NTID 73.3
' ^ %
UJ
a
m.
*<¦ PROlfc
REPORT ON OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INCLUDING MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT,
SAFETY AND COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY 1973
-------
STANDARD ALL-ENGINES TAKEOFF*
• APPLIES TO ALL TAKEOFFS EXCEPT WHERE
- TERRAIN CLEARANCE REQUIRES OTHERWISE
- COMPLIANCE WITH A SID OR ATC CLEARANCE
REQUIRES OTHERWISE
QUIET THRUST EPfl
7Z7/1 727/2
320B/C 720B
- APPLY CLIMB THRUST
- ACCELERATE TO 250K
REACH:
- Vzf
- FLAPS 0
- QUIET THRUST
BEGIN REOUCING
TO QUIET THRUST
\
ALTITUDE VALUES SHOWN ARE ABOVE AIRfOKT ELEVATION
•• NOMINAL PITCH ATTITUDr FOR THE QUIET EPR CLIMB SEGMENT
Northwest Airlines Noise Abatement Takeoff
-------
REPORT ON OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
INCLUDING MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT,
SAFETY AND COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY 1973
RANDALL L. HURLBURT, TASK GROUP CHAIRMAN
This document is the result of an extensive task force effort to gather all
available data pertinent to the subject discussed herein. It represents the
interpretation of such data by the task group chairman responsible for
this specific report. It does not necessarily reflect the official views of EPA
and does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
PREFACE
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to study the adequacy of current and planned regulatory action
taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the exercise of FAA authority to
abate and control aircraft/airport noise. The study is to be conducted in consultation
with appropriate Federal, state and local agencies and interested persons. Further,
this study is to include consideration of additional Federal and state authorities and
measures available to airports and local governments in controlling aircraft noise. The
resulting report is to be submitted to Congress on or before July 27, 1973.
The governing provision of the 1972 Act states:
"Sec. 7(a). The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal, state,
and local agencies and interested persons, shall conduct a study of the (1) adequacy
of Federal Aviation Administration flight and operational noise controls; (2) adequacy
of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together with recommenda-
tions on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of identi-
fying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around airports; and (4)
additional measures available to airport operators and local governments to control
aircraft noise. He shall report on such study to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce
and Public Works of the Senate within nine months after the date of the enactment of
this act. "
Under Section 7(b) of the Act, not earlier than the date of submission of the report to
Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency is to:
"Submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed regulations to provide such
control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including control and abate-
ment through the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air commerce
or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is
necessary to protect the public health and welfare. "
The study to develop the Section 7(a) report was carried out through a participatory
and consultive process involving a task force. That task force was made up of six task
groups. The functions of these six task groups were to:
iii
-------
1. Consider legal and institutional aspects of aircraft and airport noise and the
apportionment of authority between Federal, state, and local governments.
2. Consider aircraft and airport operations including monitoring, enforcement,
safety, and costs.
3. Consider the characterization of the impact of airport community noise and to
develop a cumulative noise exposure measure.
4. Identify noise source abatement technology, including retrofit, and to conduct
cost analyses.
5. Review and analyze present and planned FAA noise regulatory actions and their
consequences regarding aircraft and airport operations.
6. Consider military aircraft and airport noise and opportunities for reduction of
such noise without inhibition of military missions.
The membership of the task force was enlisted by sending letters of invitation to a
sampling of organizations intended to constitute a representation of the various sectors
of interest. These organizations included other Federal agencies; organizations repre-
senting state and local governments, environmental and consumer action groups,
professional societies, pilots, air traffic controllers, airport proprietors, airlines,
users of general aviation aircraft, and aircraft manufacturers. In addition to the invita-
tion letters, a press release was distributed concerning the study, and additional persons
or organizations expressing interest were included into the task force. Written inputs
from others, including all citizen noise complaint letters received over the period of the
study, were called to the attention of appropriate task group leaders and placed in the
public master file for reference.
This report presents the results of the Task Group 2 effort devoted to the analysis of
aircraft and airport operations. The membership of Task Group 2 was made up of
representatives of the federal government, local government, airport operators, airlines,
pilots, airframe manufacturers, general and business aviation, and environmental groups.
