inference on General Aviation
Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
Volume II Prepared Papers
October 3-5, 1979
Georgia Institute of Technology
Prepared Under Contract G8-01-5040
For Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse hcfnre compktinx)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-80-320
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and
Land Use Planning Vol. II. Prepared Papers
5. REPORT DATE
Approved February 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
Edited by Clifford R. Bragdon
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 68-01-5161
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 3-5 October 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ONAC ANR-471
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report constitutes the proceedings of the three day conference on general
aviation airport noise and land use planning. Included are advance copies of
the speakers' presentations that were available at the conference, a summary of
each of the five panels, a noise bibliography, and a transcription of all
discussions including audience participation.
The conference was unique in the sense that a diverse group of individuals were
invited to attend representing the wide range of constituents of general aviation,
They were encouraged to participate by expressing their interests and views and
to interact with each other. Because of the novel aspects of the conference and
the fact that there is no comparable information available elsewhere, it was
determined to reproduce all discussions as accurately as possible. It is
anticipated that other conferences of this nature will be held and that this
report will provide valuable background and reference information.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Ficid/Group
Aircraft Noise, Airport Noise, Aviation
Noise, Avigation Easement, Community
Response, FAR Part 36, General Aviation,
Joint Use Airports, Land Use Planning,
Noise Abatement Flight Procedures, Noise
Compatible Land Use, Noise Impact, Zoning.
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA 550/9-80-320
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT
NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING
VOLUME II PREPARED PAPERS
3-5 October 1979
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Under Contract No. 68-01-5161
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this report reflect the
views of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data
presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
INTRODUCTION iv
CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS v
OPENING REMARKS 1
Charles L. Elkins
AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL MATRIX 15
Clifford R. Bragdon
Noise Control Strategy; Land Use Planning;
Dec is ion-Matrix Technique; Preventive Measures;
Party Involvement
GENERAL AVIATION IN THE UNITED STATES: PAST, PRESENT
AND FUTURE 53
John E. Wesler
Civil Aircraft; Aviation Noise-Abatement; Noise
Standards; Airport-Proprietor Responsibility;
Air Traffic Restrictions
A STATE PERSPECTIVE ON GENERAL AVIATION AND PLANNING 63
Lucie G. Searle
Aircraft Noise; Source Control; Airport
Operating Procedures; Compatible Land Use;
State-Level Effort
THE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY 75
Bill Galloway
THE IMPACT OF GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ON A LOCAL ECONOMY 85
Michael J. McCarty
Business Aircraft; Airport Benefits;
Economic Impact; Community Development
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
THE WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT ........................ 95
Joan E. Caldwell
Aircraft Noise Complaint; Legal Action; Airport-
Community Negotiation; Noise Sensitive Airport
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ........................ 103
Lewis S. Goodfriend
Noise-Problem Identification; Remediation;
Community Response; Noise-Impact Control System
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL
AVIATION ACTIVITY-A CASE STUDY ...................... 113
W. J. Critchfield
Airport Master-Plan; Land Development;
Land-Use Restriction; Avigation Easements;
Sound-Insulated Construction
PREVENTIVE MEASURES: WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT, NEW YORK ........ 123
Peter Q. Eschweiler
Town-County Cooperation; Land-Use Study;
Airport Policy Board; Noise Abatement Plan
THE ROLE OF AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS IN ALLEVIATING GENERAL
AVIATION NOISE .............................. 131
Stanley J. Green
General Aviation Growth; Regulations; Engine
Design; Propeller Noise; Pilot Handbook;
Airplane Certification
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY ON AIR INSTALLATIONS
COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
Howard L. Metcalf
Defense Noise Policy; Noise Descriptors;
Public Awareness; Zoning Regulations;
Clear-Zone Increase
-------
FOREWORD
This volume, Volume II, of the report on the Conference on General
Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning at Georgia Institute of
Technology, October 3, 4, and 5, 1979, includes the 12 prepared papers which
were presented at the conference.
Volume I presents summaries of panel discussions held at the
conference. Verbatum transcripts of the panel discussions are contained in
Volume III together with a glossary of some of the terms used in the
discussions.
The verbal presentations at the conference differed in content and
format from these prepared papers and there was general discussion of each
subject after the verbal presentation.
Sponsored by the EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, the
conference was conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology, College of
Architecture, Department of City Planning, Atlanta, Georgia.
The conference attendees were encouraged to participate in a variety
of ways. Five panels were conducted during the three-day conference. Each
panel consisted of speakers addressing different topics as well as persons
with particular interests in the topic area. These persons interacted with
the speakers in a panel format. Audience participation was encouraged during
each panel session.
These proceedings include advance copies of the speaker's
presentation that were available at the conference, a summary of each of the
five panels, a glossary, and a transcription of the three-day conference. The
transcript includes the speakers' presentations, the panelists' discussions
and the audiences' questions and remarks. In some cases, the speakers'
presentations differed significantly from their advance copies.
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
The theme of this conference was General Aviation Airport Noise and
Land Use Planning. General aviation (GA) and its network of airports
represents the second largest transportation system in the United States,
approximately 14,000 airports and 190,000 aircraft.
The purpose of this conference was to examine the development of
general aviation airports in relationship to land use planning with four
purposes in mind:
1. Identify the status of general aviation activity at present and
in the future.
2. Assess the degree to which general aviation may be a noise
source.
3. Outline the existing and proposed methods for minimizing general
aviation noise.
4. Determine what methods or controls, if any, are necessary to
improve the off-airport acoustical environment in the future.
This conference for the first time brought together representatives
from a relatively complete group of constituencies or role players having
important, though in some cases unidentified, influences in the aircraft noise
land use control area. The speakers and panelists participating in the
conference included:
13 representatives from noise regulatory authorities; 3 Federal, 5
State and 5 local
13 land use planners working on aircraft noise/land use
compatibility; 2 Federal, 1 State, 3 local and 7 private professional
planners
7 citizen organizations concerned with aircraft noise/land use
compatibility; 2 national, 5 local
5 aircraft industry organizations; 4 national and 1 local
7 organizations representing those interested in land development
near airports, including 4 involved in real estate transactions, 1
brokerage firm and 2 real estate appraisers.
The presentations and discussions were noteworthy for their openness
and frankness and the general lack of propaganda or defensive positions.
Participants were primarily interested in educating other participants as to
the way the system works in their particular field. The result was an
educational process highly beneficial to all parties involved.
-------
CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
This conference on General Aviation Airport Planning and Noise
Control brought together experts from several professions which have direct
impact on these problems. Many of these experts were amazed to find the lack
of understanding which exists among otherprofessionals who also work on this
problem.
As a result of this conference there appear to be several overall
findings generated from the speaker presentations, panelists, and conference
discussions.
1- Information Exchange - A strong interest exists in the sharing
of airport planning information and experiences which up until now has been
either unknown or inaccessible. Many of these participants found they had
similar situations and the sharing of information provided the opportunity to
begin solving their problems. Education is a basic means by which such an
exchange can be achieved.
2. Levels and Descriptors of Noise - General aviation airports are
diverse in nature; consequently, there is concern that the aircraft noise
descriptors developed for air carrier airports may not be appropriate for
general aviation airports. Collectively, general aviation involves a wide
ranging number of aircraft types, operations and off-airport land uses. It
appears therefore that the present noise descriptors and noise thresholds may
not be appropriate in all circumstances.
3. Federal Involvement - The FAA has not consistently addressed the
needs of general aviation airports and their planning. Commercial air carrier
airports have been the central focus of FAA attention; consequently, changes
are necessary to preserve the integrity of general aviation airports and the
adjacent airport communities. The roles of all federal agencies in achieving
this objective need to be evaluated, particularly, EPA and DOT-FAA.
4. Private Sector Planning - The conference was most effective in
identifying what the public sector is doing to address airport noise and land
-------
use. However, the private sector at least equally influences decisions
relative to off-airport planning. These areas of activity need further
detailing including determining mechanisms by which they may work more in
concert with the overall objectives of the airport plan. Without their
participation and cooperation solutions to present land use problems will not
be achieved, and the efforts of the private sector can be counterproductive.
5. Non-Regulatory Incentive - Certain aspects of regulation remain
vital to protecting the public's interest. This protection involves the
infrastructure including airport facilities as well as our housing stock.
Most protection efforts have involved the regulatory process. Non-regulatory
incentives need to be explored to address airport noise planning solutions in
a comprehensive manner.
6. JjT^rrect Impacts - The concern for aircraft noise and associated
land use cannot be examined in a vacuum. There are other factors beyond noise
abatement influencing the operation of airports. This conference identified
some of these factors. For example, the relationship of energy conservation
to noise control must be examined.
RECOMMENDATIONS
These overall summary remarks suggest several future courses of
action. The following are basic recommendations that would provide
constructive direction to the problem of airport planning with respect to
noise.
1. Airport Land Use Clearinghouse - Currently there is no existing
data base that summarizes in a descriptive manner effective ways to implement
an airport plan at the local level. A comprehensive data base of land
use-related planning techniques need to be developed. The identification and
cataloging of such techniques should be assembled and made available to all
potential users. A clearinghouse for land use techniques would become a
repository for state-of-the-art experiences.
The information would cover several planning areas as delineated
below:
A. Land Use
1. Comprehensive plan
2. Zoning
3. Building code
4. Site design/plat review
5. Subdivision regulations
6. Truth in sales - real estate declarations
7. Other
B. Public Education
1. Citizen participation processes-public hearings
2. Other
viii
-------
C. Financial
1. Capital improvement programming
2. A-95 review
3. Taxation
4. Construction and mortage financing
5. Market analysis
6. Appraising
7. Other
2. Centers of Aviation Planning - There is a need for technical
assistance to governmental jurisdictions in airport planning with respect to
noise. Currently such efforts at best are disjointed. Such Centers could
have several functions:
A. Prepare the clearinghouse information on land use planning (as
previously described)
B. Develop and coordinate workshops and conferences on airport
planning/noise themes
C. Prepare and disseminate instructional materials
0. Establish a cooperative internship/work study program for
municipalities requesting services
E. Undertake applied studies/research as requested.
These centers should be associated with universities. It would be
imperative that such universities have a potential outreach program with a
recognized graduate urban planning curriculum including a transportation
emphasis.
3. Airport Planning Conferences - There is a need to pursue this
subject further using a conference format. Considerable benefit results from
the meeting of role players, involved in this area which cannot be obtained
through a clearinghouse format. Such a conference to be successful in the
future should be designed to accomplish specified objectives.
A. The following conference topics are suggested by the questions
askpd and the discussions at this conference. These conferences
could consider both air carrier and general aviation airports,
perhaps with the two groups at the same conference.
1. Basis for Airport Noise/Land Use Planning.
This would include a review of materials and guidelines
developed by EPA, FAA, HUD and others together with sources
for funding through various government programs.
2. Airport Noise/Land Use Planning for the Future
This would include a review of predicted aircraft noise in
the future and possible long range land use plans using
IX
-------
various scenarios with discussions of the desirability and
possibility of implementing selected scenarios.
3. Implementing Airport Noise/Land Use Plans.
This would involve studies of programs for educating the
local residents and politicians regarding the need for
planning and a review of programs which have been adopted
and implemented.
4. Controlling Airport Noise and Land Use.
This conference could consider aircraft noise regulations,
federal, state and local, and land use controls and funding
for land use change, federal, state and local. Such a
conference could have as an objective the development of
proposed legislation to improve the means for achieving
airport noise/land use compatibility.
B. The following is a list of topics, some of which should be
included in each of the proposed conferences.
1. Effectiveness of Land Use Planning Controls - Specific
discussion and case study examples focusing on individual
land use elements.
2. General-Aviation Airport Impact - An objective evaluation
of the scale of the problem in terms of aircraft types,
airports and land use impact.
3. Noise Descriptors - Relevance of present descriptors to
adequately assess general aviation airports and off-airport
impact.
4. Regulatory Process - Examination of the present Federal
regulatory process as a means to minimize the problem of
general aviation noise.
5. Public Participatory Process - The role of communities,
neighborhoods and the general public in working to resolve
airport noise related problems through the planning
process. Included would be a discussion of various formal
and informal structures presently in use.
6. Educational Media Programs - An evaluation of effective
ways to communicate technical information to non-technical
audiences in this subject area using case example.
7. Guidelines for Establishing Effective Airport Noise and
Land Use Planning Program - Identify the universal
components of an effective plan for abating noise through
the land use planning process. Develop this into a model
type set of guidelines for use by different types of
communities.
-------
8. Airport Noise Impacts - Identify these impacts in terms of
general health parameters covering physical, emotional and
social well-being effects on a quantitative basis.
9. Cost-Benefit Analysis - Develop a method by which all costs
and benefits of general aviation are examined.
10. Effectiveness of Non-Regulatory Controls - The use of
public and private sector incentives to minimize airport
and land use impact.
4. Continuing Education - Based upon the general resolution of some
of the themes, identified through the conference process, a continuing
education/short course program should be developed. Such an effort should be
aimed at getting essential materials into the hands of local governmental
agencies responsible for aviation planning. Supportive educational materials
need to be developed and disseminated concurrently with these continuing
education programs. Various formats for offering these programs need to be
considered.
-------
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 Fe.ieral 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 seened 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 tha 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 fleer. We have made a
number of regulatory proposals to the FAA and have been actively involved
in the promotion and implementation of noise abatement planning at the
Nation's commercial air carrier airports. Significant progress has been
made in this area. But, of course, much still remains to be done.
-------
The 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.
Me have been impressed with the difficulty in the atr carrier area
of trying to control aviation noise in a situation where the problem is
already severe and the order of the day is abatement and retrofit rather
than prevention. One needs only to read the newspapers to realize that
noise has become a real albatross around the neck of the commercial air
transportation system and a major public nuisance for neighborhoods around
most of our major airports. The noise problem from general aviation is
clearly not this acute, and yet the rapid growth projected for the
future for general aviation raises the question whether preventative
steps are needed now in order to avoid serious political and economic
constraints on the growth of this valuable part of the Nation's air
transportation system.
By its very nature, prevention of a future noise problem at general
aviation airports would involve many actors, not just the Federal Government.
In fact, the major burden for prevention would most probably fall on the
private sector and States and localities. Those who would expect the
Federal Government to solve this problem would not be, in my view, very
good students of contemporary political science. Thus, although we in
-------
EPA have taken the initiative to call this conference, and we want to
see what role we might play in this area, the focus of this conference
must be much broader: If a preventative program is needed, what
mutually supportive roles might a whole variety of parties take in
this effort? We in EPA are prepared within the limits of our statutory
authority to draft regulations for consideration by FAA in this area,
to give financial assistance under the new Quiet Communities Act to
local communities and States for airport noise abatement planning, and to
continue to help to bring together interested parties for discussion and
possible agreement on appropriate courses of action. Deciding whether
or not EPA plays such a.role, however, is less important for this
Conference than identifying whether or not noise from general aviation
is a problem today or potential problem for the future and laying out
what actions might be appropriate to minimize this problem.
HEALTH AND WELFARE
Any assessment of the potential seriousness of the general aviation
noise problem must begin, we believe, with an assessment of the effects
of noise on people. It is always surprising, ! 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 oad for his health, he knew the difference
-------
between sound and noise, and he knew he didn't like the noise. Noise is
the one pollutant for which nature gave us built-in monitors. In addition,
the fear of a loud noise is one of two fears we are born with, and our
bodies still react to a loud noise even though we may consciously think
we're ignoring it.
This natural aversion to noise has been borne out by subsequent
scientific research. Our automatic response to noise has turned out to
be quite sensible, but for far more subtle reasons than we originally
suspected:
Most of us today are, of course, aware of the impact of noise on
our hearing. Millions of Americans today have severe hearing losses
because of their exposure to noise. What is perhaps not known by most
Americans, however, is that people risk losing their hearing in the
presence of much lower exposure levels than they would ever suspect are
hazardous. On the basis of the latest scientific evidence, we in EPA
have established an average level of 70 decibels over a 24-hour period
as the level necessary to protect the public from significant adverse
effects on their hearing, with an adequate margin of safety. Those who
are exposed to higher levels than this for 40 or irore 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 cur
major airports.
Of course, noise control ordinances across the country and lawsuits
against airport proprietors today are based not so much on a concern for
hearing loss on the part of the public, but on something more fundamental:
people just do not like noise. It is hard to find words to characterize
this aversion to noise. The traditional word of art used by the scientific
5
-------
community is "annoyance," but generally we all use the word "annoyance"
to signify something which is not very serious. Those of you who have
dealt with angry citizens around airports know that they certainly do
not regard aviation noise as some insignificant irritant in their
lives, so the word annoyance is certainly a misnomer. As the scientific
community has tried to quantify this type of reaction, they have searched
for an understanding of its causes. They have found, as you would
expect, that environmental noise interferes w»"th 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 en an even -nora 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. iNoise 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 oy our
conscious minds. This probably stams 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 s»e?n 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 steins 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 make pronouncements that airport expansion is for
the public good and that private individuals must give up their property
rights and suffer in order that others might fly or otherwise have the
convenience of the airport.
-------
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 Ur.ited
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 dviation aircraft
during this period will increase from 185..,000 to over 240, XO aircraft
in the same time period.
8
-------
Most of the country's attention to airport noise has been focused
on about TOO 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 faring the number of people exposed to these
high levels of noise down over the next several years, with the greatest
benefit occurring sometime around the year 1985 when the retrofit/
replacement rule will be fully implemented. Unfortunately, because of
the growth in the size of the commercial aircraft fleet and increased
operations, we can expect the number of people exposed to start going
back up significantly after that date. Consequently, we in EPA are
actively encouraging further steps to reduce exposure to commercial
aviation noise around our Nation's airports.
We know very little about the noise problem at the rest of these
13,000 or so airports which serve the general aviation fleet. We also
know very little about the contribution of general aviation to the noise
problem at our major air carrier airports. We are undertaking studies
at the present time to predict the noise exposure from these aircraft
both now and in the future, but the universe of aircraft and airports
are so large that it will be sometime before we have a fully comprehensive
national view of the scope of the problem. Surely, general aviation
noise is a problem at some airports, but we at EPA have no pre-conceived
ideas about the severity of general aviation noise and to what extent it
may or may not be a national proolem. We cannot look at just the aircraft
or their operations; we must consider the airport community as well. If
-------
land use near the airport has evolved w.sely, there may be little or no
disturbance for the community. On the other hand, ambient noise levels
in communities surrounding general aviation airports may be significantly
lower than around our major commercial air carrier airports. Thus,
general aviation noise may be more intrusive for people living around
the airport because it occurs against such a low ambient noise level.
Consequently, the fact that general aviation aircraft are quieter than
commercial jets is no reason for complacency. Thus, the possible loise
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 che 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 ?uch a control program
is very difficult, particularly when large investments have already been
made on the basis of the status quo. That is why working on the general
10
-------
aviation noise problem before it becomes a national crisis is attractive.
Prevention is usually much cheaper and much easier to bring about politically
than retrofit and abatement. Instead of making investments obsolete as
we must do in some cases in the commercial aviation area, a preventative
program might be able to focus future investments with little additional
costs involved.
When people talk about quieting any aviation problem, they usually
think first about abating the source of the noise, which in this case
are the general aviation aircraft themselves. Some steps have already
been taken by the aircraft industry to produce quieter aircraft. For
instance, it is no longer possible to talk about "quiet" propeller
aircraft and "noisy" jets. Some of our new jet aircraft today are
quieter than propeller aircraft, and hopefully, quieter operation is the
trend of the future for both types of aircraft. NASA is conducting
research with assistance from EPA and FAA to develop quieter propeller
driven and jet powered general aviation aircraft. We are hopeful that
some technological advances, if only small ones, will result. Of course,
there is no automatic link up between technological improvements in the
laboratory and the incorporation of such improvements in'the aircraft of
the future. One of the very difficult policy questions for any person
in a Federal regulatory agency such as EPA or FAA is the extent to which
the manufacturers can be expected to aggressively move ahead to incorporate
new technology and to develop new technology of their own instead of
waiting to be forced to do so through some type of government regulation.
11
-------
Quieting the source of the noise has proven to be in and of itself
insufficient to solve the commercial aircraft noise problem and may well
prove to be so in the general aviation area as well. Ways in which the
aircraft are flown and the way in which airports are developed and
expanded can have a major influence over the amount of noise exposure in
the neighborhoods surrounding general aviation airports. New takeoff
procedures incorporated now in an FAA advisory circular will provide
considerable relief to airport communities surrounding air carrier
airports in the future if the circular is complied with by the air
carriers. Similar improvements in takeoff or landing procedures might
provide some relief from general aviation aircraft also.
And then there is land use control. This country has been notoriously
unsuccessful in controlling the land use around airports in the past.
Even an airport as modern and advanced as Dallas/Ft. Worth is now beginning
to suffer from encroachment by residential neighborhoods. Communities
that once vowed that they would hold fast to decisions to ban incompatible
land uses are now caving in to the economic pressures to allow residential
development in areas impacted by the airport noise. Thus, we can expect
that even our airports which are built out in the countryside will soon
be subject to lawsuits by citizens who are outraged by the increasing
noise coining 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
conmerical airports but where the need in the future may be just as great.
12
-------
We have in the audience for this Conference people who can give us
a good perspective on the potential for these various means of dealing
with general aviation. We have here representatives from Federal, State
and local governments, from the aviation industry, airport operators,
aircraft operators, aircraft manufacturers, representatives of environmentally
concerned groups, neighborhood representatives, leaders of the real
estate and lending institutions of our country, and spokesmen of the air
carrier airports and military airports. Many of these groups have
already had unique experiences in dealing with general aviation airport
noise. Some have been involved in the adoption of regulations concerning
general aviation airport usage. Some have seen these regulations
struck down or are now involved in litigation concerning aviation regulations.
All of us would like to share in each other's experiences. From this
exchange, I hope there will be a mutual benefit. Speaking for EPA, we
hope to gain added insight into ways in which all of us can work together
in the years to come to deal with this problem.
So, I urge all of you to make your views heard. Is there a general
aviation problem today or will there be one in the future and if so,
what is its extent. Are there ways of controlling this noise in the
future and how effective would each of these methods be? What actions
need to be taken by some or all of us to bring about these solutions?
In order to make this Conference a working Conference and not just a set
of lectures, we restricted the total number of participants. In many cases,
you may be the only person at the Conference with a particular perspective.
So please take an active role in these discussions. Express your views so
that they may affect the conclusion of the Conference and thereby the
policies and actions of all of us in the future. We in EPA look forward to
working with all of you during the next three days,
13
-------
60 CNEL DECREASE
55 CNEL DECREASE
55 CNEL INCREASE
, <^ ; > 155 CNEL INCREA
v ^£' j
;^.~-f\;*x^:
^ j i x|; %
\ w >
*>
W*A --
*> ^*
^&fii
'VV , W v
\VV
iipONl * Y-.
- \
. A «*-K
K
, "
%\ '/"©«« |
--.^ v -,,:. > ; />v ::S
r- -« */
; >» ,"-- ^ "'"sBftv >. -£
-VX^ S v. " 'i ^P * ""~Va. "'!.,'
^ ^"" " -^ T-J'" X^'
8& x -' ' *
.*.. , t
>/
-; - - i . i. * * ' ' 7 >
i*.« i .y i. i . *v
, o .1 ; .! ' \ \
1 til "..''' . . -i L.'f,' c i
$ v *y?i /i *>, /
x -
-'([,' . /
-
DATA BASED ON BB&N PROJECT I643S8(UPDATE) 1977 AND R.DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES ANCLUC STUDY HRST QUARTERLY REPORT
NOISE ABATEMENT
CENTER
TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (ANCLUC) STUDY
CNEL CONTOURS
1979 vs 1977
DRAWMO
TOA-
-------
AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL MATRIX
Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon*
Mr. James P. Reese+
Prepared for the
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3-5, 1979
Held at
THE GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
College of Architecture
Department of City Planning
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
*Professor of City Planning,
Director of Interdisciplinary Programs
+Graduate Research Assistant
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
17
NOISE CONTROL MEASURES 20
Remedial Measures 20
Preventive Measures 23
PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES 2?
Public Sector
29
Private Sector ..................... 33
National Associations
THE EXTENT OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE CONTROL
MEASURES 33
Level of Involvement 38
Manner of Involvement 40
CONCLUDING REMARKS 42
APPENDIX A
16
-------
INTRODUCTION
The need for planning around airports has been recog-
nized as a growing environmental impact problem. To date,
the primary emphasis for most planning has involved air
carrier airports with general aviation largely overlooked.
A survey of general aviation airports prepared under
the National Environmental Policy Act requirements indicates
that off-airport land use planning is decidedly limited. In
a study conducted by Bragdon for EPA, 111 completed airport
master plans were reviewed. Only 5Q% of these plans did
address off-airport land use, and in nearly all instances
the concern for land use compatibility was ignored.
