produced by the airplanes when they
first reach 10,000 ft (3048 m) HAA. at
MCT and at HZT. The letter D in Figure
7b for the ALPA/NWA Max. C/B pro-
cedure indicates the noise levels at
DFBR produced by the airplanes when
they reach the point at 4000 ft (1219 m)
HAA at which thrust is begun to be
gradually reapplied from CBT to MCT.
The variation of noise levels along
the flight track, resulting from the first
step in the analysis, provided the basic
data for judging the six takeoff proce-
dures' effectiveness for noise abate-
ment. Other information, such as areas
and population exposed to various
levels of noise and highly annoyed
population, were necessary to establish
quantitative comparisons of the proce-
dures. However, certain qualitative
judgments were made from Figures 7a
to 7f and verified quantitatively after
-------
completing the remaining four steps in
the analysis.
The first action in the qualitative
judgments was to divide the proce-
dures into two classifications identified
by the sequential applications of thrust:
TOT-CBT-MCT, which includes the
ALPA/NWA Max. C/B, FAR 36, and
DCA procedures, and TOT-MCT,
which includes the AC 91-39 and
ALPA/NWA Min. C/B procedures. The
second action was to further divide
each -classification into two parts iden-
tified by the priorities given to cutback
and cleanup: cleanup before C/B,
which includes the ALPA/NWA Max.
C/B and ALPA/NWA Min. C/B proce-
dures, and cleanup after C/B, which
includes the AC 91-39, FAR 36, and
DCA procedures. The Maximum
Thrust procedure was not included
among those classifications because it
has no thrust reduction and its effec-
tiveness was judged after the other five
were evaluated. The classifications are
shown in Table I.
Determination of the effectiveness of
the procedures for noise abatement
was made by comparing the noise
levels along the flight track relative to
the three categories of distance from
the airport: close-in, near-downrange,
and far-downrange. The three
categories are broad and without sharp
dividing lines. Roughly, close-in repre-
sents the land area between the airport
and the DFBR, where the noise reduc-
tion due to cutback is indicated; near-
downrange represents the land area
between close-in and the DFBR, where
the noise increase is indicated because
of reapplication of thrust from CBT to
MCT; and far-downrange represents
the land area beyond near-downrange.
In making the judgments, the near-
downrange category was given most
emphasis. On a practical basis, close-in
would include airport property and
other noise-compatible land use. and
the far-downrange noise exposure
would be lessened by the normal dis-
persion of aircraft as they proceed
farther from the airport.
Compare first the classification
TOT-CBT-MCT with cleanup after
C/B, which represents the FAR 36 and
DCA procedures. Close-in: DCA is
120
no
AIRPORT T&flH
AIRPORT ALT
HEADWIND
ENGINES
77' f fc 70%
OFT
0 KT
JT8D-15
100
_
z
Q.
UJ
o
90
80
70
60
50
40 60 80 100 120 140 I6O 180
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE. DFBR, IOOO FT
200
220
Figure 7c — B727-200 (QN) at 190,000 and 140,000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
weight. Takeoff procedure FAR 36.
120
Q 140 K18& t5' T/O f IAPS
Q 190 KLBt"isrT/O FLAPS
50
4O 6O 80 IOO 120 140 160 I8O
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE. DFBR. IOOO FT
200
220
Figure 7d — B727-200 (QN) at 190,000 and 140,000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
weight. Takeoff procedure DCA
-------
120
100
m
•o
70
60
50
20
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE. DFBR, 1000 FT
200
220
Figure 7e — B727-200 (QN) at 190,000 and 140,000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
weight. Takeoff procedure ALPA/NWA Min. C/B.
120
110
m 100
J
ib 90
UJ
eo
O
Z 70
60
50
AIRPORT ALT
HEADWIND .
INCINES
o FT
0 KT
O HO KLBft 15" T/O FLAfS
O 190 KTaV 'is5 "i /O~FLAPS
10
20
JO
DFBR. km
40
50
60
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 ISO
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE . DFBR . 1000 FT
200
220
Figure 7f — B727-200 (QN) at 190,000
weight. Takeoff procedure Maximum Thn
140,000 Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff
noisier, but only for a relatively short
distance along the flight track. Near-
downrange: DCA is noisier for the
lightest weight airplane and FAR 36 is
noisier for the heaviest weight airplane.
Far-downrange: FAR 36 is noisier for
the lightest weight airplane and DCA is
noisier for the heaviest weight airplane.
In summary, there is not enough differ-
ence in noise control effectiveness be-
tween the two procedures to choose
one over the other.
Next, compare the DCA and
ALPA/NWA Max. C/B procedures.
Close-in: ALPA/NWA Max. C/B is
noisier, but only for a relatively short
distance along the flight track. Near-
downrange: DCA is noisier for both
airplane weights. Far-downrange:
ALPA/NWA Max. C/B is noisier for the
lightest weight airplane and DCA is
noisier for the heaviest weight airplane.
In summary, although there are some
locations along the flight track where it
is noisier, the ALPA/NWA Max. C/B
procedure was judged to be substan-
tially more effective for noise abate-
ment than was the DCA procedure,
primarily due to its superior effective-
ness near-downrange.
Now compare the classification
TOT-MCT, which represents the
ALPA/NWA Min. C/B and AC 91-39
procedures, the former utilizing
cleanup before cutback and the latter
cleanup after cutback. Close in:
ALPA/NWA Min. C/B is noisier, but
only for a relatively short distance along
the flight track. Near-downrange and
far-downrange (categories combined
because there is no reapplication of
thrust): AC 91-39 is noisier for both
airplane weights. In summary, the
ALPA/NWA Min. C/B procedure was
judged more effective for noise abate-
ment.
Next, compare the ALPA/NWA
Max. C/B and ALPA/NWA Min. C/B
procedures. Close-in: both procedures
produce identical noise levels. Near-
downrange: the Min. C/B procedure is
substantially noisier for both airplane
weights. Far-downrange: the Max. C/B
procedure is substantially noisier for
both airplane weights. In summary, be-
cause of its superior effectiveness
near-downrange, the ALPA/NWA
-------
Max. C/B procedure was judged more
effective for noise abatement.
Finally, compare the ALPA/NWA
Max. C/B and Maximum Thrust proce-
dures. Close-in: the procedures pro-
duce identical noise levels. Near-
downrange: Maximum Thrust is sub-
stantially noisier. Far-downrange:
ALPA/NWA Max. C/B is noisier. In
summary, because of its superior effec-
tiveness near-downrange, the ALPA/
NWA Max. C/B procedure was judged
more effective for noise abatement.
The qualitative comparisons of the
noise levels along the flight track pro-
duced by the six takeoff procedures re-
sulted in the ALPA/NWA Max. C/B
procedure being judged most effective
for noise abatement. That judgment
was based primarily on its superior ef-
fectiveness near-downrange. It is rec-
ognized, however, that at some air-
ports, noise-sensitive communities are
located far-downrange and not near-
downrange, and that a more effective
takeoff procedure should be available
for use in those cases. It was decided,
therefore, that the two ALPA/NWA
procedures would collectively be most
effective for noise control. The two pro-
cedures are so similar from an aircraft
operations standpoint that there would
be very little increase in work load for
the pilot to become proficient in both.
Population Highly Annoyed
The quantitative evaluation of the ef-
fectiveness for noise abatement of the
six takeoff procedures is illustrated by
the bar charts of Figs. 9a, 9b, and 9c for
six airplanes (two weights each of three
types of airplanes). The measure of ef-
fectiveness is the highly annoyed popu-
lation (HAP) exposed to cumulative
levels of noise equal to L«n 55 dB or
greater; the lower the HAP, the more
effective the procedure.