The task group met six times In Washington, D. C., during the period February 15, 1973
to June 22, 1973. The members presented information pertinent to the problem, presented
comments on information supplied by other members, generally discussed the problem and
possible solutions, and reviewed and commented on draft reports. EPA requested that all
data submitted be in writing. All documents received are listed in the "References" section
and are available for inspection in the Airport/Air craft Study files. Throughout this report,
iv
-------
numbers in parentheses indicate the number of the reference document as listed under
"References. " Excerpts from many of the technical documents are included in Appendix A.
Specific positions of individual task group members are included in Appendix B.
This report summarizes the information assembled by Task Group 2 so as to inform
the Congress and the public about the existing state-of-the-art in aircraft/airport oper-
ational procedures. At the same time, it provides a basis for proposing regulations as
required by Public Law 92-574.
The conclusions of this report are the conclusions of the task group chairman based
on the information supplied by task group members and on consideration of the public
health and welfare. The difficult and controversial subjects of the task group assignment
precluded complete agreement among or preparation of a consensus report by the task
group members. The chairman sincerely appreciates the wholehearted efforts that the
task group members have put forth; without their assistance this report could not have
been prepared in the time available.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
General 1-1
Noise Terminology 1-2
Existing FAA Flight and Operational Noise Controls 1-4
2 FLIGHT AND OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTROLS 2-1
Departure Procedures (Jet Aircraft) 2-1
Sideline 2-1
Climbout 2-2
Approach and Landing Procedures (Jet Aircraft) 2-18
Reduced Flap Settings 2-18
Increased Initial Approach Altitudes 2-19
Higher Glide Slopes 2-22
Two-Segment Approaches 2-28
Decelerating Approach 2-36
Thrust Reverse Limitations 2-36
Propeller Driven Aircraft and Helicopter Operations 2-39
3 AIRPORT NOISE CONTROLS 3-1
Schedule Limitations 3-3
Aircraft Type Limitations 3-3
Night Curfews 3-10
Aircraft Weight or Trip Length Limitations 3-12
Preferential Runways 3-15
Preferential Flight Paths 3-15
Engine Runup Restrictions 3-16
Noise Barriers 3-16
Economic Incentives 3-18
Monitoring and Enforcement 3-18
Airport Certification 3-22
4 NATIONWIDE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 4-1
Cumulative Noise Benefits and Costs 4-1
Analysis of Alternatives 4-5
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
vi
-------
CONTENTS (Cont.)
Section Page
R REFERENCES R-l
APPENDICES
A TECHNICAL ANNEX A-l
B POSITION ANNEX B-l
C TASK GROUP 2 MEMBERSHIP C-l
GLOSSARY Glossary - 1
I
!
vii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Page
1-1
Relationship Between Cumulative Noise Reduction and
Area Reduction
1-3
2-1
Thrust Required for Takeoff
2-3
2-2
90 EPNdB Noise Contours for Maximum Thrust and
Reduced Thrust Takeoffs
2-4
2-3
Effect of Flaps on Climb Gradient
2-6
2-4
Effect of Weight and Thrust Setting on Climb Gradient
2-7
2-5
Noise Data for Maximum Angle (ATA) Climbout
2-10
2-6
Noise Data for Power Cutback (ALPA) Climbout
2-11
2-7
Effect of Aircraft Type and Cutback Altitude on 90 EPNdB
Enclosed Area
2-12
2-8
Centerline Noise Data for Various Power Cutback Altitudes
2-14
2-9
Enclosed Area as a Function of EPNL Contour for ATA
and ALPA Takeoff Profiles
2-15
2-10
Effect of Aircraft Weight and Cutback Altitude on EPNdB
Enclosed Area
2-16
2-11
Noise Data for Flap Management Approach
2-20
2-12
Noise Data for 1500 and 3000 Ft Intercept Altitudes
2-21
2-13
Effect of Approach Angle on Noise
2-24
2-14
Noise Data for 3. 5 ILS Approach
2-25
2-15
Variation of Rate of Descent with Approach Angle
2-26
2-16
Noise Data for 2-Segment Approach
2-29
2-17
Relation of Engine Response Time to Approach Angle
2-31
2-18
Noise Data for Decelerating Approach
2-37
2-19
FAA Runway Lengths for Typical Aircraft Types (Landing
without thrust reversers)
2-38
2-20
Typical Noise Levels at 1000 feet, Maximum Continuous Power
2-41
2-21
Helicopter Blade Slap Regime
2-42
2-22
Noise Exposure Contours for Transport Proprotor VTOL
2-44
3-1
Air Traffic Hubs, June 30, 1971
3-2
3-2
Cumulative Noise Exposure for a Single Flyover
3-4
3-3
Effect of Number of Flights on Cumulative Noise Exposure
3-5
3-4
U. S. Air Carrier Fleet - Takeoff Noise Levels (Sheet 1 of 3)
3-6
3-4
U. S. Air Carrier Fleet - Sideline Noise Levels (Sheet 2 of 3)
3-7
3-4
U.S. Air Carrier Fleet - Approach Noise Levels (Sheet 3 of 3)
3-8
3-5
Effect of Standard Deviation of Noise Levels on Cumulative
Noise Exposure (Normal Distribution)
3-9
3-6
Effect of Night Operations on Cumulative Noise Exposure
3-11
3-7
Generalized Takeoff Profiles for Jet Aircraft
3-14
3-8
Effect of Route Dispersion on Noise Impact
3-17
4-1
Procedural Effectiveness Related to Airport Activity
4-3
4-2
Null Case Schedule
4-7
viii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont.)