The rational management of land adjacent to airports
is essential to maximize our resources, and minimize con-
flict. Frequently, the incompatible development of this
land results in litigation, residential displacement, and
a loss in property tax revenue. A primary reason for the
present condition is that constituents that participate
and/or Influence land use decision-making are not collec-
tively involved. Typically there Is little coordination
between the public, private and quasi-public actors asso-
ciated with airport-community related planning issues. For
example, local governmental officials, land developers and
financial institutions very often make independent decisions
without concern for the long-range impacts. Without collec-
17
-------
tive participation general aviation airport master plans
will not be adequately developed and implemented. All role
players and constituents must be identified and participate
in general aviation airport planning to maximize effective-
ness.
This report proposes a technique to assist local
officials in identifying and gauging the involvement of the
role players who participate, either directly or indirectly,
in the development of an airport and its adjacent land area.
The technique can serve as a guide for local decision-makers
and officials in the preparation of a noise control strategy
for their general aviation airport.
Two matrices are used to illustrate the involvement
of the various parties in specific noise control measures.
A noise control measure is an action taken by either the public
or private sector that serves to prevent, curtail or reduce
the negative impact of general aviation noise on the communi-
ties surrounding an airport.
The matrices distinguish party involvement during the
two primary stages of the decision-making process: planning
and implementation. The first matrix represents the level
and manner of each party's involvement during the planning
stage of the noise control measure(s). The second matrix
represents the level and manner of each party's involvement
during the implementation stage. It is the combination of
these two matrices that reflect land use related decision
18
-------
making.
This report contains four sections. The first sec-
tion lists and defines the various noise control measures
that may be available to local officials in dealing with
general aviation noise problems. Section two identifies
the parties involved in the planning and implementation of
the noise control measures. The extent of each party's
involvement is discussed in section three, while the final
section contains general conclusions. A complete matrix,
which shows the interactive process of decision making, is
contained in the Appendix.
19
-------
NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
The noise control measures listed across the top of
each matrix are divided into two categories: remedial and
preventive. 'Those measures oriented more towards existing
development around an airport are considered remedial;
while the measures dealing with undeveloped land are preven-
tive. Remedial measures are typically more expensive to
carry out than preventive measures, since an existing capital
intensive facility is in place.
The two categories are by no means mutually exclusive,
however. For example, fee simple interest in property can
be acquired for developed as well as undeveloped land. The
cost of using such a measure as a remedial device, however,
may be prohibitive.
Remedial Measures
The measures th^t 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
20
-------
Tax incentives can be offered by local governments
to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the communities
adjacent to an airport. These incentives may take the
form of a property tax rebate to homeowners and businesses
that install sound attenuation insulation. The adoption
of this measure may require special legislation by the
state body legally enabling the local government to take
such action.
Aircraft noise reduction requires the development
of new engine designs or major redesign of existing engines.
This is a long-term solution to the noise problem and will
require increased research by the federal government and
engine manufacturers.
Certain measures can be taken in the operation of
an airport to minimize its impact on the surrounding area.
For example, the airport operator can require that during
certain times of the day, provided weather conditions are
permitting, all aircraft use a designated runway. The
approach path for the preferred runway may allow operations
over the more sparsely developed area around the airport,
thus minimizing the impact of noise. An operator may also
require that pilots use a steeper approach to the runway.
Noise response monitoring is a type of airport opera-
tor control. A special noise monitoring staff is designated
by the airport operator to receive and plot complaints of
excessive aircraft noise. If a disproportionate share of
21
-------
complaints are located within a particular corridor, the
approach and departure paths are realigned away from these
areas. Often the monitoring includes acquisition of physi-
cal or acoustical airport data.
A fair disclosure ordinance requires realtors and
developers to notify potential real estate purchasers that
the subject property is adversely affected by aircraft
noise. Such an ordinance requires local legislative action.
If money is not made available for the purchase of
homes in areas adversely impacted by noise, residential
development will be severely curtailed. Restrictions on
private mortgage loans would accomplish this objective.
Special state legislation would more than likely be required
to carry out this measure.
An area immediately adjacent to the end of a runway
may be so severely impacted by noise to the point where it
is uninhabitable. In this case the airport operator will
have to purchase the property and relocate the occupants.
Federal assistance is available to accomplish this task
through the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of
1970.
In the event it becomes necessary for an airport
operator to purchase a business severely impacted by noise
or acquire a vacant tract of land immediately adjacent to
the airport, they may wish to lease the property to a com-
patible tenant. Such a measure does generally require a
22
-------
large Initial capital outlay.
A more inexpensive alternative to the purchase of
property is the acquisition of an avigation easement. An
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
23
-------
either the local building inspector or a special zoning
administrator.
The zoning ordinance can be used to control devel-
opment around airports. Areas adjacent to an airport can
be zoned to permit only those uses that will not be ad-
versely affected by aircraft noise. Beside regulating the
use of land, a zoning ordinance can legally regulate the
height, bulk and area of a permitted use.
Subdivision regulations insure that lot layout and
design and adequate improvements are provided for new
development. These regulations can require that vacant
land, adversely affected by aircraft noise, be subdivided
into large lots, thus discouraging dense residential devel-
opment. The actual siting of structures on the land can
also be included in a regulation. Local governing body
adopts subdivision regulations with input and advice from
the community and the local planning board.
A building code prescribes the minimum standards
for the construction of structures. This code, legally
adopted by the local governing body, is meant to guarantee
the health and safety and welfare of the community. The
building code can require that all residential structures
constructed within the areas impacted by aircraft noise be
insulated with sound attenuation material. Often a certain
sound transmission class (STC) is specified.
An airport noise attenuation zone combines charac-
24
-------
teristics of both the zoning ordinance and building code.
This measure provides for the delineation of zones around
an airport based on the relative impact of noise on these
areas. Minimum sound attenuation standards are then estab-
lished for the construction of new buildings within each
zone.
A capital improvements program (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 (CIB). The GIB identifies the methods
by which the improvements will be financed and the source
of the funds. Development follows the installation of
public improvements, such as utilities and roads. The 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
25
-------
in that property around an airport most severely impacted
by aircraft noise. This measure would guarantee maximum
control over the development of the property and insure
against incompatible development. If the airport is still
in the planning stages, this excess property can be acquired
with the site itself. Once the property has been acquired
the airport operator can opt to dispose of it for private
development with attached restrictive covenants, retain
ownership and maintain a buffer around the facility or
retain the property for public use (i.e. parks, maintenance
garage and storage areas).
The major drawback to the acquisition of fee simple
interest in property is the initial capital outlay that is
required. One of three alternatives measures can be used
to acquire the needed property and reduce the initial capital
outlay:
(1) Revolving fund purchase
(2) Installment-purchase
(3) Option
A revolving fund involves the acquisition of the
needed property one tract at a time, the preparation of
each tract for development, and the sale of the tract with
attached conditions. The proceeds from the sale are then
used to purchase the next tract and the cycle continues
until all the land impacted by noise has been acquired and
developed in a compatible manner.
26
-------
An installation-purchase program allows the airport
operator to acquire the property required over time. A
bank may provide the initial outlay to the land owner in
the form of a loan to the airport operator, who in turn
repays the bank in annual installments.
An option conveys to its bearer the right to purchase
a particular piece of property within a specified period
of time. An airport operator may not have the necessary
funds to acquire all the property impacted by noise so he/
she would obtain an option on the property that cannot be
purchased immediately. The term of an option varies with
each agreement. If a three year option is obtained, the
bearer must either purchase the property before the end of
the term, renew the option, or relinquish his/her right to
purchase the property. The cost of an option, although it
varies, usually includes the property taxes and a standard
interest charge.
Rather than purchase the entire fee simple interest
in the property adversely affected by noise, an airport
operator may wish to simply acquire the development rights
for the property. This technique is appropriate when the
land is being used for farming purposes. The cost of the
development rights for a particular land parcel equals the
difference between the value of that acre at its highest
and best use and its existing value. If the highest and
best use was dense multi-family or commercial development,
the cost of the development rights would probably not be
27
-------
much less than the cost of the fee simple interest in the
property. This measure is most effective where the highest
and best use is low density residential, or if the develop-
ment rights can be sold on the open market and transferred
to another tract of land.
28
-------
PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
Parties from both the public and private sector are
involved in planning and implementing noise control measures.
In addition to public and private actors, the national
organizations representing actors from both sectors are also
listed on the matrices.
A description of each party's involvement in noise
control is provided in this section. The descriptions are
very general and merely provide a basic understanding of
the kind of role each party assumes. The reader is referred
to the matrices for a more comprehensive understanding.
Public Sector
Parties from all levels of the public sector are in-
volved, either directly or indirectly, in a noise control
strategy. Federal as well as local governments influence
the development of general aviation airports and surrounding
areas.
The public sector parties involved in the measures
listed on the matrices include:
(1) Local governing body
(2) Local planning commission (including staff)
(3) Local governmental agencies
(4) Airport operator
(5) Quasi-public authorities
(6) Sub-state regional authorities
(7) State legislative body
29
-------
(8) State administrative agencies
(9) Federal Aviation Administration
(10) Environmental Protection Agency
(11) Housing and Urban Development
The first five parties are most directly involved in
noise control measures. The local governing body formulates
policies and adopts regulations (e.g. zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations) which address the development of
land adjacent to an airport. If the airport is operated by
a governmental agency, the governing body is ultimately
responsible for the operation of the facility.
The planning commission generally serves in an advisory
capacity to the local governing body. The commission reviews
zoning requests and subdivision plats and makes recommendations
to the governing body. The staff to the commission plays a
technical role, maintaining projections of the future needs of
the community and preparing objective evaluations of land
development related issues for the commission's consideration.
Local governmental agencies maintain existing community
facilities and services and advise the governing body on the
future location of public facilities. A capital improvements
program, mentioned previously, coordinates the activities of
these agencies.
The role of the airport operator will vary with the
nature of the entity responsible for the operation of the
facility. If the airport is operated by a governmental
agency or a representative of the local government, all poli-
30
-------
cies dealing with noise control will generally emanate from
the local governing body. However, in the event an authority
is created to oversee the construction, maintenance and
operation of the airport, a board of directors (appointed by
the local governing body) will formulate noise control policy.
A quasi-public authority can also influence develop-
ment around an airport. The independent nature of authorities
permits them to function outside the political process, once
established. This independence creates a coordination problem.
Each authority, whether it administers a water or a school
system, can influence the direction and intensity of growth.
Their activities must, therefore, be coordinated with those
of the local governmental agencies if a comprehensive approach
to development is to succeed.
Sub-state regional agencies generally serve a review
function. This power (as granted through the Federal A-95
review process) permits these agencies to review and comment
on plans which have some regional impact and entail the ex-
penditure of federal funds (e.g. airport planning and con-
struction) .
The state legislative body passes enabling legislation
that grants specific powers to municipalities and authorities.
If a municipality wished to offer special tax incentives to
guarantee compatible development around an airport, for
example, special state legislation would more than likely be
required.
31
-------
In some cases the state department of transportation
(DOT) provides grants for airport planning and construction.
In Georgia, for example, the state DOT provides for 10$ of
the cost of the following items:
(1) Master plan preparation
(2) Runway construction and lighting installation
(3) Various costs such as utility extension
The federal government plays a significant role in air-
port planning and development. The Federal Airport Trust Fund,
administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
provides airport planning and construction grants on an 80-20
match basis. Among the uses to which these grants can be put
is the purchase of land adversely impacted by noise. The FAA
also formulates federal policy dealing with airport noise
control.
The EPA, through the Administrator is responsible for
coordinating all federal noise efforts. Although EPA does
have legal authority to propose regulations for controlling
and abating aircraft noise the FAA, after consultation with
EPA and the Secretary of Transportation, is responsible for
prescribing and amending aircraft standards and regulations.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans
Administration (VA) insure home mortgages. The FHA, for
example, has a policy of not insuring mortgages on homes
located in the zone around an airport most severely impacted
by aircraft noise. Less impacted impacted areas can receive
mortgage approval only when certain controls are instituted
32
-------
(e.g. acoustical treatment of structure). Both of these
programs are associated with the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development.
Private Sector
The private sector parties involved in planning and
implementing the measures listed on the matrices include:
(1) Fixed base operator
(2) Property owners
(3) Neighborhood organizations
(4) Environmental groups
(5) Local chamber of commerce
(6) Real estate firms
(7) Private developers
(8) Private contractors and builders
(9) Private lending institutions
(10) Aircraft engine manufacturing firms
(11) Planning and environmental consultants
A fixed base operator leases an airport terminal from
a municipal or county government and maintains and operates
the facility. Under these circumstances, the ultimate
responsibility for airport policy lies with the local govern-
ing body.
Individuals who own property around an airport can
have opposing interests in airport operations. A residential
property owner may oppose airport operations if aircraft
noise decreases their property values and disturbs them
personally. Another property owner may, however, possess a
vacant tract of land that is large enough to be developed
33
-------
industrially (or in some other compatible manner). This
owner would, therefore, welcome airport expansion.
Neighborhood organisations consist of property owners
and renters. If enough members of a particular organization
are adversely affected by aircraft noise, the organization
may well take a stand against airport operations. An environ-
mental group would represent the inter.vr. L 3 of those citizens
adversely affected by noise.
The local chamber of commerce consists of local busi-
nessmen and is concerned with the economic growth of the
community. An airport can stimulate or enhance the economy
of an area. Therefore, the Chamber of Commerce would tend
to espouse the economic virtues of airport operations.
The development of land around an airport involves
the participation of developers, lending institutions, con-
tractors and builders, and real estate firms. The developer
"packages" the development and obtains financing from a lend-
ing institution. "Packaging" a development often entails
preparing a market analysis and project feasibility study and
in some cases, acquiring the necessary property. The con-
tractors and builders, as well as the developer, may be in-
volved in the actual construction of the project. A real
estate firm then sells the project.
Aircraft engine manufacturing firms are concerned with
producing engines that provide for the safe and efficient
operation of aircraft. Recent federal legislation requires
34
-------
that engines manufactured meet certain noise standards. As
a result, engine manufacturing firms have a vested interest
in noise control strategies for airports.
Consultants play an advisory role in planning and
implementing noise control measures. Planning and environ-
mental consultants sometimes assist in the preparation of
airport compatibility studies. These firms can also serve
in an advocacy position, representing the interests of a
local community.
National Associations
There are several national associations which repre-
sent the interests of the various role players involved in
airport noise and land use compatibility planning (see Appen-
dix A). Most of the associations simply provide a forum
where their members can express opinions on particular issues
Some of the associations are sufficiently large and they can
exert political pressure on and influence the decisions of
local, state and federal legislative and policy making offi-
cials. All of the associations listed in the appendix have
roles to play in planning and implementing certain noise
control measures.
The associations are divided into ten categories:
(1) Associations for aircraft operators
(2) Associations for airport operators
(3) Manufacturing related associations
(4) Associations dealing with airport services
(5) Associations related to airport safety
35
-------
(6) Other aviation-related associations
(7) Environmental associations
(8) Real estate and development associations
(9) Banking associations
(10) Other relevant national associations
The associations represented in each category, due
to a common interest, assume similar roles in the planning
and implementation of noise control measures. The first
six categories deal directly with aviation concerns. Asso-
ciations for aircraft operators represent the interests of
aircraft pilots and owners. One of the largest and most
influential aviation associations, the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA), falls within this category.
The associations in category two represent airport
operators. The third category includes associations which
represent firms that produce and/or distribute aviation
products (i.e. aircraft, aircraft engines, electronic de-
vices, etc.).
The members of the associations in the fourth category
rely on airports for their livelihood. Any disruption in
the operation of an airport may affect the financial status
of the members in this category. The last two aviation
categories deal with flight safety and the overall develop-
ment of the aviation industry, respectively.
The next three categories contain associations that
represent specific airport noise and land development in-
terests of communities around airports that are adversely
36
-------
affected by noise. The real estate and banking associations
represent the respective interests of these two parties and,
in some cases, influence the land development and lending
practices and policies of association members.
37
-------
THE EXTENT OP PARTY INVOLVEMENT
IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
Knowledge of the noise control measures and the par-
ties involved in those measures is a necessary prerequisite
to the preparation of an effective noise control strategy.
An understanding of the extent of the parties involvement
is equally important, however, as it allows the officials
devising a strategy to assess its impact and incorporate the
input of these parties affected into any final plan or pro-
posal.
Two indicators are used in the matrices to assess the
extent of a party's involvement in a particular noise con-
trol measure: (1) the level of involvement and, (2) the
manner of involvement.
Level of Involvement
A party is involved in a noise control measure on one
of two levels: direct or indirect. The characteristics of
each level are represented in Tab],e 1.
Scale is the crucial distinguishing factor between
direct and indirect Involvement. The remaining character-
istics are byproducts of scale. Those parties that operate
at the local level and have an ongoing role in the local
decision-making process will be more directly involved in
planning and implementing noise control measures. Private
as well as public parties are involved at this level. On
38
-------
TABLE I
THE LEVEL OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT
DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTICS
Scale
Continuity
Duration
Complexity
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 hesponsible
to or in Constant
Contact with Consti-
tuency /.ffected 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.
39
-------
the other hand, those governmental administrative agencies
and private organizations removed from the local scene
have only an indirect influence on the local decision-
making process.
The higher the level of involvement the more time
consuming and complex the decision-making process will be.
For example, a zoning ordinance will only require decisions
at the local level, whereas the purchase of fee simple
interest in land will more than likely require federal and,
in some cases, state funding. The inclusion of these two
additional levels will involve more time and soveral more
parties.
Manner of Involvement
Three parameters are used to distinguish the manner
of a party's involvement in planning and implementing a
noise control measure:
(1) The party serves in an advisory capacity
(2) The party has an economic stake in the
measure, and
(3) The party is involved in an administrative,
legislative or policy formulation manner.
The parties that approach the measure objectively,
seeking to advise the decision-makers, function in an
advisory capacity. Under certain circumstances, the role
of the adviser will change from one stage of the process
to the next. For example, while the planning commission
40
-------
and staff may serve in an advisory capacity during the
planning stage of a zoning ordinance, once the ordinance
is adopted, the role of the staff becomes administrative.
The input of a party with an economic stake in a
measure will tend to be subjective. If, for example, a
proposed airport zoning ordinance will restrict a property
owner from developing his land beyond two units per acre
when the market could bear a multi-family development, the
property owner would have an economic stake in the matter
and, therefore, assume a subjective position.
Governing bodies (including local and state bodies),
administrative officials and boards, and airport operators
comprise the group of parties involved in noise control
measures in an administrative, legislative and policy for-
mulation manner. Administrative and legislative tasks are,
in most cases, carried out by local elected and appointed
officials. Policy formulation is carried out by these offi-
cials, as well as state and federal agencies.
The manner of a party's involvement sometimes varies
depending on when he is involved in the decision-making
process. If, for example, 3 quasi-public authority has
sold bonds for a public improvement on the assumption that
dense development will follow, it will more than likely take
a stand against land use controls requiring low density
residential development or agricultural use. The authority's
primary concern is with protecting the interests of its
bondholders.
41
-------
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The matrices discussed in this report provide some
guidance to local officials in both the identification
of the parties involved and, the assessment of the extent
of the parties involvement, in carrying out selected noise
control measures. These matrices serve only as references,
however. The problems associated with coordinating the
involvement of the parties is a complex process that will
vary with each local situation. The measures chosen to deal
with the problem will also vary, depending on such factors
as: (1) the number of jurisdictions affected, (2) the avail-
ability of funds, and (3) the type of land uses affected.
It is essential that local officials perceive the
scope of the general aviation noise problem and identify
and involve all affected parties in the search for an appro-
priate noise control strategy. Such advance planning will
result in the effective and rational management of land
adjacent to general aviation airports, while minimizing
the potential conflict between the many parties involved.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
I. Associations for Aircraft Operators
(a) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(b) Lawyer-Pilot Bar Association
(c) National Pilots Association
II. Associations for Airport Operators
(a) Airport Operators Council International
(b) American Association of Airport Executives
III. Manufacturing Related Associations
(a) Aerospace Industries Association of Ainerica
(b) Aircraft. Electronics Association
(c) Aviation Distributors and Manufacturers Association
(d) General Aviation Manufacturers Association
IV. Associations Dealing with Airport Services
(a) Air Freight Forwarders Association of America
(b) Air Mail Pioneers
(c) Air Transport Association of America
(d) American Society of Traffic and Transportation
(e) Commuter Airline Association of America
(f) National Air Carrier Association
(g) National Association of Flight Instructors
(h) National Business Aircraft Association
(i) National Agricultural Aviation Association
43
-------
V. Associations Related to Airport Safety
(a) Plight Safety Foundation
(b) Institute of Navigation
(c) National Safety Council
VI. Other Airport Related Associations
(a) Aviation Development Council
(b) National Air Transportation Association
(c) National Association of State Aviation Officials
(d) American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(e) Transportation Association of America
VII. Real Estate Associations
(a) American Land Development Association
(b) American Land Title Association
(c) American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
(d) National Association of Real Estate Appraisers
(e) Society of Real Estate Appraisers
(f) Real Estate Aviation Chapter
(g) National Association of Real Estate Brokers
(h) National Apartment Association
(i) National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
(j) National Association of Realtors
(k) National Property Management Association
(1) Relocation Assistance Association of America
(m) Society of Industrial Realtors
(n) American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association
44
-------
VIII. Banking Associations
(a) Independent Bankers Association of America
(b) Mortgage Bankers Association of America
(c) American Bankers Association
(d) National Bankers Association
(e) American Savings and Loan League
(f) American Society of Bank Directors
(g) Council of Mutual Savings Institutions
(h) United Mortgage Bankers of America
(i) United States League of Savings Association
IX. Environmental Associations
(a) Institute of Environmental Sciences
(b) Environmental Action Coalition
(c) Community Environmental Council
(d) National Environmental Health Association
(e) Environmental Law Institute
(f) National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled
Environment
(g) Committee on Noise as a Public Health Hazard
(h) Association for the Reduction of Aircraft Noise
(i) Citizens Against Noise
(J) Citizens for a Quieter City
(k) Sierra Club
(1) National Association of Noise Control Officials
45
-------
X. Other Relevant National Associations
(a) Chamber of Commerce of the United States
(b) National League of Cities
(c) International City Management Association
(d) National Association of County Administrators
(e) National Association of Counties
(f) Council of State Governments
(g) National Governors Association
(h) The Urban Land Institute
(i) Institute of Noise Control Engineering
46
-------
NOISE CONTROL MATRIX:
PLANNING STAGE
(SCHEMATIC)
13 14 15 16 16
47
-------
NOISE CONTROL MATRIX:
IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
(SCHEMATIC)
K
48
-------
KEY SHEET FOR PARTIES INVOLVED IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
A. Local Governing Body
B. Local Planning Commission (including staff)
C. Local Governmental Agencies
D. Airport Operator
E. Quasi-Public Authorities
F. Sub-State Regional Authorities
G. State Legislative Body
H. State Administrative Agencies
I. Federal Aviation Administration
J. Environmental Protection Agency
K. Housing and Urban Development
L. Fixed Base Operator
M. Property Owners
N. Neighborhood Organizations
0. Environmental Groups
P. Local Chamber of Commerce
Q. Real Estate Firms
R. Private Developers
S. Private Contractors and Builders
T. Private Lending Institutions
U. Aircraft Engine Manufacturing Firms
V. Planning and Environmental Consultants
W. Associations for Aircraft Operators
X. Associations for Aircraft Operators
49
-------
Y. Manufacturing Related Associations
Z. Associations Dealing with Airport Services
AA. Associations Related to Airport Safety
BB. Other Aviation Related Associations
CC. Environmental Associations
DD. Real Estate and Development Associations
EE. Banking Associations
FF. Other Relevant National Associations
50
-------
KEY SHEET FOR NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
1. Tax Incentive
2. Aircraft Noise Reduction
3. Airport Operator Controls
4. Fair Disclosure Ordinance
5. Restrictions on Private Mortgage Loans
6. Housing Relocation and Assistance
7. Purchase Leaseback
8. Aviation Easement
9. Zoning Ordinance
10. Subdivision Regulations
11. Building Code
12. Airport Noise Attenuation Zone
13. Capital Improvements Program
14. Fee Simple Purchase
15. Revolving Fund Purchase
16. Installment - Purchase
17. Option
18. Acquisition of Development Rights
51
-------
LEVEL OF PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
(Key to Legend)
Dl - Directly in-»olved; party serves in an advisory capacity.
D2 - Directly involved; party has an economic stake in the measure.
D3 - Directly involved; party is involved in an administrative, legis-
lative or policy formulation manner.
II - Indirectly involved; party serves in an advisory capacity.
12 - Indirectly involved; party has an economic stake in the measure.
13 - Indirectly involved; party is involved in an administrative, legis-
lative or policy formulation manner.
Nl - Party is not involved in the measure.