It is interesting to compare the results
of the previously determined qualita-
tive analysis of the B727-200 (QN)
type airplane with the quantitative re-
sults of Fig. 9a. For both airplane
weights, the ALPA/NWA Max. C/B
TABLE I
CLASSIFICATION OF TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
TAKEOFF
PROCEDURES
AC91-35-T'
ALPA/NWA MAX. C/B
FAR 36
DCA
ALPA/NWA MIN. C/B
MAXIMUM THRUST
SEQUENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF THRUST
TOT - CBT - MCT
CLEANUP
BEFORE
CUTBACK
YES
NA
CLEANUP
AFTER
CUTBACK
YES
YES
NA
TOT - MCT
CLEANUP
BEFORE
CUTBACK
YES
NA
CLEANUP
AFTER
CUTBACK
YES
NA
NA = NOT APPLICABLE
^r,
-------
ID
20
30
40
50
60
70
',)
AC 9 1-39 3539 1
| ALPA/NWA MAX C/U 24 66 |
FAR 36 31 48 |
DCA 3334 |
ALPA/NWA MIN OB 3344 |
MAX THRUST 5070 |
64
TONNES
4140 KLB)
' "I
AC 91 39 5708|
ALPA/NWA MAX C/B 44 66 |
FAR 36 5/ 19 I
DCA 57 44 1
ALPA/NWA MIN C/B 51 21 1
85
TONNES
(190 KLBI
MAX THRUST 66 60 |
10
20
30
40
GO
TO
HIGHLY ANNOYED POPULATION, HAP. 1000 PEOPLE
200 TAKEOFFS/DAY (0700 2200 UK)
1931 PEOPLE/SO KMfSOOO/SQMI)
Figure 9a — Total population highly annoyed /orB727'-200 (QN) at 190,000 and 140,000
Ibs (86 and 64 tonnes) takeoff weight
Iwo most effective, with Mm C/B
slightly superior for the heavier weight
airplane and Max C/B slightly superior
for the lighter weight airplane
For the B737-200 (QN) type
airplane, F\g 9c shows that all of the
procedures except Maximum Thrust
are very close in effectiveness, the
ALPA/NWA Max C/B procedures
being superior only for the heavier
weight airplane However, on balance,
the ALPA/NWA Max and Mm C/B
procedures are the most practical
choices for near-downrange and far-
downrange effectiveness, respectively
The determination of noise abate-
ment effectiveness was based on an
arbitrary distribution o( population
equal to 5000 people/mi2 (1931
people/km2) The relative relationship
of effectiveness for the six procedures
would be the same regardless of popu-
lation density, provided the density was
constant However, a constant popula-
tion density over the large areas en-
closed by theL rt n 55 dB contours would
be the exception and not the rule
A graduated density case could be
assumed for each of the procedures,
which would make that procedure the
most effective, but those cases would
be rare exceptions The most general
population distnbution for air carrier
airports is moderately dense close-in,
most dense near-downrange, and least
dense far-downrange, which would be
even more supportive of the two
ALPA/NWA procedures than would
the constant density case.
Conclusions
Each of the aircraft takeoff proce-
dures has both advantages and disad-
vantages for noise control, depending
upon the location of noise-sensitive
communities A procedure that reduces
thrust before cleanup has the advan-
tage of abating noise sooner than a
procedure that reduces thrust after
cleanup However, the noise abate-
ment resulting from the former may be
less than the latter and may occur too
close to the airport to benefit many
people A procedure that employs a
large thrust reduction has the advan-
tage of maximum noise abatement, but
would be of no value if noise-sensitive
communities were not located where
that advantage would be realized
A procedure that reduces power
below climb thrust in order to minimize
the noise exposure for one community
must ultimately reapply power to climb
thrust, which may increase Jhe expo-
sure for another community When
companng two procedures, one with
larger thrust cutback than the other, it is
apparent that there will be a crossover
point at which both procedures will
produce the same noise level on the
(light track Inside the crossoveT point
(toward the airport), (he larger cutback
procedure will produce less noise, but
outside the crossover point, the reverse
is true
As discussed above, the results of the
analysis indicate that no single takeoff
procedure is most effective for noise
abatement everywhere However, in
considering both weights of the three
airplanes investigated, a pattern
evolved On balance, the takeoff pro-
cedures that cleaned up before thrust
-------
cutback offered the greatest potential
for maximum noise reduction for the
largest number of people That is. the
ALPA/NWA maximum and minimum
cutback procedures evidenced definite
noise control supenonty over the other
procedures when compared in terms of
highly annoyed population.
It should be emphasized that the two
ALPA/NWA procedures are identical
during their most complex aspects, that
is, cleanup and initiation of thrust cut-
back The only differences in the two
piocedures are the depth of cutback
and the reapplication of power at 4000
ft (1219 m) HAA, both of which are not
complicated and are executed when
the airplane is well stabilized In other
words, if two takeoff procedures make
sense for noise abatement, the two
ALPA/NWA procedures would result
in the least increase in pilot work load
because of their near similarity
These conclusions were based upon
an analysis of the performance of only
three types of airplane B727-200
(QN), B707-320B, and B737-200
(QN) Many other types exist, and un-
less their takeoff performance can be
evaluated in the same manner as those
three, it cannot be concluded catego-
rically that the ALPA/NWA Max and
Mm C/B procedures would be most
effective for noise abatement Neverthe-
less, two of the three airplanes evalu-
ated are among the noisiest and most
numerous of all commercial air earners
The most effeciive takeoff procedures
for the two airplanes would result in a
significant reduction in noise exposure
around most air earner airports
One or the other of the ALPA/NWA
procedures would probably be the
most effective for noise abatement of all
six takeoff procedures for any jet-
propelled airplane What is not so cer-
tain, however, is which of the two —
Max C/B or Mm C/B — would be
more effective for aircraft other than the
three analyzed here For example,
compare the results for the B727-200
(QN) and the B737-200 (QN) with the
results for the B707-320B. the latter
having higher bypass ratio engines than
the others Figs 9a and 9c show that
Max. C/B is clearly more effective than
20
30
40
so
60
s-f
AC 91-34 2278 ]
| ALPA/NWA MAX C/B 20 98 |
FAR 36 2916|
OCA 23 23 |
[ ALPA/NWA MIN C/B 21 43
MAX THRUST 25 76 1
91
TONNES
(200 KLB)
ft
AC 31-39 4342]
ALPA/NWA MAX C/B 38 79 ]
FAR 36 5040
145
TONNES
(320 KLD)
DCA 5161
ALPA/NWA MIN C/B 38 59 )
MAX THRUST 45 27 |
10
20
30
40
SO
60
HIGHLY ANNOYED POPULATION. HAP. 1000 PEOPLE
200 TAKEOFFS/DAY (0700 2200 HR)
1931 PEOPLE/SO KM (5000/SO Ml)
Figure 9b — Total population highly annoyed for B707-320B at 320,000 and 200.000 Ibs
(145 and 91 tonnes) takeoff weight
Mm C/B for the B727-200 (QN) and
the B737-200 (QN). Fig 9b shows
that although there is not much differ-
ence between the two procedures. Mm
C/B is slightly more effective than Max
C/B for the heavier weight B707-320B
The results indicate, therefore, that
the ALPA/NWA Max C/B procedure is
most effective for airplanes propelled
by very low bypass ratio (about one or
less) lurbofan or turbojet engines The
very low bypass ratio engines are the
noisiest and most difficult for source
noise abatement but, fortunately,
benefit most from noise abatement
takeoff procedures As the bypass ratio
'increases, the noise benefits from large
thrust reductions decrease For
airplanes such as the B707-320B
propelled by low-bypass-ratio (be-
tween one and two) engines, the Mm.