Figure Page
4-3 Normal Effort Schedule 4-8
4-4 Accelerated Effort Schedule 4_9
4-5 Maximum Effort Schedule 4-10
4-6 Procedural Reductions in Cumulative Noise Exposure 4-11
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2-1
Air Carrier Airports with Glide Slopes Above 3°
2-22
2-2
Frequency Distribution of Weather Conditions
2-27
3-1
Takeoff Profiles for Various Trip Lengths
3-13
3-2
Costs of Noise Monitoring
3-21
4-1
Summary of Noise Benefits and Costs
4-2
4-2
Null Case Benefits and Costs
4-13
4-3
Normal Effort Benefits and Costs
4-14
4-4
Accelerated Effort Benefits and Costs
4-15
4-5
Maximum Effort Benefits and Costs
4-16
4-6
Present Value Economic Cost and Social Benefit for Various
"Cost of Noise" Assumptions
4-18
4-7
Reductions in Land Use Cost Resulting from Implementation
of Operational Procedures
4-20
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
This report analyzes a number of noise abatement flight and operational proced-
ures which are presently in use in one form or another in scattered parts of the air
transportation system. For the most part the use of these procedures is not required
by the FAA. The discussion in this report concentrates on the noise reduction potential,
the costs, and other advantages and disadvantages of these noise abatement procedures.
The attractiveness of procedural methods of noise reduction is that they can be accom-
plished in a short time (0 to 5 years) and at low cost (often no cost). This is in con-
trast to aircraft or engine modifications or land use conversion which can provide
more substantial long term benefits (3 to 15 years) but at greater cost.
It is important to recognize that flight noise controls usually apply to a single air-
craft, and airport operational noise controls usually apply to a single airport. But the
single aircraft and the single airport are merely single parts of a total system that,
while providing air transportation to the nation, causes people to be exposed to high
levels of noise. Each individual aircraft engine makes noise; the way in which the
aircraft is flown can increase or reduce the level of noise at a point on the ground;
but it is the total effect of many different aircraft operating from many different
specific airports in such a manner as to adversely affect people that creates the
aircraft/airport noise "problem." For example, regardless of the procedures used,
a severe noise problem is not likely to result from a single flight over populated
areas or from numerous flights over unpopulated areas. Furthermore, some proced-
ures may reduce the noise impact at one airport but increase the noise impact at
another. The implication here is that flight or airport procedures alone cannot be
expected to totally solve the noise problem. At best they must be considered as only
two elements of what must be a more comprehensive plan which also includes controls
on the source of the noise and the location of people exposed to noise.
In addition, one should keep in mind that flight safely is of paramount importance
in developing flight and operational noise controls. It is the FAA's legal responsibility
1-1
-------
to ensure that flight and operational regulations are consistent with the highest degree
of safety, and EPA, therefore, cannot categorically state that certain flight and
operational noise controls are either adequate or inadequate from a safety standpoint.
This report does, however, identify a number of noise abatement flight procedures
which it appears may be consistent with the highest degree of safety and which there-
fore merit consideration for rulemaking or implementation by the FAA.