52
-------
GENERAL AVIATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JOHN E, WESLER
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
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, Ai-SD 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-TKAT 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,
53
-------
FOR OUR PURPOSES THIS MORNING, I BELIEVE WE ARE MORE
INTERESTED IN THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WHICH OPERATE INTO
AND OUT OF THE SMALLER AIRPORTS AROUND OUR COUNTRY,
ALTHOUGH STRICTLY SPEAKING, MANY LARGER JET-POWERED AIR-
PLANES ARE INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL AVIATION CATEGORY,
THEY ARE NOT OF INTEREST TO US HERE BECAUSE THEY OPERATE
ALMOST ENTIRELY OUT OF MEDIUM AND LARGE HUB AIRPORTS, WE
MEAN TO CONCENTRATE ON' SMALLER AIRCRAFT,
SMALLER GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DOMINATE THE U.S. CIVIL
AIR FLEET, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 193,000 GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT IN USE TODAY, COMPARED WITH LESS THAN 2,400 AIR
CARRIER AND AIR CARRIER TYPE AIRCRAFT, GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT:
- ARE FLOWN BY 793,800 ACTIVE PILOTS
- WILL FLY 39 MILLION HOURS THIS YEAR
- MAKE SOME 54 MILLION RECORDED OPERATIONS AT
AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS
- MAKE APPROXIMATELY 17 MILLION INSTRUMENT
OPERATIONS
GENERAL AVIATION GROWTH WILL CONTINUE AT A HIGH RATE. OVER
THE NEXT 12 YEARS-IN 1991--WE FORECAST THAT THERE WILL
BE:
- 304,000 GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT-AN ANNUAL
INCREASE OF 3.9 PERCENT
54
-------
- 1,110,700 ACTIVE PILCTS-AN ANNUAL GROWTH RATE
OF 2,8 PERCENT
- 64 MILLION HOURS FLOWN--AN ANNUAL INCREASE OF
4,2 PERCENT
- NEARLY 76 MILLION RECORDED OPERATIONS AT
AIRPORTS WITH FAA TOWERS-API 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 13,353 HANDLED ONLY GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT, AND
730 HANDLED BOTH GENERAL AVIATION AND CERTIFIED AIR CARRIER
OPERATIONS, ONLY 428 OF THESE AIRPORTS HAVE FAA TOWERS,
THUS, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF GENERAL AVIATION TAKEOFFS AND
"LANDINGS IN THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO QUESTION,
55
-------
THE FORECASTED GROWTH IN GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
PORTENDS GROWING PROBLEMS AT THE SMALLER AIRPORTS WHICH
MUST HANDLE THESE OPERATIONS, THE SHEER INCREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF NOISE EVENTS, ADDING TO THE ABSOLUTE GROWTH AT THE
SMALLER AIRPORTS WILL EE THE LESSENED USE OF LARGER HUB
AIRPORTS BY GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT, THE POTENTIAL
DANGERS OF MIXING OPERATIONS AT LARGER AIRPORTS WAS
TRAGICALLY ILLUSTRATED LAST YEAR AT SAN DIEGO, WITH THE
MID-AIR COLLISION BETWEEN AN AIR CARRIER 727 AMD A SMALL
SINGLE-ENGINE PROPRELLER-DRIVEN AIRPLANE, AS PART OF OUR
PROGRAM TO REDUCE THIS RISK, THE FAA HAS ACCELERATED ITS
IMPROVEMENTS OF SATELLITE, OR RELIEVER AIRPORTS NEAR MAJOR
HUBS, AS THE NAME INDICATES, SATELLITE AIRPORTS WILL HAVE
SUITABLE RUNWAYS, APRONS, CLEAR ZONES, AND NAVIGATIONAL
EQUIPMENT TO ATTRACT GENERAL AVIATION AND TRAINING OPERATIONS
AWAY FROM THE LARGER AIRPORTS, THUS, MANY SMALLER AIRPORTS
WILL SEE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES 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-
AMD REMAINS THE SAME TODAY-THAI AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT IS
56
-------
A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AMONG ALL ELEMENTS OF THE AIRPORT
COMMUNITY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST:
- CONTROL AIRCRAFT NOISE AT THE SOURCE--THE AIRPLANE
ITSELF
- CONTROL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AMD MANAGE THE
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE SO AS TO MINIMIZE NOISE
IMPACTS
- PROVIDE FUNDING TO PERMIT AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
PROJECTS
- SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF
NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY
THE FAA HAS MET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES;
- NOISE STANDARDS LIMIT THE NOISE LEVELS OF NEW-
DESIGN AND NEW-PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING
SMALL PROPELLER-DRIVEN MODELS
- OPERATIONS AT FAA-CONTROLLED AIRPORTS ARE
TAILORED TO MINIMIZE NOISE IMPACTS
- FAA PROVIDES FEDERAL FINANCING OF AIRPORT
PROJECTS FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PURPOSES, AND
WE HAVE PROPOSED NEW LEGISLATION TO EXTEND
ELIGIBILITY TO SOUNDPROOFING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
NEAR AIRPORTS, AND NOISE MONITORING EQUIPMENT
- FAA WORKS CLOSELY WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO PUSH NOISE ABATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY
57
-------
BUT THE FEDERAL EFFORTS ALONE CAN NEVER SOLVE THE
AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM, AIRCRAFT WILL NEVER BE SILENT,
NO MATTER HOVJ 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-BAY OPERATIONS AT THEIR AIRPORTS,
AND ARE FINANCIALLY LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES
WHICH RESULT, INCLUDING NOISE DAMAGES
- STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR LAND-USE CONTROL AND ZONING, AND FOR
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF THE AIRPORT
NOISE CONDITIONS
- AIRCRAFT OPERATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PROPER CONTROL OF THEIR AIRPLANES, FLYING
THEM SAFELY IN A MANNER LEAST INTRUSIVE TO
AIRPORT NEIGHBORS
ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT OF OUR MEETING HERE TODAY IS GENERAL
AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND-USE PLANNING, I WOULD LIKE
TO CONCENTRATE FIRST ON THOSE THINGS WHICH AN AIRPORT
PROPRIETOR CAN DO TO LIMIT NOISE AT HIS OR HER AIRPORT
AND THUS MINIMIZE THE RESIDUAL JOB LEFT TO THE LAND-USE
PLANNERS, RESTRICTING LAND USES FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY
58
-------
PURPOSES IS AN AGONIZING TASK, IN MANY CASES, IT IS AN
IMPOSSIBLE TASK IF AIRPORT SURROUNDINGS ARE ALREADY
DEVELOPED IN AN INCOMPATIBLE IWIER, 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 II! AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION-LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR NOISE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION
OF THAT AIRPORT, BUT OFTEN APPARENTLY KITH LITTLE CONTROL
OVER THOSE OPERATIONS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PRE-
EMPTED CONTROL OVER THE NOISE GENERATOR--THE AIRPLANE-BOTH
ITS INHERENT NOISE PRODUCTION AND THE MAMNER IN WHICH IT IS
FLOWN, SO WHAT SLEPT?
ONE AVAILABLE MEANS IS THE CONTROL OR RESTRICTION OF THE
TYPES OF AIRPLANES WHICH MAY USE AN AIRPORT, BASED ON THE
NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE AIRPLANES, CURFEWS ARE ONE
READILY-APPARENT EXAMPLE, EITHER BY CLOSING THE AIRPORT
COMPLETELY AT NIGHT, OR BY RESTRICTING AIRPORT USE TO
"QUIET" AIRPLANES DURING CERTAIN HOURS, RESTRICTING USE
OF AN AIRPORT THROUGH A BAN ON JET-POWERED AIRCRAFT,
BECAUSE OF NOISE, IS NOT PERKISSABLE, SO-CALLED "JET BANS"
HAVE BEEN RULED TO BE DISCRIMINATORY BY THE COURT IN THE
59
-------
RECENT SANTA MONICA CASE, SINCE IT WAS SHOWN THERE THAT
SOME JET AIRCRAFT ARE ACTUALLY QUIETER IN OPERATION THAN
SOME PROPELLER-DRIVEN AIRCRAFT,
IF THE REASON FOR USE-RESTRICTIONS AT AH AIRPORT IS NOISE,
THEN NOISE LEVELS CAN BE EMPLOYED TO RESTRICT USE, THE FAA
HAS PUBLISHED ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-3, DATED NAY 29, 1979,
LISTING IN DECEIVING ORDER OF NOISE LEVEL HAf!Y AIRCRFT
TYPES AND MODELS, THESE HOISE 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 LOCATIOMS-
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 14 CFR 36, AND HAVE AVAILABLE A NONARBITRARY
AND NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHICH TYPES OF
AIRCRAFT ARE ADMISSABLE AND ACCEPTABLE AT THAT AIRPORT, THE
ACTUAL NOISE LIMIT SELECTED MUST, OF COURSE, DEPEND OH THE
DEGREE OF NOISE PROTECTION JUSTIFIED AT AK 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.
60
-------
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 OH THE BASIS OF SAFETY, PILOTS-AMD ESPECIALLY
LESS EXPERIENCED PILOTS-MAY BE TEMPTED TO "BEAT THE BOX" IN
SUCH INSTANCES, BY FLYING IN AM UNSAFE MANNER IN ORDER TO
REDUCE NOISE OVER THE MONITORING POINT, IK ADDITION, CON-
STANTLY CHANGING PROPAGATION AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
WILL CAUSE NOISE LEVELS AT A GIVEN POINT TO CHANGE FROM DAY-
TO-DAY, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME AIRCRAFT IS FLOWN IN EXACTLY
THE SAME MANNER, THUS, A PILOT IS NEVER CERTAIN THAT HE OR
SHE WILL MEET A SET MEASURED LEVEL EACH TIME HE OR SHE FLIES,
AND MAY BE TEMPTED TO ALTER THE FLIGHT PROCEDURE "JUST TO BE
SURE", I BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARDIZED NOISE LEVELS
TABULATED IN ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-3 ARE A BETTER BASIS FOR
RESTRICTING AIRCRAFT USE AT AN AIRPORT, THAN ARE MONITORED
SINGLE-EVENT LEVELS,
IN SUMMARY:
- GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY IS GROWING, AND WILL
CONTINUE TO GROW'IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE
- ALTHOUGH THE INDIVIDUAL NOISE LEVELS OF NEW
GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT WILL BECOME QUIETER
AS THE FAA'S NOISE STANDARDS BECOME INCREASINGLY
EFFECTIVE, SHEER VOLUME OF ACTIVITY WILL CONTINUE
NOISE PROBLEMS AT SOME GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS
61
-------
LAND-USE CONTROLS AND ZONING ARE DIFFICULT TO
IMPOSE, AND REPRESENT ESSENTIALLY THE LAST
RESORT IN AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRACTICAL flEAHS
FOR RESTRICTING AIRPORT USE FOR NOISE CONTROL
PURPOSES
62
-------
"A STATE PERSPECTIVE ON GENERAL AVIATION AND PLANNING"
AN ADDRESS PRESENTED AT THE EPA CONFERENCE
ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
OCTOBER 3-5, 1979
BY LUCIE G. SEARLE, COMMUNITY LIAISON
MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS Conr-ussioN
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 VdTH YOU SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT
WHICH ARE, OF COURSE, FROM ONE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE,
RECENTLY, I STUMBLED ACROSS A MAGAZINE A°TICLE THAT I BELIEVE
SUMS UP QUITE NICELY THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM FROM THE PERSEPCTlVf;
OF AN AIRPORT NEIGHBOR, IT IS ENTITLED ''AIRPLANE, STAY '';'AY pROM ,';Y
hoop," THE AUTHOR WRITES: "You MOVE OUT FROM THE NOISE OF A CITY,
YOU PAY A PREMIUM TO EE AV/AY 1-ROM THE RAIuF'-OAD, YOU GO TO A LOT OF
TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO GET ON A SIDE STREET Ai.'AY FROM BUSSES AND THE
TRUCKS, SO WHAT DO YOU GET? I'HY, 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 19'i7 ISSUE OF THE SATURDAY EVENING HOST I II
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 AlRPORTS."
TODAY IN MASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE A GENERAL AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM
THAT IMPACTS NOT ONLY AIRPORT NEIGHBORS LIKE THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE,
63
-------
BUT THREATENS THE VIABILITY OF SEVERAL OF OUR KEY SUBURBAN GA AIRPORTS,
BECAUSE OF NOISE, WE ARE HAVING GREAT DIFFICULTYIN FACT, WE ARE
LOSING THE BATTLE AT ONE PARTICULAR AIRPORT--IN MAINTAINING THE RUN-
WAYS AND TAXIWAYS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, NEVER MIND EXTENDING OR
ADDING NEW RUNWAYS, AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE A SHOWDOWN
BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND IT3 NEIGHBORS, TRY TO PUT IN AN INSTRUMENT
LANDING SYSTEM, ALTHOUGH SUCH A KEY NAVICATIONAL 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, ilHAT
MAKES TODAY'S SITUATION so AGONIZING is THAT JUST ABOUT ALL OF
OUR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS IN flASSACHUSETTS WERE SITED 30-40 YEARS
AGO IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS SURROUNDED BY AMPLE OPEN SPACE,
THE SOLUTIONS TO OUR Noisb PROBLEM TODAY ARE THE SAME ONES THAT
WERE AVAILABLE IN 1947: NOISE CONTROL AT THE SOURCE THROUGH QUIETER
AIRCRAFT,' OPERATING PROCEDURES; AND LAND USE CONTROLS, PROM THE
STATE PERSPECTIVE, I'M GOING TO REVIEW EACH OF THESE THREE ELEMENTS
AND COMMENT ON OUR EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS WHAT I BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE
DONE, UUR 'MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIENCE'' INVOLVES A STATE SYSTEM OF
25 PUBLICLY OWNED AIRPORTS AND AS MANY PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPORTS OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC,
1, SOURCE CONTROL is PRIMARILY A FEDERAL AND INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY,
FROM A STATE VIEV.'POINT, WE BELIEVE A GREAT DEAL REMAINS TO BE
DONE HERE, PARTICULARLY'WITH PISTON EMG1NED PROPELLER AIRPLANES,
PROPS ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST USERS OF OUR GENERAL AVIATION
AIRPORTS, BESIDES THEIR HIGH VISIBILITY AND, I MIGHT ADD,
AUDIBILITY, IN THE TOUCH AND GO OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FLIGHT
TRAINING, PROPS CONSTITUTE THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF THE BUSINESS
AVIATION FLEET, WHICH MAKES EXTENSIVE USE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS,
64
-------
PROP NOISE CAN BE CONTROLLED BY REDUCING PROPELLER TIP SPEED
WHICH CAN BE ACHIEVED BY A SLOWER TURNING PROP OR A MULTI'BLADED
PROP, FROM WHAT I CAN LEARN., WE ALREADY HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF KNOW-
HOW WHICH GOES BACK MANY YEARS, AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH IS GOING
ON RIGHT NOW TO LEARN HOW TO BUILD A LOW-NOISE PROPSUITABLE FOR
NEW DESIGN AIRPLANES OR RETROFITWITHOUT SACRIFICING PERFORMANCE,
THIS EFFORT IS BEING CONDUCTED JOINTLY BY HIT AND NASA UNDER EPA
SPONSORSHIP,
WHAT SEEMS TO BE MISSING is THE INCENTIVE, PARTLY BECAUSE IT
IS ONLY IN RECENT YEARS THAT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NEIGHBORS
HAVE FLEXED THEIR POLITICAL MUSCLES AND PARTLY BECAUSE FAA's FAR 36
STANDARDS FOR LIGHT PROPS PRESENT LITTLE OR NO CHALLENGE TO THE
INDUSTRY, SINCE FAR 36 WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1969, THE MODEST STANDARDS
SET FOR LIGHT PROPS (UNDER 12,.$"00 LBS.) HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED TO
REQUIRE MORE STRINGENT NOISE LEVELS, THE RESULT IS THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF LIGHT PROPS HAVE, FOR SOME TIME, MET FAA's LENIENT
STANDARDS,
FROM THE INDUSTRY'S POINT OF VIEW, ONE OBSTACLE MAY BE THE
ENORMOUS COST AND COMPLEXITY OF FAA CERTIFICATION OF EVEN THE
SLIGHTEST DESIGN CHANGE, A SITUATION WHICH OBVIOUSLY DISCOURAGES
INNOVATION AND RETROFIT, I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OF
THE NEWER MODEL PROPSAND HERE I THINK OF THOSE MANUFACTURED BY
CESSNA AND PIPERHAVE 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
65
-------
FROM AIRPORT TO AIRPORT AND STATE TO STATE AND ALSO BECAUSE IT
WISHES TO AVOID REINFORCING WHAT SOME REGARD AS MASSACHUSETTS1
ANTI-BUSINESS IMAGE, AND THAT IS THE SETTING OF MAXIMUM AIRCRAFT
NOISE LEVELS BY THE AlRPORT PROPRIETOR, ONE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS
PROPOSED TO SET A NOISE LEVEL REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
MORE STRINGENT THAN FAR 36, BUT FOR SEVERAL REASONS, MY COMMISSION
TURNED THE PROPOSAL DOWN, THE POINT ! WANT TO MAKE HERE IS THIS:
WE WOULD LIKE TO TIE OUR STATEWIDE SOURCE NOISE POLICY TO A NATIONAL
NOISE STANDARD SUCH AS FAR 36; BUT IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY HARD TO
DO THIS BECAUSE SOME OF THE FAR 36 STANDARDS ARE SO WEAK,
THE EFFORT TO QUIET THE BUSINESS JET FLEET IS ANOTHER STORY,
HERE, I BELIEVE, WE HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL, DESIGN STANDARDS,
FIRST SET BY THE FAA IN 1969, WERE TIGHTENED IN 1977, AND A PRODUCTION
CUTOFF DATE OF 1975 WAS SET FOR OLDER NOISY MODELS, THERE IS HARDLY
AN AIRPORT NEIGHBOR THAT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE QUIETNESS OF THE CESSNA
CITATION, THERE ARE OTHERS WITH IMPRESSIVE NOISE RECORDS, TOO, SUCH
AS THE FALCON 10, THE WESTWIND, AND THE NEWER LEAR JETS, JUST TO NAME
A FEW, IN FACT, WE HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT AT ONE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS,
OVER 40% OF THE BUSINESS JET FLEET IS MADE UP OF CITATIONS AND
SIMILAR TURBO FANS, WHILE I DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE FIGURES FOR OUR
OTHER GA AIRPORTS, IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME TO LEARN THAT A LARGE
PERCENTAGE OF THEIR BUSINESS JET FLEETS IS COMPOSED OF THE QUIETER
MODELS, WHILE THE BUSINESS JET FLEET HAS A MUCH FASTER TURNOVER
THAN THE PROP FLEET, THE FACT REMAINS THAT BOTH TECHNOLOGY AND
THE MARKETPLACE HAVE RESPONDED TO FAA'S INCREASINGLY STRINGENT FAR 36
STANDARDS,
66
-------
2, OPERATING PROCEDURES is THE SECOND OF THE THREE PART SOLUTION,
THIS INVOLVES DESIGNING SITE SPECIFIC MEASURES THAT ADDRESS AN
AIRPORT'S PARTICULAR NOISE PROBLEMS, IN MASSACHUSETTS, THESE
HAVE INCLUDED PRESCRIBED FLIGHT PATHS, PREFERENTIAL RUNWAYS,
REQUIREMENTS THAT AIRPLANES BE AIRBORNE IN THE FIRST HALF OF
THE RUNWAY, TIME OF DAY AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR TOUCH
AND GO OPERATIONS AND DESIGNATED AREAS FOR RUNUPS,
WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE RESULTS COME AFTER
A PARTICIPATORY EFFORT THAT INVOLVES AIRPORT NEIGHBORS AND
USERS ALONG WITH THE RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS,
OPERATING PROCEDURES ARE NOT A PANACEA, BUT THEY CAN HELP
TO MINIMIZE NOISE IMPACTS, PARTICULARLY IF SOME NON RESIDENTIAL
AREAS STILL EXIST OVER WHICH AIRCRAFT CAN BE DIVERTED, ALSO,
OPERATING PROCEDURES OFTEN OFFER THE ONLY TANGIBLE NOISE RELIEF
TO AIRPORT NEIGHBORS,
WHEN I THINK ABOUT OPERATING PROCEDURES AT OUR GA AIRPORTS,
I CANNOT HELP BUT SINGLE OUT THE NATIONAL BUSINESS AIRCRAFT
ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS BEEN A LEADER IN DEVISING PROCEDURES AND
SPREADING THE NOISE ABATEMENT MESSAGE AMONG ITS MEMBERS,
TO GET THE MOST OUT OF PROCEDURES, IT HAS BEEN OUR
EXPERIENCE THAT WE NEED MORE HELP FROM THE FAA AlR TRAFFIC CONTROL-
LERS AT OUR TOWERED AIRPORTS, WHILE WE DO NOT EXPECT THEM TO
ENFORCE LOCAL REGULATIONS, WE BELIEVE MORE COULD BE DONE TO
INFORM AND REMIND PILOTS OF THE NOISE RULES IN EFFECT.
3, LAND USE, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF OUR NOISE ABATEMENT TRIO, is A MOST
CRITICAL AND CHALLENGING TASK, APPLYING LAND USE CONTROLS IS,
UNDOUBTEDLY, A LOCAL AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY, ALTHOUGH THERE IS
CERTAINLY A FEDERAL ROLE, PARTICULARLY IN THE FINANCIAL AREA,
67
-------
HERE ARE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND HIGHLIGHTS BASED ON OUR
EXPERIENCE.