and Max C/B procedures are about
equally effective For airplanes pro-
pelled by high-bypass-ratio (greater
-------
10
20
30
40
50
AC 91-3T'
ALPA/NWA MAX C/fl
FAR 36
DCA
ALPA/NWA WIN C/B
MAX THRUST
10.50
9.01 1
8.89)
7.21 1
10.71 |
10.70 |
36
TONNES
(80KLB)
AC 91-39
ALPA/NWA MAX C/B
FAR 36
DCA
ALPA/NWA MIN C/B
MAX THRUST
13.77 |
1063)
11.97|
114
,
13.23|
20.21 |
50
TONNES
(110 KLB)
10
20
30
40
50
HIGHLY ANNOYED POPULATION. HAP, 1000 PEOPLE
200TAKEOFFS/DAY (0700-2200 HR)
1931 PEOPLE/SO KM (5000/SQMI)
Figure 9c — Total population highly annoyed for B 737-200 (QN) at 110,000 and SO.DOO
Ibs (50 and 36 tonnes) takeojj weight
than two) engines such as the DC-10,
L-1011, B747, and A-300, the Mm
C/B procedure is superior
The FAA has recently issued a new
advisory circular, AC 91-53, which
supersedes AC 91-39 " The new advi-
sory encourages cleanup before or dur-
ing cutback, and both ALPA/NWA
procedures would lie within the FAA
recommendations Furthermore, AC
91-53 recommends that airplanes with
high-bypass-ratio engines should not
reduce thrust below climb thrust on de-
parture Thus, the new advisory sup-
ports the conclusions reached by this
investigation
The Maximum Thrust takeoff proce-
dure was included in this investigation
to determine whether there would be
an advantage for noise abatement in
positioning aircraft as high as possible
in the shortest DFBR Figs 9a and 9c
show that for the airplanes propelled by
the lowest bypass ratio engines, the
Maximum' Thrust procedure was the
least effective of all six procedures for
both weights of the airplanes Fig. 9b
shows that for the B707-320B, the
Maximum Thrust procedure, while not
the least effective of all six, was clearly
less effective than the two ALPA/NWA
procedures In summary, the
Maximum Thrust takeoff procedure did
not evidence any significant advantage
The detailed descnptions of the six
takeoff procedures given in Figs 1 to 6
specify particular aircraft activities at
specific locations It is not expected that
the effectiveness of the procedures is
very sensitive to small changes in the
activities or locations For example, the
procedures that require cutback before
cleanup require cutback at either 1000
or 1500 ft (305 or 467 m) HAA and the
procedures that require cleanup before
cutback require initiation of cleanup at
1000 ft (305 m) HAA There is proba-
bly an optimum HAA for noise abate-
ment effectiveness for those activities
for each of the procedures, but it is not
expected that within the ranges allowa-
ble for safety, the relative order of effec-
tiveness would change. Similar conclu-
sions are probably valid for other
activities, such as reapphcation of thrust
and cleanup after cutback, although a
sensitivity analysis was not made for
this investigation
One final conclusion resulting from
this investigation is of a cautiondry na-
ture Although the procedures that
clean up before cutback (ALPA/NWA
Max and Mm C/B) are the most effec-
tive for current airplanes with very low
and low bypass ratio engines and are
projected to be the best for current
airplanes with high-bypass-ratio en-
gines, they may not be most effective
for less noisy airplanes of the future
The reasoning behind that warning is
that future types of airplanes are ex-
pected to be substantially less noisy
than the current airplanes, with a con-
sequent shnnking of the noise level
contours The result would be that a
greater proportion of the high noise ex-
posure level areas would be included
within the airport fences or other
noise-compatible boundaries than at
-------
present It is possible, therefore, that
the takeoff procedures that initiate
thrust reduction at maximum HAA and
minimum DFBR would have maxi-
mum noise abatement effectiveness
In other words, the procedures that
clean up after cutback might prove to
be more effective for noise abatement
for relatively low noise level airplanes
than would the procedures that clean
up before cutback If so. the explana-
tion is that a large climb gradient initially
would place enough of the high noise
exposed areas within the airport fence,
so that what happens at later stages of
the procedure would not be of much
importance The conclusion is that
when new types of airplanes become
substantially less noisy, the takeoff pro-
cedures should be reevaluated for
noise abatement effectiveness
References
1 "Recommended Noise Abatement Takeoff
and Departure Procedure for Civil Turbojet
Powered Airplanes." Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration Advisory Circular AC 91 -39 (18
January 1974)
2 "ALPA Noise Abatement Take-Oft Proce-
dure," Airline Pilots Association Executive
Board Committee lecommcndation, 25th
Executive Board Meeting (10-12 May
1977)
3 "Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedures 'Air
Transport Association Operations Policy
Manual, Revision No 1 116 November
1976)
4 "Noise Standards Aircraft Type and Airwor-
thiness Certification, ' Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 36. Federal Register. 39,
6142 (19 February 1974)
5 "Washington National Airport Noise
Abatement Procedures," Federal Aviation
Administration (31 July 1975)
6 8 G Williams and R Yates "Aircraft Noise
Deftrntwn." Federal Aviation Administration
Report No FAA-EQ-73-7. 1 (December
1973)
7 B G Williams and R Yates. "Aircraft No.se
Definition. Individual Aircraft Technical
Data Model 7C7 " Federal Aviation Admin-
istration Report No FAA-EQ-73-7, 2 (De-
cember 1973)
8 B G Williams and R Yales "Aircraft Noise
Definition Individual Aircraft Technical
Data Model 727 " Federal Aviation Admin-
istration Report No FAA-EQ-73-7 3 (De-
cember 1973)
9 B G Williams and R Yates "Aircraft Noise
Definition Individual Aircraft Technical
Data Model 737." Fcdeial Aviation Admin-
istration Report No FAA-EQ-73-7, 4 (De-
cember 1973)
10 B G Williams and R Yates "Aircraft Noise
Definition. Individual Aircraft Technical
Data. Model 747," Federal Aviation Admin-
istration Report No FAA-EQ-73-7, 5 (De-
cember 1973)
11 KBhatiaetal, Boeing Airplane/Noise Per-
formance Computer Programs User's
Manual." Federal Aviation Administration
Report No FAA-EQ-73-7, 6 (December
1973)
12 K Bhatiaetal. "Boeing Airplane/Noise Per-
formance Computer Programs Pro-
grammer's Manual." Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration Report No FAA-EQ-73-7, 7
(December 1973)
13 J S Goodman ctal . "Aircraft Noise Defini-
tion Phase F, Analysis of Existing Data for
the DC-8 DC-9 and DC-10 Aircraft " Fed-
eral Aviation Administration Report No
FAA-EQ-73-5 (August 1973)
14 R E DeLapp. "Aircraft Noise Definition
Phase II. Analysis of Flyover-Noise Data for
the DC-8-61 Aircraft." Federal Aviation
Administration Report No FAA-EQ-74-5
(August 1974)
15 N Shapiro et al , "Commercial Aircraft
Noise Definition, L-1011 Tnslar Volume I.
Final Report." Federal Aviation Administra-
tion Report No FAA-EQ-73-6. 1 (Septem-
ber 1974)
16 N Shapiro et al , "Commercial Aircraft
Noise Definition. L-1011 Tristar Volume II.
L-1011-1 Data " Federal Aviation Adntims-
tranon Report No FAA-EQ-73-6, II (Sep-
tember 1974)
17 N Shapiro et al . "Commercial Aircraft
Noise Definition. L-1011 Tnslar Volume II.