NOISE TERMINOLOGY
There are a vast number of scales used for measuring noise. For the purpose of
this report two scales will be used to describe single event noise: Effective Perceived
Noise Decibels (EPNdB) and Decibels, A-Weighted (dBA). Both are logarithmic scales
such that each decrease of 10 EPNdB or 10 dBA represents approximately a halving
of perceived noisiness.
Most of the aircraft noise data used as background for this report are in units of
EPNdB, therefore this will be the primary scale used; dBA units will be shown as a
secondary (approximate) scale to relate to noise sources of other types and to the
cumulative noise standard recommended in the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task
Group 3 Report. The numerical value of EPNdB is approximately 13 units higher than
the numerical value of dBA for the same noise level (the relationship actually varies with
frequency spectrum and time duration, so this relationship is valid only to + approximate^
3 dB).
The impact of noise depends on the cumulative effect of many overflights; so the
public health and welfare is measured by a scale which accumulates, logarithmically,
the total noise from a series of successive flights. When EPNdB is the basic single
event unit, the cumulative scale is termed Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF). When
dBA is the basic single event unit, the cumulative scale is termed Day /Night Average
Sound Level (L(jn). Both scales include a weighting factor for the increased annoy-
ance of nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) flights. The numerical value of L^ is approxi-
mately 35 units higher than the numerical value of NEF for the same noise environ-
ment (+ 3dB).
A more complete discussion of the various units of noise measurement is con-
tained in the EPA Aircraft Airport Noise Study Task Group 3 Report (512). That
report recommends L^ as the basic measure of cumulative noise exposure. That
1-2
-------
report further recommends that an outdoor value of 80 (NEF 45) be adopted as
a national standard for protection of the public from possible hearing damage and an
outdoor value of 60 (NEF 25) be adopted as a long range goal for the full protection
of the public health and welfare from excessive noise.
This report is concerned first with the flight procedures conducted by individual
airplanes. Therefore the effectiveness of any given procedure will be measured in
terms of single event noise, and, in particular, by the percentage reduction in the
area exposed to 90 EPNdB or above. For medium sized airports (250 operations per 24
hours, 10% at night) this area often corresponds to the area exposed to an outdoor of
65 (NEF 30) and higher. Later, when considering the nationwide effects of various
combinations of procedures, the area exposed to cumulative noise above an of
65 (NEF 30) will be the effectiveness measure. = 65 was chosen rather than =
60 because most of the available data concerns NEF 30 (L^ = 65) and this may be
a more realistic medium range noise goal. Throughout the report it may be useful
to know the reduction in exposed area that accompanies an average reduction in noise
level (or vice-versa). This may be estimated approximately by reference to Figure
1-1.
REDUCTION IN Ldn (dB)
0 2 4 6 8 10 14 18
1 I ' ¦ ' I ¦ « "
i i t 1 r 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
REDUCTION IN EXPOSED AREA (PERCENT)
Figure 1-1. Relationship Between Cumulative
Noise Reduction and Area Reduction (Reference 503).
1-3
-------
It should be remembered that noise level predictions are not precise, but are
subject to errors of approximately j5 dB. Nevertheless, comparisons of relative
noise levels are still meaningful.
EXISTING FAA FLIGHT AND OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTROLS
The FAA has adopted two Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) and two
Advisory Circulars (AC's) related to flight and operational noise controls. (Advisory
Circulars inform the aviation public of nonregulatory material of interest. They are
not binding on the public.)
These are:
FAR 91.55 prohibits flight at speeds in excess of Mach 1 and thereby prevents
the occurrence of sonic booms unless a specific authorization is given.
r
EAR 91.87 regulates operation at airports with operating control towers. FAR
91.87(d) and (f) specify that the minimum altitude for turbine powered or large air-
craft is 1500 feet above the surface of the airport except when lower altitudes are
necessary for takeoff or landing. FAR 91.87(d) further requires that such aircraft
when approaching to land remain on or above the Instrument Landing System (ILS)
or Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) glide slopes if available until a lower altitude
is necessary for a safe landing (normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the
glide slope are permitted for the purpose of remaining on the glide slope). In addition
FAR 91.87 (g) requires pilots of these aircraft to use, whenever possible, the
preferential noise abatement runway assigned by Air Traffic Control (ATC).