IN OUR STATE, AND I SUSPECT THIS IS TRUE IN MANY OTHERS,
LAND USE IS A JEALOUSLY GUARDED LOCAL FUNCTION, IN LARGE PART
BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATIONS, OUR ONE EFFORT, IN
1976, TO ENACT STATE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO EXERCISE LAND USE CONTROLS NEAR AIRPORTS, WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL, THE PROBLEM IS COMPOUNDED, OF COURSE, BY THE
NEED FOR PROPER LAND USE PLANNING, NOT ONLY ON THE PART OF THE
MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE AIRPORT IS LOCATED, BUT ALSO THE
ABUTTING COMMUNITIES, OUR CLASSIC "WHAT NOT TO DO STORY" IS OF
ONE OF OUR MORE ACTIVE SUBURBAN BOSTON GA AIRPORTS, BUILT IN
THE 1940's, BEVERLY AIRPORT is LOCATED IN BEVERLY AND DANVERS
AND ABUTS A THIRD COMMUNITY, WENHAM, FOR SOME TIME, THIS AIRPORT
WAS PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY UNDEVELOPED LAND; BUT IN THE
EARLY 1960'S, A DEVELOPER PURCHASED SOME ADJACENT FARM
LAND IN THE NEIGHBORING TOWN OF DANVERS AND BUILT SCORES OF
HOMES, SOME OF WHICH ARE LESS THAN 400 FT, FROM THE LONGEST
RUNWAY. TODAY, OF COURSE, IT is A NO WIN SITUATION FOR ALL
INVOLVED BECAUSE THE AIRPORT NEIGHBORS HAVE TO CONTEND WITH
NOISE,AND THE PILOTS HAVE HAD NOISE ABATEMENT RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED ON THEM,
WHAT ARE WE DOING ON THE STATE LEVEL TO PREVENT THIS KIND
OF INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT FROM RECURRING? BASICALLY, FOUR
THINGS: (1) PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; (2) PROMOTING
AIRPORTS AS ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS; (3) JAWBONING
AND MORAL SUASION; AND (4) INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS IN THE CAUSE,
ON THE FIRST: PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEANS
68
-------
WORKING WITH AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL OFFICIALS TO COME
UP WITH WAYS TO INSURE COMPATIBLE LAND USE, THIS MAY INVOLVE
ZONING, PURCHASE OF LAND OR EASEMENTS, SUBDIVISION CONTROL,
NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS THAT AN AIRPORT IS NEARBY, SPECIAL
PERMITS AND OTHER STRATEGIES, BECAUSE THIS IS HOW I SPEND A
GOOD DEAL OF MY TIME, I HAVE, DURING THE PAST YEAR, PUT TOGETHER
A GUIDE TO COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING NEAR AIRPORTS IN
MASSACHUSETTS, THIS is A SOUP TO NUTS COOKBOOK THAT PROVIDES
RECIPES FOR THESE AND OTHER LAND USE CONTROL METHODS,
ON THE SECOND; REMINDING COMMUNITIES OF THE ECONOMIC
AND TRANSPORTATION VALUE OF THEIR AIRPORTS: SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
THE EARLY DAYS OF AVIATION WHEN A MUNICIPALITY WAS WILLING TO
GIVE ITS EYE TEETH TO GET AN AIRPORT, AND TODAY'S NO GROWTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHIES, MANY OF OUR CITIES AND TOWNS
HAVE FORGOTTEN OR LOST SIGHT OF THE VALUE OF THEIR AIRPORT, I
AM CONVINCED THAT MY JOB OF PERSUADING A PLANNING BOARD THAT A
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OUGHT TO BE REZONED TO PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT IF THE PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS AND OTHER LOCAL OFFICIALS COULD SEE A DIRECT RELATION
BETWEEN THE NEED TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT ON ONE HAND, AND THE
ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE AIRPORT TO THEIR COMMUNITY, ON THE OTHER,
THIS CAN BE TOUGH BECAUSE IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO QUANTIFY THE
VALUE OF OUR GA AIRPORTS, MANY OF THEM JUST ABOUT BREAK EVEN,
SO THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY ENRICHING THE LOCAL COFFERS; AND A GOOD
DEAL OF TAX EXEMPT LAND IS INVOLVED, VlHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS
POINTING TO AIRPORTS AS GENERATORS OF JOBS BOTH ON AND OFF THE
AIRPORTJ AND AS AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSETS THAT CAN HELP ATTRACT
INDUSTRY TO AN AREA, BESIDES DOING THIS THROUGH PAPERS, ARTICLES,
69
-------
AND TALKS, WE HAVE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT AIRPORT MASTER
PLANS IDENTIFY AN AIRPORT'S PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
ROLE, IN ADDITION, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL
PARKS AS AN EXTREMELY COMPATIBLE LAND USE,
ON THE THIRD: JAWBONING AND MORAL SUASION CAM BEST BE
ILLUSTRATED BY AN EXAMPLE, ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, THE ClTY OF
WORCESTER ANNOUNCED PLANS TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON
AIRPORT PROPERTY AND LAND ADJACENT TO ITS AIRPORT, A PROJECT
WHICH WE APPLAUDED, THE PLANS CALLED FOR A RATHER SOPHISTICATED
LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY TO BE BUILT TO THE AIRPORT, SHORTLY
AFTER THE HIGHWAY PLAN SURFACED, AN ABUTTING LAND OWNER TOOK
STEPS TO GAIN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR ALMOST 500 HOMES TO BE
BUILT ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WOULD BECOME DEVELOPABLE ONCE
THE ROAD WAS COMPLETED, SlNCE THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
HAD NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BY THE
CITY OF WORCESTER, WE APPLIED WHAT I CALL JAWBONING AND MORAL
SUASION, FROM OUR DOT SECRETARY ON DOWN, WE POINTED OUT THE CITY'S
WOULD BE INCONSISTENCY OF PROMOTING AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON ONE
SIDE OF THE AIRPORT WHILE PERMITTING HOUSES ON THE OTHER, LOCAL
PILOTS APPLIED PRESSURE; AND WE COMMENTED VIGOROUSLY THROUGH THE
A-95 REVIEW PROCESS, I WAS FAIRLY NEW AT MY JOB, AND I WAS
DETERMINED NOT TO LET THIS SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS, 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
70
-------
THE DESIRED FEDERAL FUNDING, A.S IT TURNED OUT, WORCESTER DID
NOT GET ANY FEDERAL MONEY FOR REASONS WHICH I WILL GO INTO LATER,
THE UPSHOT OF OUR STATE JAWBONING WAS THAT THE CITYVERY MUCH
TO ITS CREDITSPENT ABOUT $160,000 OF ITS OWN MONEY TO BUY
ABOUT 130 ACRES, I AM TOLD THAT THANKS TO MY POLLYANNA
PROMISES OF "OH. I'M SURE WE CAN GET FEDERAL FUNDING FOR YOU/'
WORCESTER HAS UNOFFICIALLY NAMED THIS PARCEL THE LUCIE SEARLE
MEMORIAL PARK!
ON THE FOURTH: INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS IS MY WAY OF SAYING
THAT, AT LEAST IN MASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB
OF GETTING HELP FROM PEOPLE WITH LAND USE EXPERTISE, SUCH AS
LOCAL PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND BOARDS, STATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCIES; THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, AND OTHERS, WITH 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
7]
-------
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, ME 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 COMMISSIONPOSSIBLY A
FIRSTAND I SUSPECT THEY NOW KNOW A GOOD DEAL MORE ABOUT AIRPORTS,
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY ATTRACTING AND INVOLVING NEW RECRUITS.
LAND USE CONTROLS, AS I STATED AT THE OUTSET, ARE,
UNDOUBTEDLY, A LOCAL AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY; BUT WHAT ABOUT THE
FEDERAL ROLE THAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, HERE ARE SOME IDEAS FROM
THE STATE PERSPECTIVE, VIS-A-VIS GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS,
MONEY, OF COURSE, is ALWAYS WELCOME, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE LAND OR INTERESTS THEREIN AROUND THOSE
AIRPORTS THAT DO NOT HAVE SERIOUS NOISE PROBLEMS NOW, IT IS
UNLIKELY THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN UNDER THE EXISTING FEDERAL
GUIDELINES,
TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY EARLIER
WORCESTER STORY, I EXPLAINED THAT THE 1976 RENEWAL OF ADAP
PERMITTED FEDERAL FUNDING OF UP TO 90% TO BUY LAND OR EASEMENTS
FOR AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE FAA REGULA-
TIONS TO COVER THIS FINALLY EMERGED, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT
72
-------
WORCESTER WOULD NOT QUALIFY BECAUSE THE NOISE LEVELS THERE
WERE AND ARE NOT HIGH ENOUGH ACCORDING TO THE FAA GUIDELINES,
ALTHOUGH WORCESTER is AN AIR CARRIER AIRPORTIT HAS TWO FLIGHTS
A DAY BY DELTAITS OPERATIONS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY GENERAL
AVIATION, AND IT ILLUSTRATES WELL THIS DILEMMA OF AN AIRPORT
THAT IS NOT NOISY ENOUGH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL FUNDING,
AGAIN, ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THIS is THE THIRD YEAR
CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED FEDERAL NOISE LEGISLATION. EACH BILL
HAS CONTAINED PROVISION FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING,
BUT THE BILLS APPLY ONLY TO AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS,
IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO BE CRITICAL OF FAA OR CONGRESS
ON THIS SCORE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FUND ALL THE
POTENTIAL LAND USE REQUESTS, NOISE IS NOISE AND IT IS UNDER-
STANDABLE THAT FAA GUIDELINES FAVOR THE MORE NOISY AIRPORTS,
THE POINT IS THAT THIS USUALLY LEAVES OUT GA AIRPORTS,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE WAY OUT OF THIS BIND IS THROUGH
BLOCK GRANTS TO THE STATES, AND THERE IS REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC
HERE BECAUSE EACH OF THE PROPOSALS TO RENEW ADAPTHAT OF SENATOR
HOWARD CANNON, THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALSPROVIDES 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 OUTAS I BELIEVE
IT SHOULD BE--IN THE TITLE OF THIS CONFERENCE,
73
-------
NOW, TO RECAP WHAT I HAVE SAID. YES, WE DO HAVE A NOISE
PROBLEM AT OUR GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS, THE SOLUTIONS ARE WELL
KNOWN, AND THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR SOME TIME,
WE COULD, IN SOME CASES, IMPROVE OUR TOOLS,
SOURCE CONTROL is PRIMARILY A FEDERAL AND INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY,
WE NEED TO MAKE MUCH BETTER USE OF THE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS FOR LIGHT PROPS MUST BE TIGHTENED,
OPERATING PROCEDURES. WHICH CAN PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOISE RELIEF
TO AIRPORT NEIGHBORS NOW, ARE SITE SPECIFIC, THE MAIN EXCEPTION IS
THE NBAA PROCEDURES, BASED ON POWER MANAGEMENT, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE
AT ANY AIRPORT, THE MAJOR TASK IS SPREADING THE WORD AMONG
PILOTS AND GETTING THEM TO USE THE PROCEDURES, THE AVIATION
PRESS HAS HELPED ON THIS SCORE, PARTICULARLY BUSINESS AND
COMMERCIAL AVIATION WHICH RUNS A MONTHLY NOISE COLUMN, WE COULD
USE MORE HELP FROM THE FAA TOWER CONTROLLERS,
LAND USE CONTROL REQUIRES ACTION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH
THUS FAR HAS BEEN THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE CHAIN, ALTHOUGH WE
WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, OTHER STATES SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER
LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM CLOUT IN THIS PREDOMINANTLY
LOCAL MATTER,
OUR ABILITY TO PURCHASE LAND NEAR GA AIRPORTS FOR NOISE
COMPATIBILITY WOULD BE IMPROVED IF THE CHANCES WERE BETTER OF
GETTING FEDERAL MONEY TO HELP DO THE JOB, TOWARD THIS
END, WE NEED TO SEE THAT BLOCK GRANTS TO THE STATES ARE PROVIDED
FOR IN THE RENEWED ADAP,
74
-------
THE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
BILL GALLOWAY
Principal Consultant
BOLT, BERANEK & NEWMAN, INC.
Canoga Park, California
OCTOBER 3, 1979
75
-------
SOUND EXPOSURE LEVELS AT 6500 FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE ON
TAKEOFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
PROPS
AERO COMMANDER 560E
BEECH B80
BEECH V35
CESSNA 210L
CESSNA 310Q
AEROSTAR 601
BEECH 58P
CESSNA 207A
CESSNA 401
CESSNA 414
PIPER PA-32-300
PIPER PA-23-250
CESSNA P210M
CESSNA A185F
BEECH A200
BEECH 76
CESSNA 182
CESSNA T337H
CESSNA 421B
MITSUBISHI Mu-2N
MOONEY M20
PIPER PA-34-200T
CESSNA 182Q
102
101
96
95
95
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
92
31
90
89
39
88
87
85
84
82
PIPER PA-28-140
CESSNA 172N
GRUMMAN AA-5
ROCKWELL 690B
CESSNA 150
CESSNA 152
JETS
HS-125
JETSTAR I
JET COMMANDER
LEARJET 25
GULFSTREAM II
SABRELINER 60
FALCON 20
LEARJET 24
JETSTAR II
SABRELINER 65A
FALCON 10
LEARJET 35
CITATION II
CITATION I
76
75
73
69
68
65
112
110
109
105
104
104
102
100
94
93
90
89
86
85
76
-------
CO
-a
LU
>
Q
z
D
o
on
LU
O
t
X
91% SINGLES
9% TWINS
2% NIGHT
TOTAL OPERATIONS
PER YEAR
50
4 6 8 10 15
THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE
TAKEOFF NOISE FROM PROPELLER- DRIVEN SMALL AIRCRAFT
77
-------
75
CO
TJ
Q
Z
D
o
O
70
65
60
X
O
Z 55
50
TAKEOFFS
PER DAY
i 1ir
90% MAX. T.O. WEIGHT
POWER CUTBACK
2% NIGHT
6 8 10 15 20 25
THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE
30
TAKEOFF NOISE FROM COMPOSITE BUSINESS JET
1978 FLEET
78
-------
70
CQ
-a
a
Z
ID
o
o
65
60
O 55
Z
i
>-
<
a
50
\ \ T
90% MAX. T.O. WEIGHT
POWER CUTBACK
2% NIGHT
TAKEOFFS
PER DAY
100
4 6 8 10 15 20
THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM BRAKE RELEASE
25
TAKEOFF NOISE FROM COMPOSITE BUSINESS JET
CURRENT TURBOFANS
79
-------
00
o
Z
O
I
Q.
03
70
65
O 60
O
c
o
m 55
50
1.5
I ~
APPROACHES
PER DAY
10
I I I I I
i r
MAXIMUM LANDING
WEIGHT
2% NIGHT
4 6 8 10 15
THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD
20 25 30
APPROACH NOISE FROM COMPOSITE BUSINESS JET - 1978 FLEET
-------
70
00
O
>
-<
O
I
rn
70
>
O
O
c
z
O
D.
CD
65
60
55
50
MAXIMUM LANDING
WEIGHT
2% NIGHT
APPROACHES
PER DAY
100
2 4 6 8 10 15 20
THOUSANDS OF FEET FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD
APPROACH NOISE FROM COMPOSITE BUSINESS JET - CURRENT
TUR8OFA NS
-------
.
O
_
O
CO
z
35
30
25
20
15
0
I I I
136 OUT OF 428 AIRPORTS
WITH FAA TOWERS
I
<50 100- 200- 300- 400- 500-
150 250 350 450 550
THOUSANDS C.: TOTAL OPERATIONS - FY 1978
>600
AIRPORTS WITH FAA CONTROL
1500 AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS
TOWERS AND
PER YEAR IN
LESS THAN
FY 1978,
LESS THAN 10% MILITARY OPERATIONS
82
-------
APPROXIMATE EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PROPELLER-DRIVEN SMALL
AIRCRAFT REPRESENTED BY ONE LARGER AIRCRAFT IN COMPUTING
DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL
APPROACH TAKEOFF
15QQ_f£Ei 65QQ FEET
MEDIUM RECIP. TWINS 2,5 1,6
SMALL TURBOPROPS 1,6 25
DHC-6 TWIN OTTER 8 8
LARGE TURBOPROPS 200 25
DC-9-30/737-100, 200 125 400
737-200QN 16 400
727-100 200 800
727-100/200QN 25 630
BUSINESS-TURBO JETS 160 80
BUSINESS-MED, TURBOFANS 16 8
BUSINESS-NEW TURBOFANS 2,5 1,6
83
-------
"The Impact of General Aviation Activity on a Local Economy"
REMARKS BY MICHAEL J. MCCARTY, MANAGER,
AIRPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
NATIONAL BUSINESS AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, INC.
CONFE<*ENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AII?ORT NOISE AND
LAND USE PLANNING
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3, 1979
It's a pleasure to be here today and have this opportunity to describe vhat impact
general aviation has on the Country's economy. For one reason or another, there
seems to be a mysterious cloud which lingers over th° people's vision of what role
general aviation activity and the community airport plays in their every day lives.
Part of this mystery can be resolved simply by realizing what general aviation
really stands for.
"General aviation" itself is that very loose and misleading term which is usually
associated with everything except the airlines and military. That means that private
business aircraft, air taxis and charters, air freighters, contract carriers, mail
plans, pleasure and acrobatic aircraft, flight trainers, crop dusters, banner towing,
construction helicopters, blimps, free baloons, gliders, frisbies and high flyballs
to rightfield are all placed in the general aviation category.
With all this activity, no wonder general avaiation accounts for 98 percent of the
active aircraft, 87 percent of the total hours flows, 65 percent of the aircraft
miles flown, and 81 percent of all aircraft operations. It's necessary, however,
to go beyond all this and attempt to identify, in one word, what a majority of
general aviation is all about. The word I keep coming back to is "business"
that's right, general aviation means business.
85
-------
Two years ago, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat took a survey to identify what
function the general aviation activity in the area was serving. The Globe found
that 72 percent of the activity was for business and comnercial purposes, 23 percent
was for personal transportation and proficiency training, and only 5 percent for
pleasure.
Now, as I represent the business flying which is under this general aviation
umbrella, I would like to narrow my text to this specific area. I also believe it
would be helpful co briefly describe the business fleet and why companies use
aircraft.
There are today senae 50,000 business aircraft in the United States, of which nearly
10 percent are turbine powered. This is approximately 27 percent of the total
general aviation fleet.
A recent study by an independent research firm shows that, of America's top 1,000
industrial corporations as listed by FORTUNE Magazine, 514 now operate their own
business aircrafta total of 1,773 planes. This compares with less than 450
companies just four years ago!
BUSINESS WEEK Magazine last year pointed out that "Corporate aircraft are radically
transforming the way many companies do business. And they are helping to change
the geographical tilt of the United States economy, as more companies build plants
without regard to the rigid corridors of public transportation." This article
also stated that "The impact of corporate flying, moreover, may grow more than
the sheer numbers growth would indicate. Increasingly, U.S. companies are using
their aircraft as sophisticated tools that do more than simply haul top brass from
point-to-point in comfort."
86
-------
A few examples of company use of business aircraft are:
Oxford Industries, Inc., an Atlanta-based apparel maker that uses a twin-engine
Beechcraft to fly department store personnel to its plants where they can oversee
orders being produced. According to the firm's Vice Chairman, giving buyers
commercial airline tickets would not work because the company's 38 plants are
scattered across six southeastern statesmany in towns with grass airstrips
that lack commercial service.
Xerox Company is reported to fly i:>,uuu employees a >ear oa a company owned shuttle
plane between its Stanford headquarters and its Rochester, New York, plant
saving $410,000 a year over commercial airfares and cutting travel time as well.
One of the key reasons why more and more businesses are turning to the use of
their own aircraft is that airline service is decliningboth in numbers of
flights and in points served. According to CAB figures, the certificated airlines
now serve only 400 points in the Continental United Statesa 30 percent decrease
from the 567 served in 1960.
As things stand today, the company airplane may well be the only link for a manager
In reaching more than 19,000 unincorporated communities, and even 379 cities with
populations of over 25,000 that do not have any airline service.
There are, of course, many reasons other than declining ariline service for
more and more companies to add aircraft to the company inventory of productive tools.
But they usually net down to the convenience, mobility, and flexibility that allow
87
-------
managers to increase that radii of action...to decentralize their plant, ware-
housing, and marketing structures...to diversify their scope of operations...compete
in unpenetrated marketj...and to maximize the potentials of plant locations through
greater mobility for managers.
The company aircraft can be scheduled to go where the manager wants to go,
vhen he wants to get there; and "there" may be someplace not even served by
commercial airlines.
The company aircraft usually provide an office enviroiuneni that increases management
productivity. It is a very common enroute work pattern for a two to four man
conference to be held. Or individual executives can empty the briefcase of work
while travelingsomething they would hesitate to do in the close-quarters setting
of a commercial flight. Or, they may plan their business call at the destination
city, or prepare their formal trip reports on the way home. In fact, the chief
executive officer of one of our larger NBAA member companies says that "...using
the company plane is a sneaky way of getting more working time out of our
executives."
And, of course, there are the obvious advantages. No time need be lost waiting
for the next scheduled flight once business is concluded. Conversely, no efficiency
need be lost because sufficient time cannot be allowed to complete the business
because the executive must "catch a plane."
From the self-serving point of view of the businesses themselves, it would appear
that the use of aircraft is a productive addition to the corporate economy. But,
by now you are probably asking what all this has to do with the impact business
88
-------
aviation has on the national economy? What is the public benefit from general
aviation activity?
Unfortunately, this has never been measured in any great depth by anyoneincluding
the Federal Aviation Administration. However, by sampling some individual
situations around the Nation, it is possible to get a feel for the contributions
oade by aviation in general, and business aviation in particular.
In Ohio, for example, a statewide airport program was initiated in 1965 with
$6.2 million in State funds, and matching monies from the localities involved
a start-up total of $12.4 million. Sixty-four counties participated by building
new airports and improving existing facilities. When the State later conducted an
evaluation of the program, the following specifics were determined:
At 20 new airports created under the program, almost half of all landings and
takeoffs being made were by corporate aircraft and commercial cargo planes.
More than half of 150 manufacturing firms selected at random throughout the
state use their air transportation facilities frequently.
The counties with new airports had a three-percent higher payroll rate increase
after completion of the airport than did the counties which did not participate.
Extrapolating from the experience of participating counties, compared with non-
participating counties, it appears that over a four-year period, Ohio netted $250
million in additional personal income, and created more than 60,000 new jobs by
virtue of the airport development program. That is a benefit-to-cost ratio of 20 to 1.
89
-------
On a national basis, the JOURNAL OF COMMERCE on March 27, 19-78, reported on the
growth of the corporate aircraft fleet, and stated that, " over 1,000 plants
in the last three years have been located in areas distant from major city
airports. Decentralization makes it tougher to keen tabs on operations without
bloating the executive ranks. In addition, the airports with airline service are
dwindling."
Many towns and co=unities nationally recognize this. Lee's Summit, Kansas, for
example, recently purchased a private airport for the Cit/, and is extending the
runway from 2,400 to 3,000 feet to accommodate twin-engine aircraft. The stated
purpose is to.make the airport an attraction for industry.
Dr. A. Erskine Sproul, Chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Airport Commission, at
Staunton, Virginia, reported that 20 new industries employing at least 4,000 people
have moved into the area in the last 17 years, and airport facilities were listed as
a prerequisite by all of them.
the Milan, Tennessee, MIRROR, reported last year on Gibson County's opening of a
new airport with a 4,500 runway to "handle all business jets and piston driven
planes..." Mr. Argyle Graves, Chairman of the Airport Commission, was quoted as
saying, " Seventy-five percent of prospective plants use jets, and I know of one
big plant which bypassed Milan and went to a neighboring Tennessee town because
they had adequate airport facilities. Contrary to what many people think," Mr. Graves
continued, "airports are not a luxury enjoyed by a few. They have become vital links
for the business world. With the new facilities at Gibson County Airport, a business
executive can fly to Chicago and back and transact his business in less than eight
90
-------
hours. I feel that that airport will be one of the county's greatest
assets."
In 1978, the Santa Barbara, California, NEWS PRESS ran a roundup on local air-
ports and what they contribute to the economy. They stated that because of
industry located on the airport, the Santa Maria Public Airport provides jobs
for 1,600 area residents. It makes possible private and airline transport
to cattlemen and vegetable producers. Columbia Records uses it for air freight
service; oil companies use it as a staging airport for geologists in the area.
The. report also included the Lompoc Airport, with a %600 runway, and states that this
airport has 16 persons employed on it with an annual payroll of $100,000.
The Oxnard, California, PRESS-COURIER reported that the Camarillo Airport,
with 90,000 takeoffs and landings in 1977, generated $310,000 in revenuemore than
it costs the county to operate the airport. It also generated $64,000 in local
taxes. In addition, tenants at the airport employ approximately 390 persons with
a payroll of over $3,5 million annually.
At Odessa, Texas, the Airport Board surveyed 135 businesses selected at random in
the area and found that 46 percent of the companies had customers, business
associates, or company personnel who travel to and from Odessa by business air-
craft. This represents a passenger flow of 385 passengers a month traveling by
other than scheduled aircraft. Over 50 percent of the business that operate
aircraft to Odessa stated that additional facilities would encourage more use of the
airport.
91
-------
The Santa Ana, California, Chamber of Commerce sent questionnaires to 1,000
randomly selected business in the area and received 518 replies. Seventy-one
percent of the replies showed a need for air transportation facilities. Twenty-
eight percent of the 518 companies said the Orange County Airport had influenced
in the decision to locate within the County.
Twenty-five percent said they use general aviation aircraft, and average ten
flights per month. Of that group, rou^ily 40 percentor 51 companieshad their
own aircraft; the remainder chose to use charter flights.
All these examples support the finding of a U.S. Department of Commerce survey
which polled 3,000 manufacturing firms to determine factors influencing industry
location decisions. The availability of air service and preferred community
size were two survey items. For 11 percent, availability of air service was
considered critical; and for 17 percent, significant. Cities of under 25,000
were the preferred size for 20 percent of the firms, with 38 percent choosing
cities of 50,000 or less.
Another survey of leading United States firms revealed that 80 percent would not
locate a plant in an area lacking an airport, and 57 percent indicated that the
airport should be capable of handling heavy twin engine aircraft.
In addition to bringing business into a community and helping local people to
conduct business outside the community, airports bring very tangible benefits to
the entire population. The access an airport provides and the employment opportunities
92
-------
it offers are easily recognized. Less apparent, perhaps, but no less important
are:
1. Value of time saved (by passenger plus "domino effect")
(a) Business flying
(b) Pleasure flying
(c) Utility flying
2. Emergency value (human life and property)
(a) Natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, wind and weather)
(b) Crime control and law enforcement
(c) Riots and civil disturbance
(d) Rescue and life savings
(e) Forest fire fighting
3. National defense value
(a) Pilot training and availability
(b) Value to war time combat use
(c) Civil Air Patrol
4. Promotion or stimulation of air carrier flying provides valuable
feeter traffic
5. Entertainment value
(a) Value to general aviation passengers (in terms of gratification)
1) Air shows
2) Radio, TV, movies
3) Vacation and resort area development
A) Sightseeing and other transportation modes
93
-------
(b) Value to entertainment industry
6. General business industry associated with general aviation travel
(a) Hotels
(b) Ground transportation (taxi, limousine, car rental, etc.)
(c) Meals
7. Specific benefits related to general aviation
(a) Aerial photography and napping
(b) Fish sporring and fish savings
(c) Forest fire, patrol
(d) Power and pipeline patrol
(c) Corporation internal business aircraft management, maintenance, and
operations, personnel and expenses.
The local airport is rapidly becoming the principal gateway to the Nation's modern
transportation system. Communities large and small-are realizing that to be
without air service today is as detrimental to their development as being bypassed
by the railroads was a century ago, or left off the highway map 25 years ago.
Communities that are not readily accessible to the airways may suffer penalties that
can effect every local citizenwhether he flies in a general aviation aircraft,
uses commercial airlines, or never has occasion to travel at all.