Programs User's Manual." Federal Aviation
Administration Report No FAA-EQ-73-6. Ml
(September 1974)
18 N Shapiro et al "Commercial Ancraft
Noise Definition, L-1011 Trislar Volume IV
Programs Design Specification," Federal
Aviation Administration Report No FAA-
EQ-73-6. IV (September 1974)
19 N Shapiro et at . "Commercial Aircraft
Noise Definition, L-1011 Tnstar Volume V
Computer Programmer's Manual, ' Federal
Aviation Administration Report No FAA-
EQ-73 6, V (September 1974)
20 "Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Mealtii and
Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety," US environmental Protection
Agency. 550/9-74-004 (March 1974)
21 "Guidelines for Preparing Environmental
Impact Statements on Noise." Report of
Working Group 69 on Evaluation of En-
vironmental Impact of Noise National Re-
search Council, National Academy of Sci-
ences (1977)
22 "Noise Abatement Departure Profile." Fed-
eral Aviation Administration Advisory Circu-
lar AC 91-53 (17 Oclober 1978)
-------
REMEDIAL 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 GENERAL 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 YEARS,
-------
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
BE UTILIZED,
-------
THESE ARE THE ACQUISITION QF 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 M.ASTER 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,
-3-
-------
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 NOISEj
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 F1AY 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,
-------
80% OF THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS OCCUR TO THE WEST,1 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,
V/E 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',.
-5-
-------
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,
-6-
-------
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 PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT IN OBTAINING
-7-
-------
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 NEEO 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
-8-
-------
REUSE, DEED RESTRICTIONS, AVIGATION EASEMENTS, AND ACOUSTIC
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT AMD 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,
-9-
-------
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 appl/ing 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.
-------
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 qucte from Harris further delineates the nature of the
problem of using noise desc-riptors 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
dn dn
standards of acceptability.
airport neighbors first complained about levels
of noise exposure from 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
the complaints at the small general aviation airports
to the frequent touch-and-go training flights.
-2-
-------
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 occvirred 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 te monitored using conventional level
monitoring equipment. But the use of such data to 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.
-3-
-------
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 tiie 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 communiry 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.
-4-
-------
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
regional plan are examples. Such political solutions are
.'jeldon feasible today because master plans have been adopted,
and changing them may create hardships and inequities that
result 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.
-5-
-------
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, end 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 neichbor 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.
-6-
-------
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
nois« 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:
-7-
-------
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.
-8-
-------
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 review of the programs.
^•Harris, Andrew S., "Noise Abatement; at General Aviation
Airports," Noise Control Engineering, March-April 1978.
2Harris, Andrew S., "Noise Problems of General Aviation
Airports," INTER-NOISE 76, Washington, D.C., April 1976.
-9-
-------
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
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
Remedial Measures
Preventive Measures ................ 7
PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES ....... 13
Public Sector ...................... 13
Private Sector ..................... 17
National Associations .............. 19
THE EXTENT OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE CONTROL
MEASURES ....................................... 22
Level of Involvement ............... 22
Manner of Involvement .............. 2 A
CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................... 26
APPENDIX A
-------
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-
-------
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
-------
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.
-------
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) Fair disclosure ordinance
(5) Restrictions on private mortgage loans
(6) Housing relocation and assistance
(7) Purchase leaseback
(8) Aviation easement
-------
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
-------
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
-------
large initial capital outlay.
A more inexpensive alternative to the purchase of
property Is the acquisition of an avigation easement. An
avigation 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
-------
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-
-------
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 (CIP) 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 CIP,
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 CIP precedes the preparation of a capital
improvements budget (GIB). The CIB 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 CIP
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.
10
-------
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
11
-------
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.
12
-------
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
(M) Airport operator
(5) Quasi-public authorities
(6) Sub-state regional authorities
(7) State legislative body
13
-------
(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 poll-
-------
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.
15
-------
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
16
-------
(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
17
-------
industrially (or in some other compatible manner). This
owner would, therefore, welcome airport expansion.
Neighborhood organizations 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
18
-------
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
19
-------
(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
20
-------
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.
21
-------
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
22
-------
TABLE I
THE LEVEL OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT
DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTICS
Scale
Continuity
Duration
Complexity
Constituency
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
Party is Responsible
to or in Constant
Contact with Consti-
tuency Affected by
Measure.
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
Party is Distant from
Constituency Affected
by Measure.
23
-------
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
-------
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.
25
-------
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.
26
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
I. Associations for Aircraft Operators
(a) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(tO 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
27
-------
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
28
-------
VIII. Banking Associations
(a) Independent Bankers Association of America
(tO 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
29
-------
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
30
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
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
-------
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
-------
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
-------
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.
-------
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
-------
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.
-1-
-------
A. GENERAL
Abelson, P.W., "Policy Problems and Economics of Aircraft Noise, "
Transportation Research, 11(5): 557-64, October 1977.
Airport Operators Council International, Policy Handbook, Washington,
1971.
Anderson, Homer B., "Airport and Community Interface," Aircraft and the
Environment; Conference Proceedings (Washington: U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1971), Part I, p. 32-34.
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, Duight 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 E., Noise Pollution: A Guide to Information Sources,
Gale Research Corporation, Detroit, 1975
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" Natural Resources Journal 10(4): 687-718, 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 York, 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 While Carrying Out
Mental Tasks," Journal of Sound and Vibration 45(1): 137-156, 1976.
-2-
-------
Chng, 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, 1977
Dove, R.A., "Basic Principles of Noise Control," Plastics and Rubber
Institute 2(1)23-26, January-February 1978.
"F.H.A. Withholds Loans from Homes Near Airports," Noise Control
7(4)39- , 1961.
Fromme, William R., Metropolitan Washington Airport Pol-icy Analysis,
Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Policy,
Report No. 18, November 1977.
Goodhart, Nicholas, "The Noise That Need Not 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.
Haberaom, Guy A., Airport Noise: A Bibliography With Extracts, Spring-
field, Va., National Technical Information Service., August 1978.
Hamilton, William S., "Practical Noise Abatement for a General Aviation
Airport," Sound and Vibration 11(2):24-27, February 1977.
Harris, Andrei) 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.3 "Aircraft Noise and Other Types of Pollution," Pro-
ceedings Anglo-American Aeronautical Conference, London, 1977.
Jones, W. 3 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.
-3-
-------
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 19??.
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, Vest Lafayette, In.,
Purdue University, 1971.
Powers, John 0., "Airborne Transportation Noise - Its Origin and Abate-
ment," JouwaZ_o£j4c£Mstica2_Soci0t^_o£^^rica, 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., Eelicopter Transmission Vibration and Noise
Reduction Program, Phi lade Iphia : 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 P., and Cherehone, 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.
-4-
-------
Sperry, William C., Chairman, "Noise Abatement Technology and Cost
Analysis, Including Retrofitting," S.P.A. Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study Report. Task Group 4, June 13 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./550/9-76/012, 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, 86th and 87th Congresses,
','ashington, 1963.
tf.5. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 'Joise 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.
(NEC'500.1).
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., "Moise Criteria for Buildings: A
Critical Review, Washington, D.C., National Bureau of Standards,
Center for Building Technology, Report NBS-SP-499, January 1978.
-5-
-------
B. NOISE MEASUREMENT $ ANALYSIS
Auzolle, S. and Hay, J., Method of Measurement and Analysis of Noise
of Aircraft in Flight, Presented 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. 3 "Aircraft Noise Measurement, Evaluation and Control,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 40:1567, 1966.
Bishop, Dwight 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-204035).
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., et al., "A Further Experiment on Judging Noisiness of
Aircraft in Flight," Acoustics, 17(5):245-67, 1966.
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. H., 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, 16:280-87,
1970.
-6-
-------
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, 1:429-37, 1971.
Fukushima, K., Aircraft Acoustics: Community Noise Prediction, Penton,
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-72-106, 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, S.; 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.; Tomkeim, 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.
-7-
-------
Kapuskar, h'isu T. and Balanforth, Christopher J., "Monitoring Airport
Noise," Hewlett Packard Journal , 20;11-15, July 1969.
Kundert, barren, "Everything You Wanted to Know About Measurement Micro-
phones," Sound and Vibration 22(3), March 1978.
Large, J. B. , "Ground Monitoring of Aircraft Noise, " Noise Control and
Vibration Insulation 7(5)151-157, Hay 1976.