AC 90-59 describes the FAA "Keep-Em'High" program wherein controllers
issue clearances to keep high performance aircraft as high as possible as long as
possible (112). This program was initially introduced for the purpose of collision
avoidance, but it also provides some noise relief by preventing unnecessary low
altitude flight. There is nothing in the Keep-Em-High program that requires the
use of any specific noise abatement takeoff or approach procedure.
AC 91-36 encourages pilots operating fixed or rotary wing aircraft under Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) to fly at not less than 2000 feet above the surface over noise
sensitive areas (27).
1-4
-------
In addition to the above system-wide controls, there are specific noise abatement
procedures in effect at Washington National Airport which is operated by the FAA.
There the airlines use a thrust reduction during climbout from a point 3 nautical miles
northbound or 4 nautical miles southbound until reaching an altitude of 6,000 feet or a
distance of 10 nautical miles, whichever occurs first. Aircraft on approach must
follow the Potomac River. A jet curfew is in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Only
certain types of aircraft are permitted to use the airport (the largest being Boeing
727's), and trip lengths are limited to 650 miles with exceptions for nonstop flights
to 7 cities within 1,000 miles (153, 154, 155).
A complete analysis of FAA regulatory actions is contained in the EPA Aircraft/
Airport Noise Study Task Group 5 Report (514).
Subsequent sections of this report discuss additional procedures which may be
useful in controlling aircraft and airport noise. First, flight and operational noise
controls are discussed, followed by a section on airport noise controls. Then a
nationwide analysis of the noise benefits and the cost of these procedures is made.
Finally, there is a section on conclusions and recommendations. The most important
recommendations are that there be regulations establishing:
1. Takeoff Noise Abatement Procedures
2. Approach and Landing Noise Abatement Procedures
3. Higher Minimum Altitudes
4. Airport Noise Certification
1-5
-------
SECTION 2
FLIGHT AND OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTROLS
Most of the aircraft/airport noise problem results from the operation of jet
aircraft in the vicinity of airports. Therefore the bulk of this section will concentrate
on the procedures available to reduce jet aircraft noise during departure and during
approach and landing. However, at the end of this section brief consideration is
given to the noise from propeller driven aircraft and helicopters.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURES (JET AIRCRAFT)
There are two types of departure noise problems: sideline noise and climbout
noise. The sideline noise problem occurs along the sides of the runway while the
aircraft is still on or close to the ground. It is dominated by the noise from the air-
craft engines themselves and by shielding of noise by intervening buildings. This
noise shielding no longer exists after the aircraft has reached an altitude of several
hundred feet. The climbout noise problem occurs as the aircraft passes over or near
noise sensitive areas* after departing the immediate vicinity of the runway and the
airport. This problem is dominated by the engine noise and by the climb performance
of the aircraft. The following sections discuss flight procedures appropriate for
reducing sideline or climbout noise.
The FAA has not adopted any regulations or other controls related to noise abate-
ment departure procedures except at the Washington, D. C. (National) Airport, which it
operates, where it requires a power cutback on climbout.
SIDELINE
For runways having sideline noise as the critical departure problem, a procedure
of reduced thrust takeoff will create less noise than a full power takeoff. This benefit
is of course a tradeoff for greater noise along the flight track because the resulting
climbout altitudes will be lower. The actual power required for takeoff depends on
~As used in this report, "noise sensitive area" means a residential area exposed to
aircraft noise above the critical L^ level for a given airport.
2-1
-------
aircraft type, flap configuration, runway length, wind, altitude, temperature, and
many other factors. As an illustration, Figure 2-1 shows the thrust required for a
Boeing 707 to take off from a 10,000 foot level runway on a standard day with no wind.
Figure 2-2 shows the 90 EPNdB sideline noise contours for full power and reduced
power takeoffs, indicating that the noise exposed area to the side of the runway can be
reduced by 20% through the use of reduced thrust takeoffs.
Many airlines currently use reduced thrust takeoffs for the purpose of reducing
engine maintenance costs. Many aircraft flight manuals prescribe procedures to be
used by pilots for making reduced thrust takeoffs. These procedures are approved
by both the aircraft manufacturer and the FAA. FAA policy generally limits the
amount of thrust reduction to no more than 10 percent.