The role of the general aviation airport in providing air access is increasing. By
having access to all the Nation's airports, general aviation aircraft can bring the
benefits and values of air transportation to the entire country.
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AIRPORTS AND GENERAL AVIATION MEANS BUSINESS.
94
-------
THE WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT
/
AI t)AN
N f W V () H K
WFSTCHISTER COUNTY AIRPORT
fl MMSY IV '.I ".
I f: M L w v o H K
NEVWAHf _.'/
JL--""
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.20591
95
-------
NOTICE
This document was prepared by Ms. Joan E. 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.
96
-------
WESTCHESTER EXPERIMENT
Ever since the aircraft ceased to be an interesting curiosity to those
on the ground, resident annoyance with noise has been the subject of
vigorous complaint. For years, the owners, operators and users of
airports and the Federal Government failed to deal with noise complaints
and looked at residents as irrational and unreasonable. Residents on
the other hand took a conspiratorial view of noisemakers.
Blasted by noise which took away their peace and tranquility, and faced
with little or no response from the airport community, frustration set
in.
Thus, the scene was set for confrontation between two desperate groups,
the airport and its neighbors, neither one fully understanding nor
trusting the other.
Westchester County (N.Y.) Airport (WCA) on the Connecticut border provided
a testing ground for the understanding and coalition of these two groups,
and for the development of noise abatement procedures with which both
groups were comfortable. We call it the Westchester Experiment.
So that the Westchester Experiment may be used as a model for future
action, we will describe the background of the problem at WCA, the
governmental response to resident complaints and resident action in
precipitating the Experiment.
Background of the Problem
The Airport:
WCA is a 700 acre general aviation airport located on the Connecticut -
New York bolder. Like many of the general aviation facilities, it was
created from a little used World War II military installation that had
been located, during an emergency situation, into the midst of four
well-established residential communities.
During 1976, the airport ranked fourth in total operations and second
in general aviation operations in New York State.
The user group at WCA is mixed. It includes the corporate jets for many
of "Fortune's 500" corporations, light aircraft for private use and for
training, and commercial carriers providing scheduled service. Also,
the Air National Guard has an air reconnaissance mission at WCA.
97
-------
Each of the uses presented a different noise experience for the neigh-
bors and precluded any simple solution to the noise problem.
Neighborhood Area:
The surrounding residential neighborhoods are as mixed as the aircraft
at WCA. On the Connecticut side of the state line, there is a signif-
icant area of large lot development (2 to 4+ acres) with expensive
homes. On the New York side, land use patterns vary by community but
tend to be more dense. Lot sizes there are generally one acre or less.
All of the communities have the usual combination of schools, churches,
hospitals and recreational areas. There never was, nor is there now,
any significant business development in the area.
The Noise:
Early in the seventies, when annual operations were at an all time high
of 282,000 movements, there were four types of objectionable 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 10:1)0 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 2) High frequency jet
engine run-ups; 3) Use of reverse thrust, especially at night; and, 4)
The daisy-chain of light aircraft doing touch and go.
Resident Complaints and Governmental Action
Concerted resident complaints began in 1968. Prior to that time they
had been sporadic. The complaints were spurred by the growth of WCA
from 145,000 operations in 1958 to 254,000 operations in 1968. Further-
more, multiple uses of the airport and the increased use of jets with no
discernible noise abatement procedures drove residents to bitter complaint.
Greenwich, Connecticut, residents through their Homeowner Association
formally complained about aircraft noise from 1968 to 1974. Their
complaints were constant and articulate. They were made orally and in
writing. They were addressed to every level of government from the FAA,
Eastern Region, to the owner of the airport, Westchester County, Mew
York. Residents enlisted and received the assistance of the Town of
Greenwich and of their Congressman but their complaints fell on deaf
ears. There was no meaningful response. The FAA denied all authority
over use of the airport; the owner claimed that the operator had authority
under terms of the lease; and the operator insisted that Federal law
vested the authority in the FAA and owner respectively. Thus, the
residents were carefully shuttled from one authority to another in what
might properly be called The Shell Game.
98
-------
Citizen Action
In the spring of 1974 in total frustration over governmental deafness,
the residents of northwest Greenwich hired the Westport, Connecticut, law
firm of Davidson and Spirer to file a lawsuit.
Late in the summer of 1974, an action was filed in the Federal District
Court in New Haven, Connecticut, (Docket B-74-280) by the Homeowner
Association* against the owner and the operator of Westchester County
Airport and the FAA. The citizens were joined in this action by the
Town of Greenwich, Connecticut. Essentially the plaintiffs' sought
$20,000,000 in damages, in addition to injunctive relief requiring an
enforced noise abatement program and a curfew. Finally, the residents
had the ear of Government!
In the six months following, considerable legal maneuvering took place.
The important result was that in January of 1975 the airport owner,
Vest Chester 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) fuar that prolur.gtjii negotiations would empty the Association's
treasury because of increased legal costs.
Homeowner reluctance to negotiate was eventually overcome by the NBAA
and the V.\ stchester County Pilots Association. With permission of
counsel, the presidents of each of these organizations contacted the
president of the Homeowner Association. A meeting was set up during
which these representatives of the aviation community convinced home-
owners of their sincerity and eagerness to deal with the noise problem
by developing a noise abatement policy for WCA. They also conveyed the
concern of both the airport owner and the Federal Government that a
peaceful solution to the problem be reached.
With NBAA assurances of technical assistance and some tough negotiating
between lawyers, a Stipulation of Settlement was hammered out and signed
in July of 1975, one year after the lawsuit was filed. Determination by
the homeowners to deal with their noise problem through the courts
finally produced the long awaited result.
--'Northwest Greenwich Association
99
-------
The Stipulation
The Stipulation is a comprehensive document that sets forth the parties,
their relationships and the conditions governing the negotiations to
resolve the noise problem. In effect, it identifies the users - the
people making the noise, and the residents - the people hearing the
noise, as the principals in these negotiations.
The Stipulation called for the formation of a Committee consisting of
these two groups to meet on a regular basis with a specified agenda (See
Appendix). The Stipulation mandates that the FAA, the airport owner,
and the operator serve the Committee in an advisory capacity, supplying
such data as needed to deal with the noise problem objectively.
In recognition of what is now acknowledged as Che 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.
r
Negotiations under the Stipulation began in September 1975 and have
continued productively to date.
Results to Date
The Westchester Experiment has produced meaningful results in terms of
noise reduction. Negotiations under the Stipulation and concessions by
the airport community have resulted in the following:
1. The development, printing and distribution of a noise abate-
ment procedure for WCA. The procedure itself is the result of
careful, expensive study and field testing by the NBAA using
aircraft borrowed from the corporations. The procedure docu-
ment is designed to be inserted in the pilot's manual and is
given to all users of the airport. Work is under way to have
Jeppeson, pilot's manuals, include the procedure in its
regular publication.
2. A voluntary curfew of jet takeoffs from 11:00 p.m. to 6:30
a.m. This curfew has been adhered to by the majority of
resident users. It has considerably reduced regional noise
but homeowners feel that there is still room for improvement.
3. Elimination of reverse thrusts except in an emergency situation.
4. A voluntary reduction in touch and go operations by using
smaller regional airports.
100
-------
5. Prohibition of turbine engine run-ups unless an emergency
exists in which case approval must be given by the airport
operator. At all times specified areas of the airport are
mandated for this engine work.
6. A manned, twenty-four hour noise complaint number set up by
the operator with an established procedure for logging and
dealing with each complaint.
7. The purchase of a portable noise monitoring unit to measure
noise exposure around the residential community. Funds are
now being requested for a permanent monitoring system to
insure a constant noise measurement nearer the source.
8. Installation, bv the ov:ner, of instrument guidance systems to
assist in compliance with noise abatement and safety procedures
agreed upon nt VGA.
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. Repre-sentat ion of home-owners on the WCA Master Plan Policy
Liaison board. The Beard will provide the citizen-resident
input for de've-1 oprr,< n t of a long range plan for WCA.
These results were not easily achieved. The first few meetings were
tense ana at times aln.rst hostile. The hostility stemmed from the home-
owners lone frustration am! 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; thc^ enabled all parties to air their resentments and realize
that the problems involved were- not, after all, insurmountable.
While t he-re 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 atmosphc-re of positive solution. The
work to date has pone a long war 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 Vestchester Experiment we have found
that reasonable people, working together, can achieve a great deal.
101
-------
APPENDIX*
The Committee shall initially consider, study and, if possible, report
on the following items:
(a) Night operations at the airport between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(b) Abatement of noise disturbance from engine run-ups and ground
operations.
(c) "Touch and go" flight procedures.
(d) Scheduling of student pilot training.
(c) T'ne feasibility and desirability of establishing a preferential
runway system.
(f) Runway restrictions.
(g) Raising the floor under the LaGuardia Terminal Control area in
and around Westchester County Airport to a minimum of four
thousand feet (4,000') MLS, or above, from its current floor
of three thousand feet (3,000') MSL.
(h) Tlu safest and most desirable angle for the existing glide
slope and any future glide slopes that might be installed.
(i) The installation of a VAST system on Runways 11, 29 and 16.
(j) The feasibility, desirability and possible consequences of the
installation of noise monitoring equipment.
(k) helicopter operations.
(1) Use of thrust reversers.
" (m) Discussion, proposal and implementation of other practices and
IToccdurc-s which -will reduce noise and emissions and increase
safety from the operation of Wustchester County Airport.
The list set forth above may be supplemented by other items which may be
undertaken bv the Committee.
*Tlu- information in this appendix is contained in the Settlement of
Stipulation as agreed to by all the parties in the lawsuit.
102
-------
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH NOISE ASSOCIATED
WITH GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY
By
LEWIS S. GOODFRIEND, P.E.
Lewis S. Goodfriend & Associates
Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
To provide relief from nois^ problems at a General Aviation
Airport, 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
1 2
to be suitable for GA Airport noise assessment ' . Among
the problems in applying noise descriptors are:
Different operations at the same level cause
difference responses.
Flight tracks vary widely for the same category of
aircraft at typical measuring locations, thus
yielding a large spread in measured levels.
Community response appears to occur as a complex
function of flight frequency, maximum level,
duration above ambient, and visibility.
103
-------
This has been confirmed to some extent by Harris in his
study for the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, and by
some work performed by my own associates at Morristown
Municipal and other nearby airports.
In one case, the noise complaints occur only when aircraft
land at night with their lights on before they cress the
airport property fence. Tha average daily traffic at this
airport is only about four movements a day.
A quote from Harris further delineates the nature of the
problem of using noise descriptors in defining and remedying
GA Airport noise problems,
- ...cumulative aircraft noise near the ambient
for other noise resulted in concerted community
action.
These airports were all in relatively quiet areas.
Serious complaints and concerted community action
occurred with aircraft noise levels in the range from
L^ 50 to L, 55, levels far beiow current official
dn dn
standards of acceptability.
- airport neighbors firr,*-. complained about levels
of noise exposure froi. 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.
104
-------
Complaints about touch-and-go flights did not occur
when the levels of exposure due to a touch-and-go
flights were below L, 50; however, they occurred on a
regular basis when exposure exceeded L, 50. At the
airports we studied, there were no levels due to touch-
and-go flights that exceeded L, 55.
an
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 tc predict
impact can again best be done for the specific runway on the
basis of local community noise response information.
In order to relate airport operations to noise impact,
detailed information on the individual GA Airports is necessary,
Information includes:
1. Size.
2. Physical relationship of airport and noise-sensitive
areas.
3. Traffic volume.
4. Traffic mix (prop only).
5. Presence of jet traffic.
6. Frequency of jet traffic.
7. Fixed base activities (static engine run ups).
8*. Runway use.
105
-------
With this information and the complaint records, it may be
possible, without any acoustical information at all, to
estimate the noise impact on surrounding areas. Add to
these data the ambient noise levels in the area, and the
actual or predicted maximum levels at the noise-sensitive
locations due to aircraft operations, and the problem will
almost define itself.
Experience at a number of snail airports has confirmed
Harris' findings with regard to touch-and-go traffic noise.
If the neighbors hear it for the better part of any hour it
will cause complaints. Furthermore, frequent departing
flights with noise levels significantly above the ambient,
cause complaints. With respect to jet traffic, it appears
that there is no simple relationship between frequency of
flights and annoyance. The community response appears to
occur in three discrete steps:
1. Awareness of jet traffic.
2. Annoyance by jet traffic.
3. Group action against jet flights.
It is clear from this preliminary discussion, that there are
few functional relationships to guide us in the assessment
of the impact of GA Airport noise in the surrounding community,
However, the remedial measures available are also discrete
in nature, so that we are not faced with measuring a small
change in noise level or impact. If we can't make a change
equivalent to a five or 10 decibel reduction in level, we
will see no change in the community response.
106
-------
There are several generic types of remedial measures. These
include political, regulatory, operational, economic, and
community relations measures. Some remedial measures are
accomplished through a combination of those elements listed.
Political solutions are those which result from actions by
municipal bodies such as the grverning 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
seldom 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.
107
-------
Of course, for single runway airports, the preferential
runway idea isn't much help. However, flexibility in the
assignment of departure headings, and close cooperation
between FAA tower personnel and the airport management, can
reduce the impact during high density traffic periods.
For smaller airports, touch-and-go traffic may all occur
near or over residential areas. It is here that attention
needs to be given to the place of flight training in the
airport community relationship. It may be that airport
operators will have to decide whether business traffic and
aircraft maintenance activities are more important than
flight training and hanger or tie-down income. It has
occurred to many in the general aviation area, that some
trade offs in this area may be in order. Just turn on your
radio on some clear Friday afternoon and listen to the
combination of student pilots, business twins, and high
performance jets all in the same traffic pattern.
A combination of regulatory and operational measures has
been adopted by some airports, which require the filing of
applications by those wishing to operate turbine-powered
aircraft into the airport, and which also require that
certain procedures be followed during landing and takeoff.
These procedures are published in some cases as Jeppesen-
like pages.
Economic remedial measures include incentives for major
corporations to maintain a good neighbor image by minimizing
their fleet impact on the neighboring community. This
provides strong motivation to operate quietly and to upgrade
the flight with quieter aircraft.
108
-------
Another economic aspect of remediation exists when the
impacted community includes members of the owning companies'
staffs.
At some airports, the management works closely with the
neighboring communities to pinpoint those operations that
appear to have the greatest impact, and with the cooperation
of the FAA personnel implement noise abatement plans. Also,
corporate pilots have joined together in formal organizations
at some airports and, among other activities, work toward
noise abatement and improved community relations. This may
include assessment of operational procedures for noise
abatement involving turbine-powered equipment noise, as well
as participating in community activities. It has been known
for many years, that noise annoyance is increased by the
belief on the part of the auditor that the noise is unnecessary
or can be easily abated. It is also known that good community
relations is worth up to 10 dB of noise reduction. With
this in mind, it is clearly important for airport managers
to work at improving community relations. Programs which
identify communications paths for complaints, follow-up
reports on complaints, and disseminate information on studies,
programs, and actions taken to improve the noise situation
are very important. This means not issuing press releases,
but meeting with elected officials of neighboring municipalities
and community groups and bringing in the pilots organizations
and FAA staff where they can hear the problem at first hand,
discuss the operational aspects, and then discuss potential
measures to reduce the noise impacts both in the near and
long term.
There are some problem areas where the ideas that have been
presented will not be easy to implement. These include:
109
-------
1. Airports in one municipality that are owned by
another municipality.
2. Airports on the edge of one municipality that
causes noise problems in another.
3. Suburban airports initiating turbine-powered
activity.
4. Airports opening new fixe5 base jet maintenance
facilities.
Nevertheless, a program for remediation should always be
available to each airport management. It should be operating
before any complaints occur, and it may result in never
having serious noise complaints. Such a program includes:
1. Preparation of topographic maps and aerial photographs
with the expected traffic patterns overlaid.
2. Delineation of noise-sensitive areas.
3. Listing of airport telephone "information" numbers.
4. Availability of instructions for recording complaint
information.
5. A noise coordinating committee to review operations,
recommend noise abatement procedures, and assess
complaints from an operational point of view.
6. Issuance of noise abatement procedures if needed.
110
-------
7. Regional information and eduction programs.
8. Cooperation with local governing bodies and planning
boards in order to achieve long term benefits from
land use planning.
9. Review of FAA documents and environmental requirements
for airport development.
10. Annual 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, B.C., April 19/b,
111
-------
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 ANiJ LAND USE PLANNING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
OCTOBER 4, 1979
GENERAL AVIATION AS A. MODE OF TRANSPORTATION HAS COME OF AGE,
UNFORTUNATELY, Tins 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 YFARS,
113
-------
IN 1958 THE CITY OF TORRANCE TOOK ACTION TO DEVELOP THE
AIRPORT TO MEET THE GROWING NEED FOR GENERAL AVIATION, OVER THE
NEXT 5 YEARS THE CONTROL TOWER WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE SECOND RUNWAY
WAS BUILT, TAXIWAYS, PARKING APRONS, LIGHTING, AND HANGARS WERE
CONSTRUCTED,
CONCURRENTLY, HOUSING AND APARTMENTS WERE DEVELOPED AROUND THE
AIRPORT,
THE OBJECTIONS TO AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CONFLICTING LAND USE
PATTERNS FIRST BECAME EVIDENT IN 1965, THE ClTY OF TORRANCE STARTED
ITS FIRST REMEDIAL MEASURE AT THAT TIME,
THIS DEALT WITH LAND USE, THE AREA IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE
AIRPORT HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO DEVELOP WITH POOR QUALITY HOUSING FOR
SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE,
MANY OF THE HOUSES WERE FREEWAY MOVE-INS DISPLACED BY FREEWAY
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATED, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
AIRPORT, THE ClTY OF TORRANCE INITIATED A FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO CONVERT THE RESIDENTIAL LAND
USE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
THE PROJECT AMOUNTED TO $7 MILLION ON 1/3 MATCHING GRANT, LOANS
AND LOCAL FUNDING,
THE ORIGINAL PROJECT CONVERTED RESIDENTIAL USES IMPACTED BY
AIRPORT OPERATIONS TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE, AND COMMERCIAL USES
WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE AND, IN FIVE INSTANCES, HAVE CREATED LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT,
TODAY IT is AN EXAMPLE OF EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT,
ANOTHER PROJECT UNDER STATE GUIDELINES USING LOCAL FUNDS WILL
TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE EXISTING MEADOW PARK REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT,
IN 1965 THE CITY TOOK OTHER LAND USE MEASURES WHICH CONTINUE TO
BE UTILIZED,
114
-------
THESE ARE THE ACQUISITION OF AVIGATION EASEMENTS WHICH REQUIRE
HEIGHT LIMITS, GRANT THE RIGHT OF FLIGHT, AND, IN SOME INSTANCES,
REQUIRE ACOUSTIC TREATMENT,
AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED BOTH AS DEED RESTRICTIONS ON
TRACTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND AS A CONDITION OF LAND USE CHANGES
OR MODIFICATIONS SUCH AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, LOT SPLITS, AND
OTHER LAND USE MODIFICATIONS,
ACOUSTIC CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR NEW STRUCTURES HAVING
CRITICAL USES IN THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THIS INCLUDES THE
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WHICH REQUIRE LOW INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS,
AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED JUST AS STREET, SIDEWALK, SEWER,
AND OTHER EASEMENTS ARE OBTAINED FOR NEWLY DEVELOPING PROPERTY OR
PROPERTY REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING USES,
IN CONGESTED URBAN AREA LAND USE PLANNING, RE~USE, DEED RESTRICTIONS,
AND AVIGATION EASEMENTS ARE LIMITED AS REMEDIAL MEASURES,
THERE STILL EXIST RESIDENTIAL USES WHICH ARE IMPACTED BY GENERAL
AVIATION AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS,
IN 1970 AIRCRAFT NOISE, TOGETHER WITH CHANGING LAND USE, RAISED
QUESTIONS IN THE MINDS OF THE ClTY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUMITY,
A PROCESS WAS STARTED FOR REVIEWING THE GOALS FOR THE AIRPORT
WHICH RESULTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW AlRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE
NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM BEING USED TODAY,
BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS, IT is ESSENTIAL TO PERFORM
AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE AIRPORT,
THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE AIRPORT,
BUT THE AIRPORT ITSELF, ITS USE, TYPES AND CLASS OF AIRCRAFT, AND THE
SPECTRUM OF EXPERIENCE OF THE AIRCRAFT OPERATORS,
115
-------
YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS AND THE PROBLEM AREAS, THE
AVERAGE GENERAL AVIATION PILOT DOES NOT PERCEIVE HIS OPERATION INTO
AND OUT OF THE AIRPORT AS A PROBLEM, THE PILOT GENERALLY HAS NO
PERCEPTION OF THE NOISE IMPACT OF HIS AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT ON THE GROUND,
IT'S AKIN TO TURNING A DRIVER LOOSE ON A PARKWAY OR A FREEWAY
WITHOUT A SPEEDOMETER AND CAUTIONING HIM NOT TO EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT,
NOISE IS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM, SAFETY MAY BE BROUGHT FORTH AS A
PROBLEM. BUT GENERALLY IT IS SECONDARY AND IS USED TO SUPPORT RESISTANCE
TO NOISE IMPACT,
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE NOISE MUST BE ANALYZED,
THE SOURCE, IN TERMS OF THE AIRCRAFT TYPE, ITS POWER PLANT,
PROPELLER NOISE, EXHAUST 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 HAY 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 P.UNWAY 29R,
116
-------
1% OF THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS OCCUR TO THE WESTj A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OCCUR ON RUNWAY 29R,
FROM THIS ANALYSIS WE DEVELOPED A CURVE WHICH IDENTIFIED THE
BULK OF THE AIRCRAFT OPERATING AT TORRANCE MUNICIPAL AlRPORT,
WE DETERMINED THAT ABOVE 82 MAXIMUM AND 88 SINGLE EVENT MoiSE
EXPOSURE LEVEL, 5% OF THE AIRCRAFT FLEET WOULD BE AFFECTED,
THE CITY COUNCIL IN INITIATING ACTION TO CONTROL THE NOISE IN
THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT SELECTED THESE AS THE UPPER LIMIT FOR
DAYTIME OPERATION TOGETHER WITH 76 MAXIMUM AND 82 SINGLE EVENT AS
THE NIGHTTIME LIMITS,
THESE LIMITS WERE SELECTED BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT
MIX AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, OUR SELECTION AND DECISION
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE COURT DECISION IN
SANTA MONICA,
ONCE THE INFORMATION, IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM, AND POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS ARE ASSEMBLED, THE THIRD EFFORT AT REMEDIAL MEASURES MUST
BE INITIATED.
THERE MUST BE AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR BOTH PILOT USERS AND THE
COMMUNITY,
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EDUCATION, MOST PILOTS SAY "No WAY", AND
MOST COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES SAY "You'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING",
PILOTS RESENT THE IMPLICATION THAT THEY ARE LESS THAN COMPETENT
IN THEIR TECHNICAL SKILL, AND THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE PEOPLE THUNDERING OVERHEAD AND MAKING NOISE CAN EVER BE EDUCATED,
NONETHELESS, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED IT, AND WE HAVE BEEN REASONABLY
SUCCESSFUL - A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER, PROVISIONS FOR OPERATIONAL
EVALUATION OF AIRCRAFT TO DETERMINE NOISE LEVEL, AND, MOST IMPORTANT
OF ALL, COMMUNICATIONS;.