Little, John U. and Mabry, J.E., "PJmpirical 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
tion of Aircraft Neighborhood Noise Levels, New York, Society of
Automotive Engineers, 1965.
Odell, Albert H., "Problems in Predicting Aircraft Noise Exposure,"
Noise Control Engineering 9(l):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, 2971.
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. 1-6, 1975.
Schulz, Theodore, "Some Sources of Error in Community Noise Measure-
ment, " Sound and Vibration February 1972, p. 18-27.
Shepardf K.P., "The Subjective Evaluation of Noise from Light Aircraft,"
Salt Lake City, Utah University, Dept. of Mechanical and Indus-
trial Engineering, December 1976.
Sperry, William C.3 Aircraft Noise Evaluation, Washington, U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Noise Abatement, 1968.
(Technical Report 550-003-03H).
-8-
-------
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,
-------
C. NOISE IMPACT
Abey-Vickrama I., et at, "Mental Hospital Admissions and Aircraft Noise,"
Lancet 2(7633):1275-77, December 23, 1969.
Ahrlin, V., "Medical Effects of Environmental Noise on Humans," 59(1):79-
87, 2978.
"Airport Studies," Peview of the Society of Residential Appraisers, 23:13-
14,, March 2957.
Alluisi, Earl A., "Reactions to Aircraft Noise: A Symposium Peport,"
Journal of Auditory Research 15(3):187-225, July 2975.
Ando, Y., Hattori, H., "Effects of Noise on the Sleep of Babies, " Journal
of Acoustical Society of America 62(1):199-204, 1977.
Bakke, P.; Egli, H.j Huser, S.; Wehrl, 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
Health 58(11) .-2060-66, November 1968.
Barsari, George, "The Influence of Airport Operations on Value of Adjacent
Peal Estate," International Conference on Assessment Administration,
2969, Proceedings, 1962, p. 20-26.
Beranek, Leo L., et al, "Reaction of People to Exterior Aircraft Noise,"
Noise Control 5:287-85^ (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 CAD66Q7121)).
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, fhH., McGraw-Hill, 1957,
Chap. 10.
Burns, Uilliam, Noise and Man, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1969.
Cohen, Alexander, "Airport Noise, Sonic Booms, and Public Health," Air-
craft and the Environment; Conference ProceedingSj N.Y., Society of
Automotive Engineers, 1971, p. 42-55.
Conger, George M., "Noise Damage," Appraisal Journal 36(2):253-54, April
1968.
Cornell University, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., A Report on
Evaluation of Airport Noise and Community Reaction, Ithaca, fl. ¥.,
1960.
Available from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Technical Service,
(PB 171979).
-10-
-------
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(4):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, UTIAS 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.
Kenton, Edith, Airport Development: Social and Economic Effects (A Bib-
liography with Extracts), Springfield, 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.
-11-
-------
Kryter, Karl D., "Evaluation of Psychological Reactions of People to
Aircraft Noises," In: U.S. Office of Science and Technology3 Jet
Aircraft Noise Panel, Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Air-
ports, Washington 2966, p. 13-27.
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 &71-32250J).
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.
-12-
-------
Bylander, R., "Medical Effects of Noise Exposure," Journal of Sound
and Vibration 59(l):61-63, 1978.
Stouder, D.J., "Evaluation of Proposed Standards for Aircraft Flyover
Noise Analysis Systems," Journal of Aircraft, August 1977.
Tarnopolsky, A., "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.
(MSA 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).
V.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.
-13-
-------
D. LAND USE
American Society of Planning Officials, Planning the Airport Environ-
ment, Chicago, 1968, (PAS 231).
Arde, Inc., and Town and City, Inc. 3 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 CP 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.j 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.
-14-
-------
Me Arthur, Neil- M., Airport and Community: Five Case Studies of Local
Land Use* Ottawa, Canadian Department of Transport, 2966.
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 Engineers 95(UP1): 73-50
April 1969 3 A.S.C.E. Paper (No. 6520).
Orlick, Steven C., "Airport/Community Environmental Planning," American
Society of Civil Engineers, Transportation Engineering Journal^
104(2):287-99J 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 Graving Airports,"
American City 71:111-12, April 1956.
Roach, 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 Xork, 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., Romans, 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 ff., "Environmental Aspects of Airport Development,"
Airport Forum 7(21:23-20, April 1977.
Transportation Consultants, Inc., Washington, D.C., 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.
-IS-
-------
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. (AC1SO/5050-6).
U.S. Department of Transportation, Planning for the Airport and Its
Environs: The Sea-Tac 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.
Wester, John, "Airport Noise Abatement: How Effective Can It Be?"
Sound and Vibration 9(2), February 1975.
Winger, G. E.3 "Noise Abatement Through Land Use Planning," Journal
of the Acoustics Society of America 58(1), 1975.
-16-
-------
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 1962.
"Airport Noise Cases: Condemnation by Nuisance and Beyond," Wake Forest
Law Review 7:271- , March 1971.
"Airport Noise: Problem in Tort Law and Federalism," Harvard Law Review
74(8):1581-96 (June 19, 1961).
"Airplane Noise, Property Eights, and the Constitution," Columbia Law
Review 65:1428-47, December 1965.
Alekshun, Joseph J., Jr., "Aircraft Noise Law: A Technical Perspective,"
American Bar Association Journal, 55:740-45, August 1969.
Bohannon, Marshall T., "Airport Easements," Virginia Law Review 54:355-
381 (March 1968).
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(12),
December 1974.
Bragdon, C. R., The Status of Noise Control In the United States: 1978,
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
4:132, 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, 5:1093- , Spring 1971.
-17-
-------
Fink, Lowell S., "Canadian Law and Aircraft Noise Disturbance: A Com-
parative Study of American, British, and Canadian Law," McGill
Lou Journal,n:55-69, 1966.
Gatley, W.S. "Noise Control by Legislation: An Engineering Challenge"
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Paper No. 77-RC-16,
Prepared for Annual Meeting, May 16-18, 1977.
Goodwin, John P., "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. 5, No. 2, p. 266-276, 1971.
Hoar, 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.
Eildebrand, James L., ed., Noise Pollution and the Lou, 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., "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.
-18-
-------
Quiet Communities Act of 1978
Richards3 E. J., and Caplan, H., "Control of Aircraft Noise Perceived
at Ground Level: Technical Aspects; Legal Aspects," Royal Aero-
nautical Society Journal 68:45-53, January 1964.
Seago, Erwin, "The Airport Noise Problem and Airport Zoning." tlarijland
Law Review 28:120-155 (Spring 1968).
Shelly3 Stanton, "Developing a Successful Municipal Noise Program,"
Sound and Vibration, December 1978, p. 12-15.
Simmons, P.obert 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, March 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.
-19-
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Panelists
Herman Barnard (C)
President, N.O.I.S.E.
Councilman, City Hall
College Park, GA
Charles Blair (C)
Airport Planning Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Southern Region
Atlanta, GA 30354
Jesse Borthwick (B)
National Association of Noise
Control Officials
P.O. Box 373
Shalimar, FL 32579
Angelo J. Campanella (A)
ACCULAB
3201 Ridgewood Drive
Columbus, OH 43220
Robert Clark (B)
Director, Department of Planning and
Research
City of Kinston
P.O. Box 339
Kinston, NC 28501
Kenneth J. Delino (B)
Manager, Airport Noise Control Programs
System Control, Inc.