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) cautions that care must be exercised in
using reduced thrust takeoffs since the procedure does result in a lengthened takeoff
roll (90).
Conclusion: reduced thrust takeoffs are a technically feasible way of reducing
sideline noise when performed in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations
and FAA limitations.
CLIMBOUT
For runways where noise along the flight track is the critical problem, there are
two procedures most often considered: a full power (maximum angle) climbout or a
power cutback during climbout. The two factors of distance and acoustic energy tend
to work against each other during climbout, lower power settings being associated
with lower altitudes. The optimum procedure for reducing climbout noise therefore
depends on the location of the noise sensitive area(s). Furthermore, with respect to
the power cutback climbout, there are disagreements regarding the amount of thrust
reduction, the point at which it should take place, and the appropriate flap configurations
and airspeeds.
Therefore it may be appropriate to briefly discuss a few aspects of aircraft climb
performance before discussing the noise benefits of various procedures. First, the
effect of airspeed and flap setting on takeoff climb gradient (slope of aircraft climbout
2-2
-------
BOEING 707-300 B/C
TAKEOFF WEIGHT: 300,000 LBS.
JT 3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL AIRPORT: CONSTANT 10,000 FT. TAKEOFF DISTANCE
REFERENCE 119
1.00
IB
<
-J
I
<
.90
0C
X
t
o
LLI
DC
D
O
.80
fc
3
K
.70
.60
20
_L
-10
_L
0
_L
~T~
40
10
_1_
—r
80
20
_L
-T-
80
30
—1—
100
40
50
L
—r
120
•20
20
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ~ °F
Figure 2-1. Thrust Required for Takeoff
2-3
-------
8000
6000
4000
2000
SIDELINE
DISTANCE
(FEET) 2000
4000
6000
8000
/
/
RUNWAY
DIRECTION OF FLIGHT
— — —>
AREA REDUCTION: 20%
707-320B
FULL THRUST
90% THRUST
REFERENCE 142
X
_L
i.
X
J-
J
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000
DISTANCE FROM START OF TAKEOFF ROLL (FEET)
14,000
Figure 2-2. 90 EPNdB Noise Contours for Maximum
Thrust and Reduced Thrust Takeoffs
2-4
-------
path) is illustrated in Figure 2-3. For the Boeing 707 aircraft, the maximum climb
gradient can be seen to occur with zero flaps at the airspeed V (maximum angle of
climb airspeed). In the takeoff flap configuration the maximum climb gradient occurs
at or near the speed V2 + 10 knots (Vg is the safety speed in the takeoff configuration),
but this maximum gradient is lower than the maximum gradient in the clean (zero
flap) configuration.
Secondly, the effect of aircraft weight and thrust setting is shown in Figure 2-4.
Higher weights and lower thrust settings can be seen to give lower climb gradients.
Another factor in obtaining maximum initial climb gradient is aircraft body angle
limitation. Such limitations may make it impossible to achieve the optimum climb
gradient. The only jet transport aircraft with a manufacturer's body angle limitation
is the DC-9 (16° limit).
Various organizations have proposed different noise abatement climbout proced-
ures. The Air Transport Association (ATA) recommends a maximum angle climbout
as quoted below (54):
I. First Segment - Takeoff to 1500 Feet
1. Takeoff power
2. V2 + 10 (+)
3. Takeoff flaps
n. Second Segment - at 1500 Feet to 3000 Feet
1. Vg + 10 (+)
2. Optimum flap setting speed permitting*
3. Reduce to not less than climb power
~Retract or retain flap setting as required
m. Third Segment - at 3000 Feet
1. Retract flaps on schedule
2. Normal enroute climb
2-5
-------
.16
.14
to
I
o>
H .12
Ul
5
€C
0
m
1 .10
_j
o
.08
.06
BOEING 707-300 B/C
TAKEOFF WEIGHT: 300,000 LB
JT3D-3B ENGINES
TAKEOFF THRUST
SEA LEVEL STANDARD DAY
GEAR UP
REFERENCE 119
STALL SPEED V,
EXTRAPOLATED
V, +50
FLAPS 14
FLAPS UP
FLAP LIMIT SPEED
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
TRUE AIRSPEED ~ KNOTS
Figure 2-3. Effect of Flaps on Climb Gradient
-------
.22
.20
.18
BOEING 707-300 B/C
(4) JT3D-3B ENGINES
FLAPS UP GEAR UP
SEA LEVEL STANDARD DAY
REFERENCE 119
I
I-
« -16
to
I
-a
UJ
Q
<
oe
a
co
X
<
s
.14
.12
.10
.08
NOTE: A 1000 FT/MIN CLIMB CORRESPONDS TO A CLIMB
GRADIENT OF .047 AT 210 KNOTS.