117
-------
THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER IS SENT TO BOTH PILOTS AND THE
COMMUNITY WHO WISH TO RECEIVE IT, IN THIS NEWSLETTER WE REPORT
ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM, NEW TECHNIQUES
FOR REDUCING NOISE IMPACT, BOTH FROM THE SOURCE AND FLYING TECHNIQUE,
CAUTION ON TIME OF OCCURRENCE, AND FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE,
WITH EVALUATIONS, THE ClTY HAS UTILIZED THE NEWLY ACQUIRED AND
INSTALLED NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM TO REVIEW AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND
FLIGHT TECHNIQUES, WE CAN TALK DIRECTLY TO THE PILOTS THROUGH OUR OWN
MULTI-COMM FREQUENCY ACQUIRED FROM THE FCC FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PURPOSES,
A PILOT CAN MAKE 2 OR 3 RUNS USING DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES AND GET
INSTANT ANSWERS ON WHICH TECHNIQUE IS MOST EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING NOISE
FROM HIS AIRCRAFT OPERATION,
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PILOTS ARE COOPERATIVE AND UNDERSTANDING
IN RESPONSE TO THE EDUCATION PROGRAM, PILOTS PRIDE THEMSELVES IN THE
PROFESSIONAL EXECUTION OF THEIR SKILL,
THE EDUCATION PROGRAM IS ALSO AN EXCELLENT TOOL FOR COMMUNICATING
WITH THE COMMUNITY WHAT IS BEING DONE, WHAT IS NOT BEING DONE, AND WHY,
EDUCATION is VOLUNTARY AND ONLY GOES so FAR,
THE FOURTH ELEMENT IN REMEDIAL MEASURES IS ENFORCEMENT, THE ClTY
COUNCIL OF TORRANCE, BASED ON DATA GATHERED, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION
OF THE AIRPORT NOISE ENVIRONMENT, ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE AND SUBMITTED
IT TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
THE CITY RECEIVED APPROVAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THAT ORDINANCE,
THE LIMITATION ON TIME PERIODS WHEN TOUCH AND GO TRAINING OPERATIONS
COULD BE PERFORMED, AND THE INSTITUTION OF A DEPARTURE CURFEW,
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS COMMENCED IN OCTOBER, 1978, A
SERIES OF CITATIONS WERE ISSUED OR COMPLAINTS FILEDj THE INCIDENTS OF
VIOLATION OF THESE PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE NOW ZERO,
118
-------
INITIALLY THE LOCAL FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MADE
MINIMAL COOPERATIVE EFFORT IN THE ClTY's ENFORCEMENT OF TOUCH AND
GO LIMITATIONS AND DEPARTURE CURFEWS, AFTER SOME DISCUSSION THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOW ISSUES ADVISORIES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ASSISTING PILOTS WHO MAY BE UNAWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS, ADVISORIES
SUCH AS "FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, REQUEST You MAKE A FULL STOP" IN RESPONSE
TO A REQUEST FOR TOUCH AND GO DURING PROHIBITED HOURS,
THIS HAS BEEN MOST HELPFUL IN PREVENTING PILOTS FROM BEING CITED
AND CALLED INTO COURT AND FINED,
OUR OBJECTIVE, AFTER ALL, IS TO REDUCE THE NOISE IMPACT, NOT TO
COLLECT FINES OR CITE FOR MISDEMEANOR VIOLATIONS,
THE CITY OF TORRANCE PLANS TO EXPAND ITS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
INTO THE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THE
DECISION IN THE SANTA MONICA CASE,
THIS WILL IMPACT THOSE PILOTS WHO HAVE SELECTED AN AIRCRAFT THAT
CANNOT MEET THE NOISE STANDARDS AT TORRANCE OR THOSE PILOTS WHO DO
NOT OR WILL NOT UTILIZE THE TESTED AND PROVEN TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING
NOISE FROM THEIR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS,
AGAIN, THE PURPOSE is NOT TO FINE AND NOT TO CITE, BUT TO REDUCE
NOISE,
PILOTS AND AIRCRAFT OWNERS WHO MEET THE NOISE LIMITATIONS AT
TORRANCE ARE BENEFITED BY THIS ENFORCEMENT, IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF
OVERALL NOISE IMPACT AND REDUCES THE PRESSURE FOR ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS
ON THE AIRPORT AND ITS OPERATIONS THUS MAKING THIS MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
AVAILABLE TO THE MAJORITY OF USERS,
THE FIFTH MOST IMPORTANT REMEDIAL MEASURE IS REPORT THE RESULTS,
IN THE FOUR PREVIOUS STEPS, REPORTING THE STEPS AND THEIR RESULTS IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT OUTGROWTH AND SUPPORT THAT CAM BE USED,
A FULL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION, GOOD OR BAD, ON THE RESULTS OF
THE OVERALL NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT IN OBTAINING
119
-------
CREDIBILITY AND SUPPORT OF BOTH PILOTS AND COMMUNITY,
THE NEWSLETTER, PRESENTATIONS TO GROUPS, SERVICE CLUBS, AND
ORGANIZATIONS OF THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM'S FUNCTIONS AND OBJECTIVES,
INTERFACE WITH MEDIA TO KEEP THEM ADVISED AS TO THE PROGRESS - ALL
ARE IMPORTANT TO A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM,
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT
POLICY, PUBLISHED IN NOVEMBER, 1976, FURNISHES A BASIC GUIDELINE FOR
NOISE REDUCTION PROGRAMS, A REASONABLE PROGRAM, BASED ON PROPER
ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND PREPARATION, CAN BE ASSURED OF A REASONABLE
RESPONSE FROM THE FAA,
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS IN ANY GIVEN PROGRAM THAT,
FROM TIME TO TIME, RECEIVES A NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION BASED ON NATIONAL POLICY,
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S STRICT ADHERANCE TO NATIONAL
POLICY IN CERTAIN MATTERS IS UNRESPONSIVE AND NEGATIVE IN ITS IMPACT
ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AGENCIES, AND AIRPORT PROPRIETORS WHO NEED ALL
THE HELP THEY CAN GET TO MAINTAIN THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF OUR AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,
THE SUCCESS OF REMEDIAL MEASURES BY THE CITY OF TORRANCE AND
OTHER GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT PROPRIETORS WOULD BE MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE
IF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WAS MORE RESPONSIVE AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL PERMITTING THE REGIONAL OFFICES MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH GENERAL
AVIATION AIRPORTS, THEIR NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS,
THIS WILL LEAD TO A POLICY WHICH CAN REFLECT POSITIVE NOISE
ABATEMENT EFFORTS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION,
IN SUMMARY, A CASE STUDY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES AT TORRANCE
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INCLUDES LAND USE CONTROLS BY REDEVELOPMENT AND
120
-------
REUSE, DEED RESTRICTIONS, AVIGATION EASEMENTS, AND ACOUSTIC
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT THE AIRPORT AND THE COMMUNITY,
IT INCLUDES COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES TO A PROGRAM,
WITHOUT THIS COMMITMENT OF DOLLARS AND PEOPLE, ANY PROGRAM is
ONLY PAPER, ORDINANCES, LAWS, CODES, AND IT WILL BE A "PAPER TIGER",
THE PROGRAM INVOLVES ANALYSIS OF AND DEFINING THE PROBLEMS,
MORE RESOURCES, DOLLARS, PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT,
THE PROGRAM INVOLVES EDUCATION FOR THOSE WHO CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE PROBLEM, THE PILOTS AND THE COMMUNITY, MORE DOLLARS AND
RESOURCES,
THE PROGRAM INVOLVES ENFORCEMENT, SOME REQUIRE GREATER INCENTIVE
THAN OTHERS TO TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM,
MORE DOLLARS AND PEOPLE,
AND FINALLY, REPORTING THE RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM TO THE COMMUNITY
AND PILOTS,
USE OF THE NEWSLETTER, PERIODIC REPORTS TO THE CITIZENS' ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, AIRPORT COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL KEEP THE PILOTS AND
COMMUNITY INFORMED OF PROGRESS,
WITH THESE REMEDIAL MEASURES, ToRRANCE HAS REDUCED THE AIRPORT
NOISE CONTOURS, ACCCMODATED A SLIGHT INCREASE IN OPERATIONS, GAINED
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN REVENUES, AMD WE HAVE NO MORE DEMONSTRATIONS
AND PROTESTS IN FRONT OF ClTY COUNCIL,
IT'S WORKED FOR ToRRANCE,
WE THINK IT'S A MODEL PROGRM,
THANK YOU,
121
-------
Conference on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use Planning
Graduate City Planning Program
College of Architecture
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
(404) 894-2350
PREVENTIVE MEASURES:
WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT, NEW YORK
PETER ESCHWEILER
COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING
ViESTCHESTER COUNTY AlRPORT, NEW YORK
OCTOBER 4, 1979
123
-------
document A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
AND
THE TOWN OF RYE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
This memorandum Is between the County of Westchester, herein-
after called the County, and the Town of Rye, hereinafter called
the Town.
The County and the Town recognize the advantages of close
coopr-raiion in tho development of the Westchester County A rport
Master Plan, and in particular, the land use planning elerne t and
the Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility Study
(ANCUJC). This cooperation will be mutually beneficial, and *lll
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. Thi.s
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 lutid I'se Compatibility Study.
The county will provide the Town Board with County projections
ol 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.
124
-------
For the purposes of the land use planning element, the County
and its consultants will accept the adopted Town Development Plan
as a "given", unless and until the Town notifies the County Plan-
ning Department that it has changed that policy statement; the
Town will provide the County Planning department with copies of
all such changes.
The County will meet with the Town Board at mutually convenient
times to identify, discuss and attempt to resolve any off-airport
land use issues arising within the Town and relating to the
airport Hiid its operations.
The County will revien, upon the request of the Town Board,
any local plans or applications to the Town for approval of land
use actions during the tint- frame of the Airport Master Plan
preparation and comment to t:,e Town on the effect of such plans
or applications on the airport or the effect by the airport on
that such development.
On mutually convenient dates, the County and its consultants
will brief Town officials on the progress of the Airport Master
Plan, and solicit comments and suggestions thereon.
The County will provide the Town with copies of all information
reports and discussion papers prepared during the Airport Master
{Ian and the ANV1.1K" study for the Town's i r.f ormat ion and comment.
The County will provide the Town with a copy of the final
Airport Master Plan and ANCI.l'C ->tudy.
125
-------
WHAT THE TOWN WILL DO
The Town will cooperate with the County and its consultants
on the Airport Master Plan and consult with then on matters of
local development affecting or affected by the airport and its
operat ions.
The Town will providp 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
Airport Master Plan Policy Liaison Board. The Town may also designate
an additional person specifically to represent the Town Board on
the Ai_rj..or_t_ P«l i££_Lia>son Board and other naster plan working
conn it i cos during the ffia_ster _p_l_an__ ^proc^sa^ The County will give
duo nri'i'-e of such meetings to that representative.
The Town will provide to the County a copy of the local
zoning ordinance, land subdivision regulations and other regulations
control Imp development in the vicinity of the airport.
The Town will review t.'ounty projections of land use and
population and other data pertaining to its area and submit comments
thfroon to the County.
Th<' Town will n;eet on mutually convenient dates with the County
and its consultants on the Airport Master flan for consultation and
to present the Town's comments and suggestions.
126
-------
IT IS FURTHER AGREED
That the town shall have the right to participate in the master
planning process as fully as though it wero a co-sponsor but shall
not boar any responsibi 1 i ties of endorsement or approval that night
otherwise lir.it a co-sponsor.
That the implementation of this agreement regarding the land
use planning element of the Airport Master Plan and the ANCLUC study
shall be coordinated and supervised by the County Commissioner of
Planning and by the Town Supervisor or their desingated representatives.
That the services and data to be provided by each part to the
other shall be from the then-available sources and data, and
at no cost to the other party.
The County and the Town may agree to develop such additional
data as may be deemed to be advisable and appropriate for the
Airport Master Plan and the ANCLUC studies, but within the constraints
of available time and budget.
The County of fcestchester and not trie Town will be responsible
for the obligations under the FAA Master Plan Grant Agreement with
the United State Government.
Town of Rye
By: /
Supervisor
Date
As authorized by Resolution
of ,
County of Westchester
-fTT't', £
By:
fe
ommissloner
Date:
*2, '9?f
As authorized by the
Board of Acquisition and
Contract by Resolution
Dated OcArtf JJ , 1977
127
-------
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 Rye is contiguous with t.se 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 ANCLUC studies,
the Town and the County are cooperating in the study of the appropriate
forir. and type of development ror this specific area.
The Town of Rye has designated this area as a critical area
on which it wishes to cooperate with the County in promoting sound
economic development for the highest and best possible use in our
existing circumstances. Accordingly, it is hereby agreed that the
County of Westchester and the Town of Rye will continue the cooperation
started under the Airport Master Plan and ANCLUC studies and will
128
-------
actively seek the appropriate development of this land by
such developers and with such land uses as will be of great
value to the Town of Hye and yet be compatible with the
requirements relating to public safety and welfare for the use
of land in the vicinity of the County Airport. Both the County
and L.h«j Town r
-------
General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Suite 517
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 296-8848
THE ROLE OF AIRCRAFT f«JFACTURERS
IN ALUEVIATING GENERAL AVIATION NOISE
- STANLEY J, GREEN -
VICE PRESIDENT
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
CONFERENCE ON GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT NOISE
AND LAf USE PUNNING
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
OCTOBER 3 - 5, 1979
131
-------
FIRST, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT GENERAL AVIATION IS TO GAMA,
GENERAL AVIATION, WHICH is DEFINED AS ALL CIVIL AVIATION OTHER THAN THE
LARGE SCHEDULED AIR CARRIERS, IS VITAL TO THE NATION'S ECONOMY AND
TOUCHES EVERY SEGMENT OF AMERICAN LIFE IN SOME BENEFICIAL WAY,
GENERAL AVIATION MAY ALSO BE DESCRIBED AS OVER 800,000 PILOTS
FLYING 200,000 AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM OVER 14,000 AIRPORTS, IT COMPLEMENTS
THE EXCELLENT AIRLINE SYSTEM OF THE U.S. BY TRANSPORTING OVER 110,000,000
INTERCITY PASSENGERS ANNUALLY, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THESE FLIGHTS USE
AIRPORTS WITHOUT AIRLINE SERVICE AT ONE, OR OFTEN BOTH ENDS OF THEIR
FLIGHTS, ONE-THIRD OF ALL BUSINESS FLIGHTS INTO MAJOR METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS CONNECT WITH A SCHEDULED AIRLINE FLIGHT,
IN SHORT, GENERAL AVIATION - WHICH INCLUDES COMMUTER AIRLINES, AIR
TAXIS, AND BUSINESS AND PERSONAL AIRCRAFT - EXPANDS THE BENEFITS OF AIR
TRANSPORTATION FROM THE 380 SOME AIRPORTS SERVED BY THE SCHEDULED AIR-
LINES TO THE NEARLY L8,000 COMMUNITIES SERVED BY GENERAL AVIATION,
f-KNY OF THESE AIRPORTS ARE IN RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY AND GENERAL
AVIATION IS THE ONLY FORM OF AIR TRANSPORTATION,
GENERAL AVIATION is AN INDUSTRY THAT EMPLOYS OVER 300,000 PEOPLE IN
MANUFACTURING, SALES, FLIGHT DEPARTMENTS, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER RELATED
SERVICES. THERE ARE OVER 5,000 LOCAL AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES INVOLVED
IN GENERAL AVIATION, NATIONWIDE.
132
-------
GENERAL AVIATION ALSO CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE U,S, BALANCE
OF TRADE, HISTORICALLY, ONE-FOURTH OF THE TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION
PRODUCTION IS EXPORTED, WITH THE RESULT THAT NEARLY 90 PERCENT OF THE
WORLD'S GENERAL AVIATION FLEET HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED
STATES,
GROWTH OF GENERAL AVIATION
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 1970, CONSIDERABLE GROWTH HAS XCURRED IN
THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY,
THE GENERAL AVIATION FLEET HAS GROWN 60 PERCENT, FROM
130,000 AIRCRAFT TO 200,000
THE NUMBER OF HOURS FLOWN HAS INCREASED 56 PERCENT, FROM
25 MILLION TO 39 MILLION HOURS ANNUALLY,
THE NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS USING BUSINESS AIRPLANES AMONG
THE FORTURE 1000 HAS GROWN TO 524, AN INCREASE OVER 25
PERCENT, ADDITIONALLY, THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE
PURCHASED THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT,
IN 1970, THE INDUSTRY DELIVERED 7,300 AIRCRAFT, THIS FIGURE
WAS SURPASSED IN THE FIRST FIVE MONTHS OF 1979,
LAST YEAR, ALMOST 18,000 NEW AIRCRAFT VALUED AT $1,78 BILLION, WERE
DELIVERED BY THE U,S, MANUFACTURERS. THIS YEAR, OUR MANUFACTURERS
EXPECT TO DELIVER APPROXIMATELY THE SAME NUMBER OF NEW AIRCRAFT WITH A
SHIPMENT VALUE EXCEEDING $2,1 BILLION, THE SOPHISTICATION OF THESE
AIRCRAFT IS ALSO INCREASING, A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE FLEET IS BEING
DELIVERED WITH INCREASED INSTRUMENT FLYING CAPABILITIES AND PRACTICALLY
ALL NEW AIRCRAFT ARE EQUIPPED WITH TRANSPONDERS,
133
-------
THERE is AN INCREASING TREND TOWARD PRESSURIZATION. TWENTY PERCENT
OF NEW SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT ARE NOW TURBOCHARGED, WHICH PROVIDES
BETTER FUEL EFFICIENCY AND HIGHER SPEEDS AT HIGHER ALTITUDES, IN ADDITION,
THE NUMBERS OF HIGHER PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT ARE INCREASING AS A PERCENTAGE
OF THE TOTAL FLEET, So FAR THIS YEAR, SHIPMENTS OF MULTIENGINE PISTON
AND TURBOPROP AIRCRAFT ARE UP BY 20 PERCENT, AND JETS BY 25 PERCENT,
IN THE-NEXT 10 YEARS, FAA IS FORECASTING THAT THE GENERAL AVIATION
FLEET WILL INCREASE AN ADDITIONAL 55 PERCENT, TO OVER 300 THOUSAND
AIRCRAFT, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL BE OVER A MILLION ACTIVE
PILOTS. FLYING HOURS ARE ANTICIPATED TO INCREASE BY 58 PERCENT,
THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT OF 1978 HAS PROVEN TO BE OF CONSIDERABLE
BENEFIT TO THE GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS, THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUTER
AIRLINE INDUSTRY, ENCOURAGED BY THE NEW LAW, IS PLACING UNPRECEDENTED
DEMANDS FOR NEW AIRCRAFT, IN ADDITION, MORE AND MORE BUSINESSES ARE
FINDING THAT THEIR OWN AIRCRAFT ARE INDISPENSABLE "BUSINESS TOOLS" TO
TRAVEL TO LOCATIONS WHICH ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO REACH BY THE SCHEDULED
AIRLINES, IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, 120 POINTS OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN DROPPED
BY THE CERTIFICATED AIRLINES, MANY OF WHICH HAD NO REPLACING SERVICE,
THE CAB CURRENTLY HAS ON FILE NOTICES FROM CERTIFICATED AIRLINES REQUESTING
TO DISCONTINUE SERVICE TO 330 ADDITIONAL POINTS,
CONSEQUENTLY, BUSINESS AVIATION AND THE SCHEDULED AIRLINES FORM AN
IMPORTANT INTERCONNECTING LINK, AS GENERAL AVIATION PROVIDES SERVICE TO
ALL OF THESE POINTS,
134
-------
ON JULY 21, 1968, SECTION 611, CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT
NOISE AND SONIC BOOM, BECAME PART OF THE FAA ACT OF 1958 AND
SET IN MOTION A MAJOR REGULATORY BASED EFFORT TO CONTROL AIRCRAFT
NOISE AT ITS SOURCE, THIS EFFORT HAS INTENSIFIED OVER THE YEARS
THROUGH FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE A.CT AND THROUGH CONTINUING
REGULATORY PRESSURES.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS, OF COURSE, is TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT - THAT
"COMPLEX OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PONDITIONS AFFECTING THE NATURE OF
AN INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIETY,"
THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITHIN THE GENERAL AVIATION COMMUNITY
THAT CAN BE TERMED "ENVIRONMENTAL," OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED AIRPORTS
AT EACH END OF EACH SUCCESSFUL TRIP, AND AIRPORTS ARE GETTING
HARDER TO COME BY, AND TO KEEP, ISSUES THAT WERE ONCE THOUGHT
TO HAVE BEEN FINALLY SETTLED ARE REOPENED AS PROGRAMS TO REPAVE OR
INCREASE THE LENGTH OF RUNWAYS LEAD TO COMMUNITY HEARINGS ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THESE PROGRAMS, CONCERNS THAT WERE
ONCE WHOLLY THE BALI WICK OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER NOW RECEIVE ATTENTION
BY AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS, PILOT ORGANIZATIONS, AND FIXED BASED
OPERATORS, RUNOFF, SEWERAGE, EMISSIONS, AND NOISE ALL ARE PART
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OF THE AIRPORT, As MANUFACTURERS,
WE MUST BE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE EFFECTS (AND WORK TO MINIMIZE
THE IMPACT) ON THE COMMUNITY IF THE EXPANSION OF OUR BUSINESS,
WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE DESIRE, IS TO TAKE PLACE,
135
-------
HDRE SIMPLY SAID, NOISE is AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CONTINUED
GROWTH OF GENERAL AVIATION, AND WE MUST, AND ARE, WORKING TO
REDUCE THIS IMPEDIMENT,
LET'S SPEND A FEW MINUTES AND REVIEW WHERE WE WERE SO AS TO BETTER
PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WHERE WE ARE, IN NOVEMBER OF 1969, THE FAA
PUBLISHED FAR PART 36, A SET OF RULES ESTABLISHING NOISE LIMITS
APPLICABLE TO NEW JET AIRCRAFT DESIGNS, ITS OBJECTIVE WAS SIMPLE -
PUT A CAP ON AIRCRAFT NOISE, WHICH WAS CLEARLY ESCALLATING AS MORE
AND MORE JET AIRCRAFT ENTERED THE FLEET AND OPERATIONS INCREASED,
IN 1975, WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL AVIATION JETS, THESE SAME
STANDARDS WERE APPLIED TO NEWLY MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT OF THE
OLDER TYPE DESIGNS,
TO QUANTIFY THESE REGULATIONS, FOR THE GENERAL AVIATION JETS,
THOSE WHOSE MAXIMUM TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT ARE 75,000 POUNDS OR
LESS, WE SAW LIMITS ON NOISE AS FOLLOWS:
1, FOR THE APPROACH AND SIDELINE SITUATIONS,
102 EPtoB,
2, FOR THE TAKEOFF SITUATION, 93 EPNoB,
A NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT DESIGNED IN THE 1960's, AND WHICH WERE STILL
IN PRODUCTION, DID NOT MEET THESE LEVELS AND EITHER HAD TO BE
MODIFIED OR GO OUT OF PRODUCTION, THE MANUFACTURERS EFFECTIVELY
136
-------
MET THE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH A VARIETY OF WAYS - "HUSH KITS/'
SPECIAL, REQUIRED OPERATING TECHNIQUES AT© RE-ENGINING, WITH THE
RE-ENGINING USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE
AIRCRAFT TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, THE ENGINES USED BY THE
AIRCRAFT COMPANIES WHO CHOSE THE RE~ENGINING ROUTE WERE CERTIFIED
IN THE 1971 - 72 TIMEFRAME, THE GARRETT CORPORATION TFE 731 AND
THE PRATT AND WHITNEY JT 15D, THE RESULTS OF RE-ENGINING WERE
DRAMATIC - SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN NOISE LEVELS WERE ACHIEVED
ALONG WITH MANY OTHER BENEFITS, PRIMARILY REDUCED FUEL CONSUMPTION,
THESE ENGINES WERE ALSO UTILIZED IN NEW AIRCRAFT DESIGNS - DESIGNS
THAT HAD SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS BETWEEN THE REGULATORY ALLOWABLE NOISE
LEVELS AND THOSE ACTUALLY MEASURED, THE MARGINS WERE OF COURSE
"DESIGNED IN" TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF BOTH THE ENGINE AND THE
AIRCRAFT - THE ENGINE'S GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXPANDING ITS POTENTIAL AIRFRAME APPLICATIONS - THE AIRCRAFT
GROWTH - TO EXPAND ITS APPLICATIONS,
THE REGULATORY TREND IS ALWAYS TOWARD TOUGHER REQUIREMENTS - IN
THIS CASE LOWER NOISE - AND TOUGHER STANDARDS WERE INEVITABLE,
FAA'S LATEST RULES, RESULTING FROM A NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RLJLEMAKING PUBLISHED IN 1976, SUBSTANTIALLY TIGHFENED THE
STANDARDS FOR NEW DESIGNS OF AIRCRAFT, THESE STANDARDS WERE
ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ClVIL AVIATION
ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE ON AIRCRAFT NOISE AT ITS FIFTH MEETING
AND ARE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS CAN 5 NOISE LEVELS,
137
-------
AGAIN, TO QUANTIFY THESE NEW REGULATIONS, FOR GENERAL AVIATION JETS,
THE APPROACH LIMIT DROPS FROM 102 EPNoB TO 98; THE SIDE LINE, FROM
102 TO 94, AND THE TAKEOFF, FROM 93 TO 89,
NOW LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST VIEWGRAPH - TAKEOFF NOISE LEVELS,
THE TOP SOLID LINE, LABELLED 69 FAR 36, IS THE FAA ORIGINAL 1969
REGULATION, THE TRIANGLES SHOW THE NOISE LEVEL OF MANY OF THE
ORIGINAL GENERAL AVIATION JETS, THE LEAR 23, 24, 25 SERIES, THE
ROCKWELL SABERLINER SERIES, THE LOCKHEED JET STAR, AND THE
GRUMMAN GULFSTREAM II, As I MENTIONED, WHEN AIRCRAFT THAT WERE
STILL IN PRODUCTION WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 1969 RULES, WE DID SO
THROUGH EITHER THE USE OF SUPPRESSORS OR REQUIRED OPERATING
TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS CUT-BACK, THESE AIRCRAFT ARE INDICATED
BY THE HEXAGONS, SOME AIRCRAFT WERE MODIFIED BY RE~ENGINING
WITH MODERN TURBO FANS, THESE AIRCRAFT ARE SHOWN AS SQUARES,
IF THE SYMBOL, TRIANGLE, HEXAGON, OR SQUARE, IS FILLED IN, IT
MEANS THAT CUT-BACK AFTER TAKEOFF IS USED AS A STANDARD
;
OPERATING TECHNIQUE TO ACHIEVE THE MEASURED NOISE LEVEL,
THE RESULTS OF RE-ENGINING ARE OFTEN TIMES DRAMATIC, NOTE THE
OPEN TRIANGLE AT THE 106 DB LEVEL, THE OPEN SQUARE JUST BELOW
THE 93 DB LEVEL IS THE SAME AIRCRAFT, A REDUCTION OF 13 EPNoB,
138
-------
AS IS VERY EVIDENT, OUR MODERN TURBO-FAN-POWERED GENERAL AVIATION
AIRCRAFT, SHOWN BY THE CIRCLES, ARE, IN MOST CASES, SUBSTANTIALLY
BELOW THE 1978 LIMIT, THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED
NOISE AS A PRIME DESIGN PARAMETER IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE
OF THESE AIRCRAFT,
TURNING NOW TO CHART NUMBER TWO, WHICH SHOWS THE APPROACH NOISE
LEVELS, AGAIN WE SEE THE ORIGINAL FAA REGULATION, 69 FAR 36, AND
THE PRESENT REGULATION, 78 FAR 36,
NEW ENGINE DESIGNS SCHEDULED FOR CERTIFICATION IN THE NEXT FEW
YEARS, ARE, IN ADDITION TO BEING MORE ECONOMICAL THAN TODAY'S
DESIGNS, ALSO GOING TO BE QUIETER, THUS, THE NEWEST AIRCRAFT
DESIGNS ARE BEING TARGETED TO BE WELL BELOW PRESENT FAA NOISE
LIMITS, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEW TYPES WILL BE THE PART 24
COMMUTER AIRCRAFT, SCHEDULED FOR INTRODUCTION ABOUT 1983-85,
RECOGNIZING, HOWEVER, THAT WITHOUT SOME LIMITS, NOISE LEVELS
WOULD LIKELY CREEP UP, THE INTERNATIONAL ClVIL AVIATION ORGANIZA-
TION ADOPTED, IN APRIL OF 1974, A RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
ESTABLISHING SUCH LIMITS, FAA ADOPTED THESE. LIMITS IN
JANUARY OF 1975, TO BECOME OPERATIVE ON JANUARY IST, 1980,
THIS MEANS THAT AFTER THE END OF THIS YEAR, NO.PROPELLER
DRIVEN GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT MAY RECEIVE AN ORIGINAL
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE UNLESS IT MEETS THE STANDARD,
139
-------
THE EFFECT OF OUR INDUSTRY WAS PREDICTABLE AND THE RESULTS HAVE
BEEN DRAMATIC, Vte WORK WAS STARTED BY ICAO ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF ITS RECOMMENDED PRACTICE, IN 1972, A MAJOR PORTION OF THE
FLEET THEN BEING CURRENTLY PRODUCED DID NOT MEET THE LEVELS BEING
DISCUSSED AS POSSIBLE LIMITS - AND THE WORK BEGAN, CERTIFICATION
AND RECERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT IS COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING,
IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO WAIT UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE REGULATORY
CUT-OFF TO RECERTIFICATE ALL OF THE AIRCRAFT, MUCH LESS MODIFY
THOSE THAT COULD NOT MEET THE LIMITS,
BY THE END OF 1S76, FULLY THREE YEARS AHEAD OF THE REGULATION DATE,
ALMOST ALL NEWLY MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT BELOW 6,000 POUNDS TAKEOOF
GROSS WEIGHT HAD BEEN MODIFIED TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE,
CERTIFICATION OF ALL AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE 6,000 TO
12,500 POUND CATEGORY, IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE,
IT APPEARS THAT WE HAD TO TAKE A DIFFERENT TACK IF WE ARE TO FURTHER
REDUCE PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS, FROM THE HARDWARE
POINT OF VIEW, WE ARE ATTACKING THE NOISE PROBLEM BY TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT - STUDYING, PRIMARILY, NEW PROPELLER DESIGNS, THIS EFFORT,
HOWEVER, WILL NOT PRODUCE FRUITFUL RESULTS FOR AT LEAST FIVE TO TEN
YEARS,
MORE IMMEDIATE RESULTS IN NOISE REDUCTION WILL COME ABOUT THROUGH
CHANGES IN THE OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE AIRCRAFT, Vfe ARE
ACCOMPLISHING THIS GOAL THROUGH GWA SPECIFICATION No, 1.