1440 6A South State College Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Frank Gammon (C)
Teterboro Aiport
399 Industrial Avenue
Teterboro, NJ 07608
Maurice E. Gosnell (C)
President
Pilots-Lawyers Bar Association
P.O. Box 737
Lawrenceville, IL 62439
Stanley Green (C)
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
Shirley L. Grindle (A)
19051 Glen Aaron Lane
Orange, CA 92669
Lyndall Hughes (D)
Secretary
Real Estate Aviation Chapter
National Association of Realtors
32 N. Main Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Joseph R. Lewis (A)
Executive Director
Town-Village Aircraft Safety and
Noise Abatement Committee
196 Central Avenue
Lawrence, NY 11559
Terrence Love (D)
Professor, School of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Robert L. Miller (B)
Senior Consultant
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
Robert P. Montgomery (C)
State Aviation Administration
P.O. Box 8766
BWI Airport, MD 21240
Steve Schwenk (C)
National Pilots Association
1571 Scheffield Drive
College Park, GA
Jack Swing (A)
Senior Acoustical Engineer
Office of NOISE Control, Room 514
California Department of Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Panelists
Page 2
John M. Tyler (A)
Consultant
N.O.I.S.E.
25 Knob Hill
Glastonbury, CT 06033
James Vernor (D)
Professor of Real Estate
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
Maxwell Walker (D)
Aviation Department
Atlanta International Airport
Atlanta, GA 30320
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
-ROSTER-
Maria Allman
Airport Planner
Robert & Company, Associates
Garrison & Sullivan Road
College Park, GA 30337
Calvin Ashborg
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Ten Pryor Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Randy Barnes
Research Assistant
City Planning
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Selby Bearden
Mayes, Sudderth and Etheredge, Inc.
1775 The Exchange
Atlanta, GA
Judy Beaver
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs,"MD 20910
William A. Beckwith
Director
Aviation Administration Program
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
Howard Bellinger
Executive Director
Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1027
Savannah, GA 31402
Theodore Bergland
Citizens Against Noise
2729 Lunt Avenue
Chicago, IL 60645
Patrick Bienvenu
Landrum & Brown
290 Central Trust Building
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Clifford Bragdon
Graduate City Planning Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
David Braslau
President
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
2829 University Avenue, #342
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Joan Caldwell
364 Riverside Road
Greenwich, CT
Jimmy Cawthorn
Aero-Space Technologist
NASA-Langley Research Center
Noise Effects Branch, Mail Stop 463
Hampton, VA 23665
Robert Chadkis
Vice President
Dytec Engineering, Inc.
2750 East Spring Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
Lloyd B. Chaisson, Jr.
Office of Membership Services
National League of Cities
1620 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Bill Cleary
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs, MD 20910
Walter V. Collins
Noise Abatement Division
Los Angeles Department of Airports
1001 World Way
Los Angeles, CA
Mike Connor
Georgia Department of Transportation
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, GA 30331
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 2
William G. Cornell
Acoustics and Aerodynamics Engineer
General Electric, Aircraft Engine
Group
H-77, General Electric
Cincinnati, OH 45215
Bill Critchfield,
Manager
Torrance Municipal Airport
3115 Airport Drive
Torrance, CA 90505
Julian Diaz, III
International Appraisal and Research
Group, Inc.
2150 Parklake Drive NE
Atlanta, GA 30345
Robert H. Doyle
Peat, Marwich, Mitchell and Company
P.O. Box 8007
San Francisco, CA 94128
Thomas N. Duffy
Director
N.O.I.S.E.
1620 Eye Street
Washington, DC 20006
Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20410
Theodore Elragren
President, Torrance Pilots Association
2927 W. 135th Place
Gardena, CA 90249
Peter Q. Eschweiler
Commissioner of Planning
Westchester County Department of Planning
White Plains, NY 10601
Jeff Fegan
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
1001 International Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30354
States R. Finley, III
Transportation Planner
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
E. Ray Fletcher
Georgia Department of Transportation
5025 New Peachtree Road
Chamblee, GA 30341
Richard Forbes
Georgia State University
Department of Real Estate
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
John C. Ford
Manager Comprehensive Plans
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
Robert G. Frye
Florida Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304
William J. Galloway
Principal Consultant
Bolt Beranak & Newman, Inc.
P.O. Box 633
Canoga Park, CA 91305
Toni D. Gardner
Transportation Planner
Georgia Department of Transportation
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, GA 30336
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 3
Lewis Goodfriend
Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates
Consulting Engineers in Acoustics
Seven Saddle Road
Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927
Ferdinand M. Grosveld
Project Manager, Noise Research Group
University of Kansas, Flight Research Lab
2291 Irving Hill Drive
Lawrence, KS 66045
James H. Hahne
Office of Noise Abatement
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jeff Hamiel
Office of Planning
Twin Cities Airport
Box 1700
St. Paul, MN 55111
Shirley Harris
Airport Engineers, Inc.
Harrison at Sullivan Road
College Park, GA 30337
Dudley S. Hinds
Associate Professor
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Real Estate Department
Atlanta, GA 30303
E. H. Hooper
Structural Dynamics
Beech Aircraft
Wichita, KS
Gordon Jackson
Deputy Regional Manager
R. Dixon Speas & Associates
1001 International Boulevard
Atlanta, GA 30354
John R. Jansen
Environmentalist
Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 Spring Street, Room 702
Atlanta, GA 30303
Richard J. Kleber
Chief, Mission Analysis Branch
NASA-Lewis Research Center
21COO Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH 44135
R. J. Koenig
Environmental Protection Agency
Trans Point Building, ARO 500
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dave Lackey
Urban Engineers, Inc.
Nine N. Rhodes Center, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Helen T. LaVance
Senior Transportation Planner
Atlanta Regional Commission
200 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Bernard Martin
Director of Airport Planning
Robert & Company Associates
96 Poplar Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Michael J. McCarty
Manager, Airport & Environmental Section
National Business Aircraft Association
One Farrasut Square South
Washington, DC 20006
Sam McCullough
Cobb County Planning Department
P.O. Box 649
Marietta, GA 30060
Howard Metcalf
U. S. Department of Defense
Deputy Director
Construction Standards & Design Office
Office of Secretary of Defense
Pentagon, Room 3E763
Washington, DC 20301
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 4
Gordon A. Miller
Deputy Chief
California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics
1120 "N" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Michael J. Moroney
Peat, Marwich & Mitchell and Company
P.O. Box 8007
San Francisco, CA 94128
Michael F. Nechvatal
Environmental Specialist
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2700 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62701
Susan Neugent
Transportation Planner
Georgia Department of Transportation
1988 Tuxedo Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Milton L. Newton
Deputy Executive Director
Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1027
Savannah, GA 31402
Richard W. Procunier
Regional Noise Chief
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jim Reese
Research Assistant
City Planning
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Richard Ross
Director, Ross Aviation Associates
Route 1
Sedgewich, KS 67135
Ted Sandier
Fulton County Planning Department
Atlanta, GA 30303
John C. Schettino
Chief, Technology & Federal Programs
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20410
James F. Scott
Scott Appraisal Service, Inc.
6745 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard
Atlanta, GA
Lucie Searle
Community Liaison
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Logan Airport
East Boston, MA 02128
William M. Schoenfeld
Deputy General Manager
Los Angeles Department of Airport
No. 1, World Way
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Leroy Simpson
Vice President
R. Dixon Speas Associates
Manhasset, Long Island, NY 11030
William C. Sperry (AW 471)
Office of Noise Abatement & Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Steven E. Starley
Airports Program Manager, (ANR-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Patrick J. Steen
Vice President
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Springs, MD 20910
-------
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAND USE PLANNING
October 3-5, 1979
Roster
Page 5
Thurraan M. Thomes
Community Planner
USAF Regional Civil Engineer—Central
Region
Environmental Planning Division
Main Tower Building, 1200 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75202
James K. Thompson
Consultant
ORI, Inc.