140
-------
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR GAMA SPECIFICATION No, 1,
"SPECIFICATION FOR PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK/' IT WAS INTRODUCED
BY GAMA ON FEBRUARY IS, 1975, AS A GUIDE TO INDUSTRY STANDARDIZATION
OF MATERIAL WHICH WOULD BE OF MAXIMUM USEFULNESS AS AM OPERATING
REFERENCE HANDBOOK BY PILOTS AND MEET APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT REGU-
LATORY REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY WITH EACH AIRCRAFT, AN FAA. APPROVED
AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL, THE MAJOR FEATURE OF THE SPECIFICATION
WAS TO INCREASE THE IN-FLIGHT USEFULNESS OF THE BOOK BY
STANDARDIZING THE FORMAT OF HANDBOOKS, USING UNITS THAT ARE OF
MOST VALUE TO PILOTS, AND INTEGRATING THE MATERIAL REQUIRED BY
REGULATION WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER,
THE SPECIFICATION HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY BY G/W\ MANUFACTURERS
SINCE THAT TIME AND THE CONCEPT HAS BEEN PROVEN,
V/E ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING THE SPECIFICATION TO ACCOUNT
FOR OTHER THAN PURE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - FUEL ECONOMY AND
NOISE REDUCTION,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAA REGULATIONS THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION
PROVIDED A "MAXIMUM, CONTINUOUS POWER LIMITATION," THE HIGHER POWER
THAT THE ENGINE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO DELIVER, IN THE PARTICULAR
AIRPLANE,, WITHOUT TIME LIMIT ON ITS USE, HOWEVER, AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS
OTHER THAN TAKEOFF, AND CONTINUOUS USE OF THIS POWER HAS ADVERSE EFFECTS
ON NOISE, FUEL ECONOMY AND ENGINE WEAR, V?E HAVE, THEREFORE, ESTABLISHED
A LIMITATION OF THE USE OF .MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER BY DEFINING IT
141
-------
AS THE "MAXIMUM POWER PERMISSIBUE CONTINUOUSLY DURING TAKEOFF, ONE
ENGINE INOPERATIVE, ABNORMAL Am EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ONLY,"
THE MAXIMUM POWER PERMISSIBLE CONTINOUSLY DURING ALL NORMAL
OPERATIONS IS CALLED MAXIMUM NORMAL OPERATING POWER, THIS POWER
MAY NOT BE EXCEEDED FOR ALL. NORMAL CLIMB AND CRUISE CONDITIONS; AND
WOULD RESULT IN A LOWER NOISE LEVEL; TYPICALLY *4 TO 9 DB LESS THAN
THAT WHICH THE SAME AIRPLANE WOULD MAKE AT f'AXIMUM CONTINUOUS
POWER, ALL PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONTAINTED IN THE PILOT'S
OPERATING HANDBOOKS WILL BE BASED ON THE NEW POKER LIMITATIONS,
SELECTION OF HW is A JUDGEMENT FACTOR, VARYING AS A PERCENTAGE
OF MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER, IN DIFFERENT AIRPLANES, CLIMB AND
HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH AIRPLANE MUST BE CONSIDERED TO
DETERMINE THE BEST SITUATION - LOUDER BlfF HIGHER FASTER, AND THUS
QUIETER, OR NOT AS LOUD BUT HIGHER SLOWER.
THE IDEA OF PROVIDING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONTAINING A NOISE
REDUCTION ELEMENT IS BEING EXPLORED IN GREATER DEPTH FOR APPLICABILITY
TO OUR JET AIRCRAFT, THIS EFFORT, CONCEPTlONALLY SIMILAR TO
REDUCED POVER TAKEOFF INFORMATION TO IMPROVE ENGINE ECONOMIES;
WOULD PROVIDE A PILOT WITH THE NECESSARY OPERATING INFORMATION TO
KEEP THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE AIRCRAFT AT A MINIMUM,
IT WOULD ALSO BE USED TO DETERMINE THE EXPECTED NOISE LEVEL
OF THE AIRCRAFT UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING COKPITIONS SUCH AS A LOCAL
WEIGHT; TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY,
142
-------
WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF PROP SIZING AND BLADING, ENGINE
DERATING AND OTHER CERTIFICATION ACTIVITIES, THIS COVERS WHAT THE
MANUFACTURERS HAVE DONE TO REDUCE THE NOISE OF THEIR AIRCRAFT,
CONTINUING RESEARCH AT A REASONABLE PACE AND COST WILL CONTINUE,
THOUGH IT IS BELIEVED FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN NOISE WILL COME IN
SMALL INCREMENTS NOT OF THE BREAK THROUGH VARIETY BROUGHT ABOUT BY
THE FAN ENGINE OVER THE STRAIGHT JET,
HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT COMPLETELY COVER OUR ROLE IN THE NOISE ISSUE,
WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT REASONABLE RULE MAKING EFFORTS, BOTH IN
THE U,S, AND ABROAD, REMEMBER, WE EXPORT ABOUT 25% OF THE AIRCRAFT
WE MANUFACTURE, IN FACT, FOR JET AIRCRAFT ONLY, WE EXPORT ABOUT ONE-
THIRD OF THE TOTAL MANUFACTURED, FOR THIS REASON, WE ACTIVELY FOLLOW
ICAO ACTIVITIES AND ADVOCATE KEEPING THE U,S, REGULATIONS IN LINE WITH
THOSE OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND VICE VERSA, CERTIFICATION COSTS ARE
TOO HIGH TO HAVE TO REPEAT TESTS IN EACH COUNTRY IN WHICH WE SELL
AIRCRAFT,
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED UNIFORM AIRPORT NOISE REGULATIONS -
UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES - APPLICABLE TO ALL AIRPORTS,
PARTICULARLY AIRPORTS THAT RECEIVED FEDERAL FUNDS, THIS DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THE SAME REGULATIONS FOR EACH AIRPORT, BUT, THE
NOISE LEVELS ESTABLISHED AT AIRPORTS MUST BE EASED ON THE SAME
CRITERIA. MUST BE CALCULATABLE BY THE SAME METHODOLOGY AND MUST
BE SURE AND CERTAIN BEFORE A PILOT SETS FORTH ON A TRIP, THE
NOISE LEVELS CHOSEN MUST BE REASONABLE AND MUST RELATE TO THE
LOCAL CONDITIONS, THEY MUST NOT BE CHOSEN TO CATER TO THE
143
-------
IDIOSYNCRASIES OF A FEW AIRPORT NEIGHBORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEIR
AUTOS, TRUCKS AND LAWNMDWERS HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE MORE NOISE
THAN AIRPLANES,
WE ALSO STRIVE TO KEEP THE REGULATIONS REASONABLE AND TO KEEP
THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT THE COMMUNITY MUST DO AND MUST ACCEPT
AS THE PRICE FOR ITS AIRPORT AND ENTRY INTO THE NATION'S AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,
GENERAL AVIATION JET AIRCRAFT ARE 10 TO 15 EPNoB - OR MORE - LOWER
THAN THE NEW, LARGE, WIDE-BODY COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS, THE FREQUENCY
OF OCCURRENCES - TAKEOFFS AND APPROACHES - FOR GENERAL AVIATION -
BUSINESS JETS, IS ALSO MARKETEDLY LOWER THAN FOR THE LARGE COMMERCIAL
TRANSPORTS. AVERAGE YEARLY UTILIZATION OF A BUSINESS JET IS
APPROXIMATELY 600 HOURS COMPARED WITH ABOUT 3,000 HOURS FOR THE AIRLINE
JET. THERE ARE, ON AN AVERAGE, ABOUT 10 GENERAL AIVATION JET OPERATIONS,
TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS, PER DAY, AT THE MAJOR AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS, IF A
GENERAL AVIATION FLEET MEETING THE PRESENT FM STANDARD (AND THE
MAJORITY OF POST 1975 MANUFACTURED AIRCRAFT DO MEET THIS STANDARD)
WERE OPERATED INTO THE LARGE AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS, WE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY AIR CARRIER TRAFFIC AT THESE
AIRPORTS, EVEN IF THAT TRAFFIC MET THE E& NOISE GOALS.-
REASONABLE OBJECTIVE FOR AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES, "BECAUSE
PRESENT LIMITED DATA INDICATE THAT, AT SOME AIRPORT, AN LDN CONTRIBUTION
144
-------
OF NOISE FROM AIRCRAFT OF LESS THAN 65 DB IS DIFFICULT TO
DISTINGUISH FROM OTHER AMBIENT NOISE, GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE LEVEL (OTHER THAN FROM AIRCRAFT) AROUND THOSE AIRPORTS."
GAF1A CALCULATED THE EFFECT OF THE COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS
EXPECTED FROM A FLEET OF GENERAL AVIATION PROPELLER-DRIVEN
AIRCRAFT, MEETING THE FAA STANDARDS, USING A STATISTICALLY COMPUTED
MIX OF AIRCRAFT, WE COMPUTED THE LDN'S AT A POINT 3500 METERS FROM
THE BEGINNING OF THE TAKE-OFF ROLL, AT A SELECTED 2.833 AIRPORTS AT
WHICH, AN FAA STUDY SHOWS, 95% OF GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS
OCCUR, 1\!E SEPARATELY CALCULATED TIC l_cN FOR SANTA ANA AIRPORT
WHICH HAS ABOUT 100 GENERAL AvIATION OPERATIONS PER HOUR, AT THIS
AIRPORT, THE CALCULATED LDN WASG'J, SANTA ANA'S CALCULATED VALUE
WAS COMPARED WITH ITS MEASURED VALUE OF 68 FROM ALL NOISE SOURCES,
INCLUDING AIR CARRIER AIRCRAFT.
BASED ON THESE wo VALUES, WE CALCULATED THAT IF ALL PROPELLER DRIVEN
AIRCRAFT WERE BANNED FROM SANTA AttA, THE MEASURED VALUE WOULD GO DOWN
ABOUT 1 oB, THE EFFECT AT OTHER AIRPORTS, WITH SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER
PROPELLER DRIVEN SMALL AIRPLANE OPERATIONS, WOULD EVEN BE LESS,
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT TO INCORPORATE NOISE REDUCING
DEVICES IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, THE PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE IS THE
PROPELLER, TO DEVELOP A NEW QUIETER PROPELLER FOR AN AIRCRAFT
REQUIRES MUCH ENGINEERING EVALUATION, TIME CONSUMING ENGINE PROPELLER
145
-------
VIBRATION STUDIES, AND COMPLETE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, THE
COST OF THIS WORK IS UPWARDS OF ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS AFTER YOU
HAVE DESIGNED AND STRUCTURALLY PROVEN THE PROPELLER ITSELF.
ONE LAST BUT IMPORTANT POINT, THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW (LOWER
NOISE) TECHNOLOGY AIRCRAFT HAS RESULTED IN A REDUCTION IN THE DAY/NIGHT
NOISE LEVELS AROUND AIRPORTS SERVED BY THESE AIRCRAFT. As THESE NEW
AIRCRAFT BECOME AN INCREASINGLY LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE FLEET, THE
AVERAGE DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVELS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ALL GENERAL AVIATION
BUSINESS JETS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY FALL, BASED UPON FORECAST SALES OF
EXISTING AND PRESENTLY PROPOSED MODERN TECHNOLOGY TURBOFAN POWERED
GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT, OVER THE NEXT DECADE, AND ASSUMING A NORMAL
ATTRITION OF AIRCRAFT OF OLDER TYPE DESIGNS, THE AIRPORT DAY/NIGHT
NOISE LEVELS, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TOTAL GENERAL AVIATION JET FLEET,
WILL DECREASE, BY APPROXIIWLEY 5 TO CoB PER DECADE, FOR A FIXED
ACTIVITY RATE.
LET'S LOOK AT THE GRAPH 3, FOR THE TAKEOFF CONDITION, IF THERE
WERE 10 OPERATIONS PER DAY IN 1975, WITH THE TYPICAL JET AIRCRAFT
MIX PRESENT THEN, AND THIS PRODUCED A DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVEL OF 59 oB,
IN 1985, WITH ITS EXPECTED JET AIRCRAFT MIX, THE LEVEL OF NOISE WILL
DROP TO 53 D£, IF THERE WERE 50 OPERATIONS PER DAY IN 1975, THE NOISE
LEVEL WILL GO FROM 66 DB TO 60 DB IN 1985.
PiOST IMPORTANTLY, EVEN IF THE NUMBER OF JET OPERATIONS AT A
PARTICULAR AIRPORT DOUBLE, THE NOISE LEVEL STILL GOES DOWN - IF 10
146
-------
OPERATIONS PRODUCED A LEVEL OF 59 DB IN 1975, 20 OPERATIONS WILL
MEAN ONLY 56 DB IN 1985,
INCIDENTALLY, THE DASHED HORIZONTAL LINES, AT THE 65 AND 55 LDN
LEVELS, REPRESENT HUD AND EPA OBJECTIVES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE
LEVELS AT "BUSY" SITES AND AT SMALLER, LESS ACTIVE SITES,
CHART FOUR SHOWS A SIMILAR REDUCTION OVER THE YEARS FOR THE
APPROACH CONDITIONS, FOR FIVE OPERATIONS PER DAY IN 1975, THE
LDN WILL BE 56 oB, IN 1985, IT WILL DROP TO 51 oB, FOR TEN
OPERATIONS PER DAY, DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TEN YEARS EARLIER,
THE LDN DROPS TO 54 DBA, TWO DB LESS NOISE THAN HALF THE NUMBER
OF OPERATIONS CREATED TEN YEARS EARLIER,
THE REDUCTIONS IN COMMUNITY DAY/NIGHT NOISE LEVELS WILL
COfC ABOUT V/ITH PRESENTLY KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, NOW BEING APPLIED,
AND WILL ALLOW FUTURE GROWTH OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT FLEETS,
NOW, IF WE COULD ONLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE BARKING DOGS,
147
-------
ADDRESS BY
MR. HOWARD L. METCALF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND DESIGN
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
TO THE
GENERAL AVIATION LAND USE PLANNING SEMINAR
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OCTOBER 5, 1979
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY
ON
AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES
149
-------
Ladles and Gentlemen
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of
Defense policy for planning the use of land in the vicinity of airports.
This policy is set forth in DoD Instruction 4165.57, which is titled
Air Installations Compatible Use Zones or, for short, AICUZ. DoD
Directives and Instructions are similar to Military regulations and set
forth general policy and guidance on how that policy will be carried out.
The Military Departments develop detailed procedures under this guidance
as required to fit their different missions and requirements.
When we do develop a policy such as this one which has a substantial
impact on the public, we cannot do it in isolation in the Pentagon - public
participation is mandatory. We therefore prepared a draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the proposal and sent it to about 150 State Offices,
Area Clearing Houses, and other Federal agencies. As I recall, we received
around 50 comments in reply - most were detailed, thoughtful, and helpful.
We cannot satisfy all commentors, of course, but we made many substantial
changes in the original document as a result of these comments.
The current AICUZ Instruction dated November 8, 1977 was published in
the Federal Register for public comment before we adopted it. Very few
comments (only two, in fact) were received this time, probably because the
proposed revisions were not perceived as being major. I have several hundred
copies of the document here as handouts, and I hope you all have received
a copy.
150
-------
The AICUZ concept was proposed originally by the Air Force as a
concept called "GREENBELT". Several air bases were experiencing en-
croachment in the form of intensive development immediately outside
the base boundries. Where such development was residential, it was
almost immediately followed by complaints against the noise made by
the aircraft. A common reaction of nia<;y people to such complaints was
''well you knew the airport war. herv when you bouqhr ihe house didn't you?"
Such a reaction does not win friends cr,d it is :f,< ion reprf..^: t: hundreds of
millions of dollars in investrr-nt in land
-------
As I said, the first proposal was the Sreenbelt concept, wherein
the Government would buy a strip of land five miles long and two miles
wide centered on our major runways and permit no uses of that land
other than agriculture, parks or just letting the trees and grass grow.
In its favor, the Greenbelt concept was simple to apply, and it would
have kept development far enough away from our runways that noise would not
have been a problem, and the areas of high aircraft accident potential
would have been contained within the Government-owned land.
However, it would have cost billions of dollars; it would have re-
moved hundreds of thousands of acres from local tax rolls; it would have
displaced tens of thousands of persons and businesses, and it would have
prevented the development of a tremendous amount of highly desirable de-
velopmental land. But weren't we trying to prevent development? In part,
yes. But not all development is undesirable or incompatible with airfield
operation. Most industrial activities are not sensitive to noise. Many
sensitive activities can be carried out satisfactorily in high noise areas
if the buildings in which they are located are adequately insulated. Some
apparently compatible uses of land in the high noise and accident potential
area, such as agriculture, or sanitary land fills, are not really compatible
since they can attract flocks of birds which are highly dangerous to air-
craft.
Thus, it was obvious that what we needed to do was to identify those
uses of land which are compatible with aircraft operations, and those which
are not. Then a further refinement needed to be made to judge just how
incompatible certain uses are. We started with noise.
152
-------
Fortunately, many studies of the psychological impact of noise had
been made. The Air Force had been making such studies since, at least,
the early 1950s, the FAA, VA, HUD, and many other agencies and foreign
Governments had all been studying aircraft noise. The excellent FHA
Guide to Control of Airborne Impact and Structure Borne Noise in Multi-
Family Dwellings had been published in 1967, and the Joint Army-Navy-
Air Force Manual on Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise in
1964. Therefore, we did not have to reinvent the wheel to come up with
compatible land uses, only make it a little rounder.
Our first policy concentrated on noise and was rather general with
respect to land uses that were compatible with high noise levels. Ac-
quisition of land or restrictive easements on land was permitted although
we preferred local zoning action to control land use.
I think I should emphasize at this point that our first policy, and
our policy today, requires that as a first step, we will take all reasonable,
economical, and practical measures to reduce or control noise from air-
craft. These steps will include adjustment of traffic patterns, sound
suppression measures on ground facilities, and reduction of night time
activities, if practical. However, airplanes will still make noise.
When I said that acquisition of land was permitted, I should also
state that the Department of Defense does not want to buy land. We do
not like to take land off local tax rolls, we do not like to spend
money on land instead of airplanes or tanks, we do not like to have to
manage land we don't need. Further, we have to get authority from the
Congress and appropriations from the Congress in order to acquire land.
It is not something that we can just do by ourselves.
153
-------
It was in the early stages of the program when we were first
asking for the Congressional approvals that we needed, that the Congress
gave us some rather clear direction as to how the program should be
restructured for the years ahead. The Congress stated that the acquisi-
tion of land for noise reasons alone might not be in the best interest
of the United States, that even more emphasis should be placed on local
zoning actions or other state and municipal actions to control en-
croachment and that we should concentrate more on the potential of air-
craft accidents in the vicinity of airfields.
As a result of this Congressional direction, studies of aircraft
accidents were undertaken and we determined that, for our major airfields,
we should increase the size of the clear zone at the end of runways. That
is, that zone wherein no buildings or obstructions to flight are permitted.
It is a zone 3,000 feet long and 3,0000 feet wide centered on the runway
centerline. Because almost nothing is permitted in this zone, the De-
partment of Defense will usually buy the land or a restrictive easement on
the land to assure that it does remain clear.
Beyond the clear zone we have identified Accident Potential Zones I
and II. These continue at 3,000 feet wide, APZ I for 5,000 feet, and
APZ II for an additional 7,000 feet. We identify APZ I as having a
significant potential for accidents and APZ II as having a measureable
potential for accidents. Beyond these zones, the potential for accidents
is not significantly above that of the country as a whole.
154
-------
We do not state that any specific probability exists that an
aircraft will have an accident in these zones in any given time period.
This could be calculated if aircraft and flying techniques remained
static, but they do not. Both are constantly changing. But these
zones do represent a reasonable delineation of the fact that accident
frequency decreases as distance from the runway increases. The AICUZ
instruction lists in its Enclosure 4 those uses which we believe to be
compatible with the clear and accident-potential zones. Since I hope you
all have copies, I will not repeat them all now.
There is a portion of the AICUZ instruction which I believe is important
enough to read or paraphrase at this time, however. This is the part
that deals with acquisition of land by the Department of Defense and is a
direct outgrowth of the instructions we received from Congress. It states
that the first priority for acquisition, either in fee simple or appropriate
restrictive easements will be the clear zone, the 3,000 x 3,000 foot zone
on the end of major runways. At most of our air installations, we already
own all or a substantial portion of these areas.
If it appears that we should acquire some interest in land beyond the
clear zones, action to program for such acquisition may be taken - for
accident-potential zones first, and for high noise areas second - only when
all possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning or similar protection
have been exhausted, and the operational integrity of the base is manifestly
threatened.
155
-------
If procurement actions are considered necessary, complete records
of all discussions, negotiations, testimony, etc., with or before all
local officials, boards, etc., must be maintained. This will ensure
that documentation is available to indicate that all reasonable and
prudent efforts were made to preclude incompatible land use through
cooperation with local government officials, and that all recourse to
such action has been exhausted. By this policy, we do run the risk
that development and encroachment may progress so far that we are unable
to effectively stop or change it. However, we believe so strongly that
land use decisions should be made by an informed public and its local
representatives, rather than by the" Federal Government, that we are willing
to accept that risk.
I referred to an informed public. We recognize that it is our responsi-
bility to inform. This is a very important part of our AICUZ policy. We
require that the Military Departments develop procedures for coordinating
AICUZ studies with the land use planning and regulatory agencies in the af-
fected area. They will work with local governments, planning agencies,
state agencies, and legislators, and provide technical assistance to them
to aid in developing their land use planning and regulatory processes, to
explain the implications of an AICUZ study and generally work toward
compatible planning and development in the vicinity of air installations.
The Military Departments must have programs to inform local governments,
citizens groups, and the general public of our requirements for flying ac-
tivities and the reasons for them, what we have done and can do to reduce
noise and hazards, and to generally promote an awareness of what we are
doing and our willingness to work with them. Through such mutual under-
standing, we hope to achieve a cooperation that will benefit both us and
156
-------
the local community. In this line, the Air Force has elected to publish
its AICUZ studies in the form of reports to the people in the area of the
installation being studied. Complete information is thereby made available
to the people, and they can base their planning on facts.
While I said we will provide technical assistance, the Department
of Defense does not provide any funding of local planning processes. We
do not have Congressional authorization to fund this type of activity,
although several other Federal agencies do. By technical assistance, we
mean providing information and making our planners and other professionals
available to the extent we can to explain and to advise and assist if
requested.
Does the system work? Do we get the kind of local planning and control
we would like to see? Sometimes, but not always, A few examples may serve
as illustrations.
As of the date I am writing this, the Air Force has completed and
published 73 AICUZ studies. Twenty-five jurisdications have included the
AICUZ studies in their comprehensive land use planning process and in their
plans. Two areas have fully incorporated the AICUZ recommendations in
their zoning regulations. Thirty-three areas have incorporated parts of
the AICUZ recommendations in their zoning plans, In ten areas, requests
for zoning changes or building permits that would have resulted in in-
compatible uses have been denied, two state legislatures have enacted
enabling legislation to permit zoning based on AICUZ where such authority
was previously not available. Arizona has passed legislation that allows
157
-------
for zoning for AICUZ, allows local governments to acquire land to assure
compatible uses, and permits state-owned land to be traded for other land
in compatible use zones as a method of acquisition. Acquisition of land
and interests in land by local governments has occurred at two bases,
most notably Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah where the State Legislature
appropriated funds to acquire compatible use zones.
On the Navy side, Jacksonville, Florida enacted zoning regulations
that include compatible use zones for the three Naval Air Stations in the
area (Jacksonville, Mayport, and Cecil Field), and Jacksonville Airport,
the local commercial airport.
In Patuxent River, Maryland, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones
were included in the local zoning laws, and some planned uses that would have
been incompatible have been stopped. Here is an example, however, that does
show that zoning is not the solution to all of our problems since it has
been held that certain land uses permitted prior to the revised zoning
are still permitted - in effect, a Grandfather Clause.
There are many areas where we have not been successful. One of these
is the Navy's complex of airfields in the Norfolk, Va. area. Encroachment
there is so extensive that the only viable solution seems to be to purchase
properties. Overall, however, I think that the record shows that the ap-
proach we have been using can work and has worked in many cases.
Therefore, we do not plan any significant changes in our policy in the
immediate future. We believe that by fully informing the public of what we
are doing, what we must do, and what the impacts of these actions are, we will
stimulate informed, reasonable, and correct responses on the part of that
public and their elected officials.
158
-------
In some cases, where the viability of an air installation is in
danger and where the Congress agrees that acquisition actions are appro-
priate to alleviate the condition, we will buy land or restrictive ease-
ments on land to assure compatible use. However, it must be understood
that the Department of Defense, indeed the Federal Government as a whole,
does not have one dollar to spend on such acquisitions that does not come
from the taxpayers of this country, from you and me. Therefore, action
by local governments to make good land use plans, to zone for compatible
uses, will save you and me money. Further, properly done, it can make
money by promoting the development of land to higher though compatible
uses while preserving and enhancing the economic value of airfields,
military, commercial and general.
For these reasons, I was particularly pleased to be invited here
today, and you have my sincerest wishes for a successful seminar and
successful planning in the future.
THANK YOU
159
-------
NUMBER 4165.57
DATE November 8, 1977
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 eppropriations).
B. APPLICABILITY
This Instruction applies to air installations of the Military Depart-
ments located within the United States, its territories, trusts, and
possessions.
C. CRITERIA
1. General. The Air Installations Compatible Use Zone for each
military air installation shall consist of (a) land areas upon which
certain uses may obstruct the airspace or otherwise be hazardous to
aircraft operations, and (b) land areas which are exposed to the health,
safety or welfare hazards of aircraft operations.
2. Height of Obstructions. The land area and height standards
defined in AFM 86-8 (reference (a)), NavFac P-272 (reference (b)), and
P-80 (reference (c)), and TM 5-803-4 (reference (d)) will be used for
purposes of height restriction criteria.
161
-------
3. Accident Potential
a. General
(1) Areas immediately beyond the ends of runways and along
primary flight paths are subject to more aircraft accidents than other
areas. For this reason, these areas should remain undeveloped, or if
developed should be only sparsely developed in order to limit, as much
as possible, the adverse effects of a possible aircraft accident.
(2) DoD fixed wing runways are separated into two types for
the purpose of defining accident potential areas. Class A runways are
those restricted to light aircraft (see enclosure 2) and which do not
have the potential for development for heavy or high performance aircraft
use or for which no foreseeable requirements for such use exists.
Typically these runways have less than 10% of their operations involving
Class B aircraft (enclosure 2) and are less than 8000 feet long. Class
B runways are all other fixed wing runways.
(3) The following descriptions of Accident Potential Zones
are guidelines only. Their strict application would result in increasing
the safety of the general public but would not provide complete protec-
tion against the effects of aircraft accidents. Such a degree of protec-
tion is probably impossible to achieve. Local situations may differ
significantly from the assumptions and data upon which these guidelines
are based and require individual study. Where it is desirable to restrict
the density of development of an area, it is not usually possible to
state that one density is safe and another is not. Safety is a relative
term and the objective should be the realization of the greatest degree
of safety that can be reasonably attained.
b. Accident Potential and Clear Zones (See Enclosure 3)
(1) The area immediately beyond the end of a runway is the
"Clear Zone," an area which possesses a high potential for accidents,
and has traditionally been acquired by the Government in fee and kept
clear of obstuctions to flight.
(2) Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I) is the area beyond
the clear zone which possesses a significant potential for accidents.
(3) Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) is an area beyond
APZ I having a measurable potential for accidents.
(4) Modifications to APZs I and II will be considered If:
(a) The runway is infrequently used.
(b) The prevailing wind conditions are such that a
large percentage (i.e., over 80 percent) of the operations are in one
direction.
162
-------
4165.57
Nov 8, 77
(c) Most aircraft do not overfly the APZs as defined
herein during normal flight operations (modifications may be made to
alter these zones and adjust them to conform to the line of flight).
(d) Local accident history indicates consideration of
different area.
(e) Other unusual conditions exist.
(5) The takeoff safety zone for VFR rotary-wing facilities
will be used for the clear zone; the remainder of the approach-departure
zone will be used as APZ I.
(6) Land use compatibility with clear zones and APZs is
shown in enclosure A.
4. Noise
a. General. Noise exposure is described in various ways. In
1964, the Department of Defense began using the Composite Noise Rating
(CNR) system to describe aircraft noise. Several years ago the Noise
Exposure Forecast (NEF) system began to replace CNR. In August 1974,
the Environmental Protection Agency notified all Federal agencies of
intent to implement the Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) noise
descriptor, and this was subsequently adopted by the DoD. This Ldn
system will be used for air installations. Where AICUZ studies have
been published using the CNR of NEF systems or where studies have pro-
gressed to the point that a change in the descriptor system is imprac-
tical or uneconomical, such studies may be published and continued in
use. However, in such cases, data necessary for conversion to Ldn
should be collected and studies should be revised as soon as time and
budgetary considerations permit. However, if state or local laws require
some other noise descriptor, it may be used in lieu of Ldn.
b. Noise Zones
(1) As a minimum, contours for Ldn 65, 70, 75 and 80 shall
be plotted on maps as part of AICUZ studies.
(2) See section G. for a further discussion of Ldn use and
conversion to Ldn from previously used systems.
D. POLICY
1. General. As a first priority step, all reasonable, economical
and practical measures will be taken to reduce and/or control the
generation of noise from flying and flying related activities. Typical
measures normally include siting of engine test and runup facilities in
remote areas if practical, provision of sound suppression equipment
where necessary, and may include additional measures such as adjustment
163
-------
of traffic patterns to avoid built-up areas where such can be accomplished
with safety and without significant impairment of operational effective-
ness. After all reasonable noise source control measures have been
taken, there will usually remain significant land areas wherein the
total noise exposure is such as to be incompatible with certain uses.
2. Compatible Use Land
a. General
(1) DoD policy is to work toward achieving compatibility
between air installations and neighboring civilian communities by means
of a compatible land use planning and control process conducted by the
local community.
(2) Land use compatibility guidelines will be specified for
each Clear Zone, Accident Potential Zone, Noise Zone and combination of
these as appropriate.
(3) The method of control and regulation of land usage
within each zone will vary according to local conditions. In all
instances the primary objective will be to identify planning areas and
reasonable land use guidelines which will be recommended to appropriate
agencies who are in control of the planning functions for the affected.
areas.
b. Property Rights Acquisition
(1) General. While noise generated by aircraft at military
air installations should be an integral element of land use compatibility
efforts, the acquisition of property rights on the basis of noise by the
Department of Defense may not be in the long term best interests of the
United States. Therefore, while the complete requirement for individual
installations should be defined prior to any programming actions, ac-
quisition of interests should be programmed in accordance with the
following priorities.
(2) Priorities
(a) The first priority is the acquisition in fee
and/or appropriate restrictive easements of lands within the clear zones
whenever practicable. (
(b) Outside the clear zone, program for the acquisition
of interests first in Accident Potential Zones and secondly in high
noise areas only when all possibilities of achieving compatible use
zoning, or similar protection, have been exhausted and the operational
integrity of the air installation in manifestly threatened. If program-
ming actions are considered necessary, complete records of all dis-
cussions, negotiations, testimony, etc., with or before all local
164
-------
4165.57
Nov 8, 77
officials, boards, etc., must be maintained. This will ensure that
documentation is available to indicate that all reasonable and prudent
efforts were made to preclude incompatible land use through cooperation
with local government officials and that all recourse to such action has
been exhausted. Such records shall accompany programming actions and/or
apportionment requests for items programmed prior to the date of this
Instruction. In addition, a complete economic analysis and assessment
of the future of the installation must be included.
(i) Costs of establishing and maintaining com-
patible use zones must be weighed against other available options, such
as changing the installation's mission and relocating the flying acti-
vities, closing the installation, or such other courses of action as may
be available. In performing analyses of this type, exceptional care
must be exercised to assure that a decision to change or relocate a
mission is fully justified and that all aspects of the situation have
been thoroughly considered.
(ii) When, as a result of such analysis, it is
determined that relocation or abandonment of a mission will be required,
then no new construction shall be undertaken in support of such activ-
ities except as is absolutely necessary to maintain safety and opera-
tional readiness pending accomplishment of the changes required.
(3) Guidelines. This Instruction shall not be used as sole
justification for either the acquisition or the retention of owned in-
terests beyond the minimum required to protect the Government.
(a) Necessary rights to land within the defined com-
patible use area may be obtained by purchase, exchange, or donation, in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
(b) If fee title is currently held or subsequently
acquired in an area where compatible uses could be developed and no
requirement for a fee interest in the land exists except to prevent
incompatible use, disposal actions shall normally be instituted. Only
those rights and interests necessary to establish and maintain compatible
uses shall be retained. Where proceeds from disposal would be inconse-
quential, consideration may be given to retaining title.
(c) If the cost of acquiring a required interest
approaches closely the cost of fee title, consideration shall be given
to whether acquisition of fee title would be to the advantage of the
Government.
3. Rights and Interests Which May Be Obtained. When it is deter-
mined to be necessary for the Federal Government to acquire interests in
land, a careful assessment of the type of interest to be acquired is
mandatory. Section F. of this Instruction contains a listing of possible
interests which should be examined for applicability.
165
-------
4. Environmental Impact Statements
a. Any actions taken with respect to safety of flight, accident
hazard, or noise which involve acquisition of interests in land must be
examined to determine the necessity of preparing an environmental impact
statement in accordance with DoD Directive 6050.1, "Environmental Con-
siderations in DoD Actions," March 19, 1974 (reference (e)).
b. All such environmental impact statements must be forwarded
to appropriate Federal and local agencies for review in accordance with
reference (e).
c. Coordination with local agencies will be in accordance with
OMB Circular A-95 (reference (f)).
E. THE AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE PROGRAM
1. The Secretaries of the Military Departments will develop, im-
plement and maintain a program to investigate and study all air instal-
lations in necessary order of priority to develop an Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program for each air installation consistent
with Section D. AICUZ studies which contain an analysis of land use
compatibility problems and potential solutions shall be developed and
updated as necessary. As a minimum, each Study shall include the
following:
a. Determination by detailed study of flight operations, actual
noise and safety surveys if necessary, and best available projections of
future flying activities, desirable restrictions on land use due to
noise characteristics and safety of flight;
b. Identification of present incompatible land uses;
c. Identification of land that if inappropriately developed
would be incompatible;
d. Indication of types of desirable development for various
land tracts; "
e. Land value estimates for the zones in question.
f. Review of the airfield master plans to ensure that existing
and future facilities siting is consistent with the policies in this
Instruction.
g. Full consideration of joint use of air installations by
activities of separate Military Departments whenever such use will
result in maintaining operational capabilities while reducing noise,
real estate and construction requirements.
166
-------
4165.57
Nov 8, 77
h. Recommendations for work with local zoning boards, necessary
minimum programs of acquisition, relocations, or such other actions as
are indicated by the results of the Study.
2. Procedures. In developing AICUZ Studies the Secretaries of
Military Departments 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
167
-------
Departments, or their designated representatives. These plans will
serve as the basis for all AICUZ actions at the individual installations.
6. Coincident Actions. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
will also take action to assure in accordance with section D.I. and D.2.
that:
a. As the first priority action in developing an AICUZ program,
full attention is given to safety and noise problems.
b. In all planning, acquisition and siting of noise generating
items, such as engine test stands, full advantage is taken of available
alleviating measures, such as remote sites or sound suppression equipment.
c. The noise exposure of on-installation facilities personnel
are considered together with that off the installation.
d. There is development or continuation with renewed emphasis,
of programs to inform local governments, citizens groups, and the general
public of the requirements of flying activities, the reasons therefore,
the efforts which may have been made or may be taken to reduce noise
exposure, and similar matters which will promote and develop a public
awareness of the complexities of air installation operations, the problems
associated therewith, and the willingness of the Department of Defense
to take all measures possible to alleviate undesirable external effects.
7. Responsibilities for the acquisition, management and disposal of
real property are defined in DoD Directive 4165.6, "Real Property, Acqui-
sition, Management and Disposal," December 22, 1976 (reference (g)).
8. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Housing) will examine the program developed pursuant to this Instruction,
and from time to time review the progress thereunder to assure conformance
with policy.
F. REAL ESTATE INTERESTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT
POTENTIAL ZONE
1. The right to make low and frequent flights over said land and to
generate noises associated with:
a. Aircraft in flight, whether or not while directly over said
land,
b. Aircraft and aircraft engines operating on the ground at
said base, and,
c. Aircraft engine test/stand/cell operations at said base.
168
-------
4165.57
Nov 8, 77
2. The right to regulate or prohibit the release into the air of
any substance which would impair the visibility or otherwise interfere
with the operations of aircraft, such as, but not limited to, steam,
dust and smoke.
3. The right to regulate or prohibit light emissions, either direct
or indirect (reflective), which might interfere with pilot vision.
4. The right to prohibit electrical emissions which would interfere
with aircraft and aircraft communications systems or aircraft navigational
equipment.
5. Th? right to prohibit any use of the land which would unneces-
sarily attact birds or waterfowl, such as, but not limited to, operation
or sanitary landfills, maintenance of feeding stations or the growing of
certain types of vegetation attractive to birds or waterfowl.
6. The right to prohibit and remove any buildings or other non-
frangible structures.
7. The right to top, cut to ground level, and to remove trees,
shrubs, brush or other forms of obstruction which the installation
commander determines might interfere with the operation of aircraft,
including emergency landings.
8. The right of ingress and egress upon, over and across said land
for the purpose of exercising the rights set forth herein.
9. The right to post signs on said land indicating the nature and
extent of the Government's control over said land.
10. The right to prohibit land uses other than the following:
a. Agriculture.
b. Livestock grazing.
c. Permanent open space.
d. Existing water areas.
e. Rights or way for fenced two lane highways, without sidewalks
or bicycle trails and single track railroads.
f. Communications and utilities right of way, provided all
facilities are at or below grade.
11. The right to prohibit entry of persons onto the land except in
connection with activities authorized under 1., 2., 3., and 6., of this
section.
169
-------
12. The right to disapprove land uses not in accordance with enclosure
4.
13. The right to control the height of sturctures to insure that
they do not become a hazard to flight.
14. The right to install airfield lighting and navigational aids.
G. AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONE NOISE DESCRIPTORS
1. Composite Noise Rating (CNR) and Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
values as previously required by Sections III., IV., and V. of DoD
Instruction 4165.57, "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones," July 30,
1973 (reference (j)) will no longer be used.
2. Where CNR 100 (or the quietest boundary of CNR Zone 2 if other-
wise computed) or NEF 30 would previously have been used, data shall be
collected sufficient to permit conputation of Ldn 65 noise contours and
these noise contours shall be plotted on maps accompanying AICUZ studies.
3. Where CNR 115 (or the boundary of CNR Zone 3 if otherwise com-
puted) or NEF 40 would previously have been used, data shall be collected
sufficient to permit computation of Ldn 75 noise contours and these
noise contours shall be plotted on maps accompanying AICUZ studies.
4. Where previous studies have used CNR or NEF, for matters of
policy, noise planning and decisionmaking, areas quieter than Ldn 65
shall be considered approximately equivalent to the previously used CNR
Zone 1 and to areas quieter than NEF 30. The area between Ldn 65 and
Ldn 75 shall be considered approximately equivalent to the previously
used CNR Zone 2 and to the area between NEF 30 and 40. The area of
higher than Ldn 75 shall be considered approximately euqivalent to the
previously used CNR Zone 3 and to noise higher than NEF 40. The proce-
dures shall remain in effect only until sufficient data to compute Ldn
values can be obtained.
5. When computing helicopter noise levels using data collected from
meters, a correction of +7db shall be added to meter readings obtained
under conditions where blade slap was present until and unless meters
are developed which more accurately reflect true conditions.
6. Noise contours less than Ldn 65 or more than Ldn 80 need not be
plotted for AICUZ studies.
7. Since CNR noise levels are not normally directly convertible to
Ldn values without introducing significant error, care should be exer-
cised to assure that personnel do not revise previous studies by erro-
neously relabeling CNR contours to the approximately equivalent Ldn
values.
170
-------
4165.57
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
171
-------
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)
172
-------
4165.57 (Fuel 2)
Nov 8, 77
Runway Classification by Aircraft Type
Class A Runways
Class B Runways
S-2
VC-6
C-l
C-2
TC-4C
C-7
C-8
C-12
047
C-117
U-l
U-3
U-6
U-8
U-9
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
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
C-121
EC-121
WC-121
C-123
C-130
HC-130B
0131
C-140
C-5A
KC-97
C-124
EC-130E
HC-130
C-135
VC-137
C-141
KC-135
EC-135
RC-135
U-2
173
-------
Accident Potential Zone Guideline*
Class, A Runwa
Runway
(Clear Zone
K- 3000 +
APZI
« 2500, *
^AP*zTlI
* 2500 »
A
LQOO
V
All Dimensions in Feet
Class B Runway
Lunway | 1 Clear
I 1 500
. } ^Zpne
t "S.C-.X
XT) "
3000 -*
Width of <
highest a<
T t
2000 2284 APZ I
-1 1
*- 5000 *
:lear >one may be base
:cident potential area f
APZ II x^
*- 7000 -*
d on individual service analysic
or specific runway use and vari
t
3000
1 Of
ed
**
M
2! Ui
0
< \jt
CO
^i tn
o
based on acquisition constraints. 3000 foot wide clear zone is
desirable for new construction.
O4
-------
4165.57 (Encl 4)
Nov 8, 77
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Accident Potential
Zones and Footnotes
Land Use Category
Residential
Single family
2-4 family
Multi-family dwellings
Group quarters
Residential hotels
Mobile home parks or courts
Other residential
3
Industrial/Manufacturing
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Apparel
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and Fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Printing, publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related
Rubber and misc. plastic goods
Stone, clay, and glass products
Primary metal industries
Fabricated metal products
Compatibility
Clear Zone
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
industries NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
APZ I
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
APZ II
YES2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
175
-------
4165.57 (End 4)
Nov 8, 77
Compatibility
Clear Zone APZ I
2
Industrial/Manufacturing (Cont.)
Professional, scientific and controlling
instruments
Misc. manufacturing
4
Transportation, Communications & Utilities
Railroad, rapid rail transid (on-grade)
Highway and street ROW
Auto parking
Coanuni cation
Utilities
Other transportation, conmunications
& utilities
Commercial/Retail Trade
Wholesale trade
Building materials-retail
General merchandise-retail
Food-retail
Automotive, marine, aviation-retail
Apparel and accessories-retail
Furniture, homefurnishing- retail
Eating and drinking places
Other retail trade
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES4
YES
YES
YES
YES4
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
APZ ]
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
176
-------
4165.57 (End 4)
Nov 8, 77
Land Use Category
Compatibility
Clear Zone APZ I
Personal and Business Services
Finance, insurance and real estate
Personal services
Business services
Repair services
Professional services
Contract construction services
Indoor recreation services
Other services
Public and Quasi-Public Services
Government services
Educational services
Cultural activities
Medical and other health services
Cemeteries
Non-profit organization incl. churches
Other public and quasi-public services
Outdoor Recreation
Playground's neighboring parks
Community and regional parks
Nature exhibits
Spectator sports incl. arenas
8 9
Golf course , riding stables
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES6
NO
NO
NO
YES7
YES
NO
YES
APZ II
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES5
NO
NO
NO
YES6
NO
YES
YES
YES7
YES
NO
YES
177
-------
4165.57 (Encl 4)
Nov 8, 77
Land Use Category Compatibility
APZ II
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Clear Zone
Outdoor Recreation (Cont.)
Water based recreational areas
Resort and group camps
Entertainment assembly
Other outdoor recreation
Resource Production & Extraction and Open
Agriculture
Livestock farming, animal breeding
12
Forestry activities
Fishing activities & related services
Mining activities
Permanent open space
Water areas
NO
NO
NO
NO
Land
YES
NO
NO13
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.
178
-------
4165.57 (End 4)
Nov 8, 77
6. Excludes chapels.
1. 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 ATM 86-6 (reference (a)), TM 5-803-4 (reference (d)) and NAVFAC
P-80 (reference (c)).
13. Lumber and timber products removed due to establishment, expan-
sion or maintenance of clear zones will be disposed of in accordandce
with DoD Instruction 4170.7, "Natural Resources - Forest Management,"
June 21, 1965 (reference (h)) and DoD Instruction 7310.1, "Accounting
and Reporting for Property Disposal and Proceeds from Sale of Disposable
Personal Property and Lumber or Timber Products," July 10, 1970 (reference
(i))-
14. Includes hunting and fishing.
15. Controlled hunting and fishing may be permitted for the purpose
of wildlife control.
179
------- |