2806 South Grant Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Leonard R. Thompson
Senior Land Use Planning
DeKalb County Planning Department
One Callaway Square
Decatur, GA 30030
Marvin Toliver
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Ten Pryor Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tom Ulbricht
Senior Planner
Fulton County Planning Department
165 Central Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30303
John Wesler
Director
Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Lisa H. Wogen
Staff Assistant
National League of Cities
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
ADDENDUM
Thomas Horsch
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
D i
A
James E. Walters
Resource Management Specialist
Grand Canyon National Park, AZ
Richard Weber
NASA-Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH 44135
Eileen Weinstein
Atlanta Bureau of Planning
Ten Pryor Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
86023
-------
Editorial
lljpu nib r«piv*»*d keif aiv Ihcncof Iheauttiui and nut ntio
Mill, icuw rrf ihf Insniulr ul Now Connul Enyniwrmq I
A Case for
Single-Event Intrusion
Criteria in Achieving
Noise-Compatible Land Use
In the lasi few years, the acoustics com-
munity has made great stndes towards
adoption of a single composite mctnc of
noise source emissions the day-night
sound level (LrtJ These efforts, largely
through the support of the US Environmen
tal Protection Agency, nave led to rather
refined transportation noise prediction
models for aif:af' operations, highways
and freeways find railroad operations Al-
though the quantification of a source's ' av-
erage day' noise emission in terms of LAn
can provide a useful oasis for establishing
noibe-compntibl'i.' und use guidelines, there
is a clear .-,ccd for supplemental information
on the intrusive charactcnsrtcs of a particu-
lar noise source if the actual impact on
people s lifestyles is to be recognized This
supplemental information must include
identification of the maximum A-weightcd
levels of frequently occunnq single events
(that is truck pas*-bus aircraft flyovers
train u-histles. and so <->n) for both day and
nighttime pcnods because, specifically it is
lh«« single-event intrusions that disrupt class-
roonib. interfere with speech, and
awaken people at night
To assess the relative intrusiveness of
single events, such factors as the ambient
noise environment and the nature of the
proposed land use (with particular empha-
sis on the degree of outdoor space utiliza-
tion that is planned) should be considered
De-term1 nation of whether a given land use
will be compatible with its noise environ-
ment must obviously take in many factors
which are not adequately descnbed by a
single L,,n value With increasing pressure
for new residential developments adminis-
trators cannot simply take a safe, conserva-
tive approach £nd restnct residential use to
areas where exposure is less than Lrtn 55. 01
60. 01 6!>. or in some cases. Ldn 70 dB1
In California an additional problem with
the use of /..,„ for land use controls exists
'Actually California uses the Community
Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL. which gen-
erally equals Lrtn ± 1 dB ) California law
restricts residential development around
airports above L,,,, 65 and imposes other
limitations for developments adjacent to
freeways railroads and other noise sources
where noise intrusion exceeds L,,,, 60 The
problem that arise:, is that from a legal
standpoint, a noise contour is considered to
ix' a clear-cut line of demarcation perma-
nenllv etched on a mop In some cases.
interpretation of noise contours has been
earned to the extreme of allowing building
on one side of a street and not on the other
buch interpretations fail to consider the in-
herent inaccuracies in noise prediction and
the daily and seasonal vanations in noise
source activity Hence, it is necessary to
think of an Lrtn value as reflective of a band
of noise on the order of i 5 dB of tlie
nominal predicted (or monitored) value
The achievement of highly accurate noise
contours, though desirable fiom a legal
viewpoint does Imle to resolve the funda-
mental question 'How will noise impact the
lifestyles of future residents7
The need for inclusion of single-event
cntena in achieving noise-compatible land
use is illustrated by the following two exam-
ples of noise environments of vastly differ-
ing charactenstics
Noise emission values 50 rn from a busy
freeway have been monitored at 70 L,i,,
The charactenstics of the freeway noise may
be generally descnbcd as a dull roar at an
almost constant level of 70 dB(A) over most
of the day. although truck pass-bys occa-
sionally register 75 to 80 dB(A) At nigh:
levels typically drop 5 to 10 dB(A) Now
contrast the freeway with a site 4000 m from
touchdown at a military airbase The L,,n
value is again in the range of 65 to 70 dB.
however, in this case, there are extended
penods when aircraft noise is not audible
and the background level falls to 40 to 50
dB(A) When aircraft flyovers occur they
produce levels of 85 to 100 dB(A) for dura-
tions of 20 to 30 seconds These flyovers
sometimes continue uninterrupted for
penods of one or two hours dunng d?y or
night, and then activity ceases for several
hours
Clearly, the noisier single-event intru-
sions in the second example will affect
nearby residents more severely than in the
first example What is suggested here is that
acoustical consultants and land use plan-
ners recognize the significance of single-
event intrusions and require that building
designs accommodate them The following
dwelling interior noise level performance
standards have been proposed at selected
sites in California, m an effort to yield inte-
rior living spaces suitable for their intended
purposes By imposing acoustic perform-
ance standards such as these, the need for
precise contour location may be greatly re-
laxed
For any new dwelling located m area*
exposed to noise emission in excess of Lrtn
65. mtenor noise levels in any habitable
room must be less than or equal to Ldn 45
dB and maximum (typically occurring)
single-event intrusions (Lm.,x) inside the
dwelling shall further be limited in the fol-
lowing way
Sleeping areas 50 dB(A) — anytime
Other living areas 60 dB(A) — daytime
55 dB(A) — nighttime
Often neglected however are provisions
for noise level reduction outdoors The
common practice is to beef up outdoor-to-
indoor noise insulation in residences,
thereby supposedly yielding them compati-
ble with high noise environments Ethically,
we cannot expect people to live in "bomb
shelters There is a need, especially in
single-family residential developments with
small children, to provide outside living
areas free from excessive noise exposure
Such a requirement would necessitate, in
the case of an aircraft overflight situation.
some rather innovative architectural con-
siderations Ground level noise sources
present much less of a design challenge —
but one that is often overlooked nonethe-
less A performance standard which limits
maximum noise levels in certain well-
defined outdoor living areas to, say, 70 to
75 dB(A) would do much to improve the
quality of living for those affected That a
clear need for such outdoor area noise in-
trusion standards exists is demonstrated by
the fact that in southern California, both
commercial and milit?rv airports report sig-
nificantly greater numbers of noise com-
plaints Junng penods of pleasant outdoor
weather, particularly dunng the evening
time period (1900 to 2200 hours).
The final critical element m utilizing
single-event noise levels is that such infor-
mation be provided to the prospective pur-
chaser m layman s terms wh.ch relate these
levels to their potential impart on botn in-
door and outdoor activities A prospective
purchaser of a home near an airport or a
freeway would then be advised in advance
that noise levels would possibly interfere
with speech or that sleep may be impaired,
and so on The obicct of this would be to
allow people to make an informed decision
regarding the significance of noise impacts
upon their lifestyles and to choose resi-
dences according!v It is time to establish the
degree of acceptability of various sites in
terms of specific cntena which relate to
people s activities rather than in terms of
iibstrrul composite rnelncs which strive to
lump nil factors together for the conveni
ence of lawyers, but ignore their intended
purpose
JOHNW SWING
Member
Editorial Board
Noise Control Engineering
NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING / Novcmbn-Dcccmbcr l«7»
-------
CONFERENCE
REIMBURSEMENT
VOUCHER
Name:
Title:
Organization:
City:
Telepho
S.S. #
ne:
State Zip
CONFERENCE TITLE: General Aviation Airport Noise and Land use Planning
LOCATION: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia DATE: October 3-5, 1 979
TRAVEL STATUS FR°M P°'NT °F DEPAR™E
DURATION DATE , , T|ME
DATE (MONTH/DAY)
COMMERCIAL CARRIER
(COACH)
TAXI/LIMOUSINE
PRIVATE AUTO
RENTAL CAR
MEALS
LODGING — Sheraton
Atlanta
OTHER
SUN
, , .
MON
TUE
OCT.2
TO POINT OF RETURN
DATE / / TIME
WED
OCT. 3
THURS
OCT. 4
FRI
OCT 5
SAT
OCT 6
EXPLANATION:
DATE:
COMMENTS
TOTAL
REIMBURSE-
MENT DUE
AMOUNT
SIGNATURE:
Address to which reimbursement check is to be sent, if different from above
Date:
.Signature:
-------
H"EFY.f,E
Y TRAINING OPERATIONS TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REPORT 255
MON
TUE
NED
TH'i
FPI
'r.HT
SUN
BEFORE ADOPTION 0- ORDINANCE 2784 NOUEMBER 25
JHN FEB MAP nPK MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
566 567 626 641 693 599 469
660 677 850 742 66© 488
802 614 843 563 698 6^5
797 606 751 710 748 588
<*03 574 778 725 641 573
736 516 794 624 444 S47
•511
593
556
464
4471
596
545
464
573
703
F.-43
.
-3 670 625 698 775 760 462 544 510
1977
NOV AUG
452 510
635 647
506 620
593 638
701 631
66©
627
13.0
14.7
14.1
14.5
14.4
15.0
14.3
1?77
BEFORE ENFORCEMENT OF .ORDINANCE 2784
MON
TUE
NED
FHU
FT I
8 DEC JHN
23? 255
196 396
:T6 459
514
251
207
FEB MnP APR MAY JUN JUL
578 645 609 662 654 793
358 530 ^25 646 671 741
458 785 714 781 678
489 332 414 ((586
4^1 161 669
396 696 459
451 452
703 353
731 729 838
606
48V
OCTOBER
AUG SEP OCT
693 636 615
743 583 601
705 68© 655
578 722 527
753 654 385
684 546 325
611 459 382
20 1978
AUG *
580 14.7
533 13.5
618 15.6
691 15.0
593 15.0
341 13.7
486 12.3
AFTEP ENFOPCEMEi
FEB
19
1979 NOU DEL JAM
MON
TUE
WED
THL.1
FP!
ShT
•-JJM 653 482
475
478
643
'< 17
543
705
681
337
336
534
463
664
563
OF URPINHHCE
P APF MM'.'
76i 561
708
809 802
839 766
706 654
648 413
550 644
2784 OCTOBER 20 1978
JUN JUL AUG SEP AUG
528 547 685
657 610 833
719 701 759
687 634 821
684 644 '?B
544 587 £39
521 507 553
534 12.6
597 14.1
686 16.2
654 15.5
623 14.7
578 13.7
556 13.2
-------
ANNLlHL OPERATIONS TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
YEHR 1566 1967 1968 1365 197© 1971 1972
REPORT 252
1973 1974
JHN
FEE
rinp
HP*1
MM ,'
JUN
NIL
HU'l
Ori
DEC
TOTHL
VEHP
FEB
HPP
MM'.'
JUN
JUL
HUG
SEP
OCT
MO';
DEC
23074
23619
':-.iY-:4
2S289
36194
24500
33098
29561
til i 'a* 1 C'
26054
336626
1975
31740
27080
31315
35798
33444
31824
38889
38431
37360
35696
35660
33611
23401
29705
"33671
30819
32555
36689
38605
7-0469
27535
28292
27735
371754
1976
33837
PO(P|"7IH|
38782
39971
41904
41043
38530
40956
30117
33024
31314
36529
29515
28171.
3^17?
4022C
39799
35956
39341
43336
37434
29847
34836
30437
«»WP
23720
30820
39580
38942
34897
36381
37161
35613
28741
35257
34107
25260
400479
1973
26060
261338
32042
3*939
40076
39476
42613
46184
35815
2&&5$
3373*)
rjjj*45#
26972
33145
36111
37491
41163
35823
39540
38883
31895
33039
27514
30784
412365
1579
28512°
23872.
3S513°
3366?
36389
34*81
35780
38907
27521
27607
30992
31395
35235
34187
34237
34149
31459
28471
22687
24289
362229
1980
23579
25196
26772
36487
36673
32030
37742
40915
33124
32685
30869
31964
39P036
1981
30051
28692
38180
38£77
39169
37Q12
39413
30748
35665
35317
32947
33843
427655
1982
24719
34344
35311
38587
39549
38829
40071
39142
29787
36182
33954
30616
421091
AUERAGE
24733
28886
33921
36804
37012
35209
•XH M V ^% ^B
j8t>29
«M^K «K M^ JM
372 .'t>
^^~*»*%a^W™" °
3^.086
•2T>1 1 Q
Oc.1 1-?
r^f^r** + *^
29513
TOTAL 410848 439146 412Sj| ?4f4288
398585
-------
FRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REPORT 253
3 4°, 4 4 o3° 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
P2Q16922131 1
180226710921
714320668192
527623594418
479596518 6. 48
70
69 XX
XX XX
XX
XX XX
; xx xx
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
XX8 XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX °XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
73
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
'X
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
xxr- xx
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX
LI. I « IJ
r i - -
-------
TUB
WED
THM
FPI
';.HT
;E DHlLV TOTAL QP£R#£i8NS TQRRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT &1P.JR1 '6 1529 1358
•524 1065 1514 1148 1266 146? 1469 1393 1451
558 1117 912 1217 14S4 1229 1364 1235 1367
AFTER ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINwHCE 2784 CT&G)
NOU DEC JHM FEE: MAP APR -MAY JUN JUL
827 6*6 650 814.1078 1167 It 15 916 1001
901 921 62-: 1090 807 11?3 1202 1145 1077
1W56 1097 3yl 991 1112 1435 1326 1216 1275
10Q8 1209 792 939 1015 1466 1244 1249 1169
1272 1033 910 743 1137 1324 1191 1242 1137
1299 1264 1567 1407 1363 1465 965 1218 1306
1456 1026 1026 1185 1489 1317 1£37 1092 1169
1 0 f 1 4 C&~*
1* £> .* •«• « > »» t*H * •
J*«fc'^W- 1 H A* '
11 '36 1096
1316 ass
1252 740
1282 757
1141 895
OCTOBER 20
AUG 8~P
1179
1329
1364
1368
1343
1183
1026
1092
1682
11 IV
12il'l
1137
!978
" 942
1028
1 A '63
1154
1133
1428
1202
; -3 -7
14~.2
14.1
14.5
IF, q
14.8
B .
-•'a,
11.7
12.7
14.6
14.4
14.0
17.7
14.9
-------
IONS TQRRfltySE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
ORDINANCE 2784 NOVEMBER 25 1977
JUN JUL AUG ' SEP OCT NOU AUG %
101? 1183 1207 1226 1121 853 945 1042 12.6
1088 1140 1466 1246 1109 887 1166 1115 13.5
••31£ 1652 1487 1031 1225 1832 1227 1106 13.4
-T.T • ?99fl 1372 1263 1237 5KJ39 1015 1118 13.6
1395 i*37 i407 1347 1156 12*3 1310 1JS5 14.0
i324 1105 1576 1390 1068 122- 1361 1382 16.8
:i!73 1437 1510 1222 1273 1.4. >238 1333 16.1
2784 '.:T&G> OCTOBER'^© 1978
i.JML A!J^ '-TP OCT AUG "4
- '.v.i use i3L:j 125-;- iiii .
-•-'" A"'IL: 1234 13^.^ 129e; 982 1037 984 12.8
:. ;.:.:DX:^Ct: 2784 OCTOBER 20 1978
AP^ wiv JUN JUL AUG SEP AUG •-=
'Js 11^.7 1115 916 1801 1170 942 11.7
v i!83 1202 1145 1077 1329 1028 12.7
k W5 1326 1216 1275 1304 1180 14.6
1S44 1249 1169 1368 1154 14.4
3^X- 13.91 1242 1137 1343 1133 14.0
435 9«5 1218 1396 1183 1428 17.7
:i = > 123? 1892 1169 1026 1202 14.9
------- |