MAX. GROSS
WEIGHT
TAKEOFF
THRUST
MAXIMUM
CONTINUOUS
THRUST
I
200
250 300
GROSS WEIGHT ~ 1000 LB
350
Figure 2-4. Effect of Weight and Thrust Setting on Climb Gradient
-------
The ALPA recommends a power cutback procedure as quoted next (14):
MA normal takeoff with normal rotation is made ideally to a pre-computed
pitch attitude. The aircraft is climbed at V„ + 10 to 20 until at least 400'
altitude is reached. The pitch angle is then'reduced to begin acceleration
to reach flaps reduction schedules that will bring the aircraft to approximately
1500' above the airport elevation in a clean configuration and at maneuvering
speed. Thrust is then reduced to that thrust required to produce the engine
out climb gradient for that particular aircraft. (This thrust setting is also
precomputed.) This thrust is maintained until the aircraft reaches 4000' at
which time enroute climb thrust is resumed.
It should be emphasized that 400* is a minimum altitude for the start of flap
retraction and for most aircraft the flap retraction should be started
appreciably above this altitude.M
The National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) recommends procedures
similar to the ATA maximum angle climbout (26):
1. Standard Procedure
a. Maintain maximum power and takeoff flap setting to 1,500' AFL (above
field level) for a maximum rate-of-climb subject to items in paragraph
b following (immediately below).
b. Maintain V2 + 10 (+) knots.
c. Flight path outbound from takeoff should not require any turn below 300*
AFL, and not more than a 15° bank.
d. At or before 1,500' AFL, retract flaps (if possible) and set power at
desired climb EPE (engine pressure ratio) or RPM (revolutions per
minute).
e. Above 3,000' AFL normal climb schedule.
2. Close-in Procedure (*)
(*) For communities less than 10,000' from brake release point.
a. Accelerate to V2 + 10 (+) knots.
b. After crossing airport boundary and after reaching 300' AFL reduce to
desired climb EPE or EPM.
c. Flight path outbound from takeoff shall not require any turn below 300f AFL
and not more than a 15° bank.
2-8
-------
d. At or before 1,500* AFL, retract flaps (if possible).
e. Above 3,000* AFL, normal climb schedule.
The ATA climb procedure is presently in use by Pacific Southwest Airlines
(PSA), United, American, and possibly other airlines. Procedures similar to the
ALPA procedure are in use by Northwest Airlines and Air California. All airlines
at Washington (National) Airport make a power cutback from a point 3 nautical
miles northbound or 4 nautical miles southbound until reaching an altitude of 6000
feet or a distance of 10 nautical miles, whichever occurs first (153).
The noise effect of these procedures is depicted in Figures 2-5 and 2-6 (curves
are not shown for the NBAA procedure since it closely resembles the ATA procedure).
The reference procedure shown is a continuous acceleration to 250 knots and then a
climb at 250 knots, typical of a departure unconstrained by noise abatement
considerations.
As can be seen from the figures, the maximum angle climbout (ATA) procedure
reduces noise approximately 1 EPNdB at distances from S to 12 miles from brake
release and increases noise approximately 1 dB farther out. The total area exposed
to 90 EPNdB or greater is not significantly changed as compared to the reference
procedure. The power cutback climbout (ALPA) procedure reduces noise approximately
2 EPNdB at distances from 4 to 14 miles from brake release and increases noise
approximately 2 EPNdB farther out. The area exposed to 90 EPNdB or greater is
reduced by approximately 6 percent as compared to the reference procedure. Which
procedure is better under specific conditions depends on the location of the noise
sensitive areas. If the noise sensitive area is located under the reduced power seg-
ments, then a power outbade procedure such as ALPA recommends is better. If the
noise sensitive area is at some distance from the airport then a maximum angle
climbout such as ATA recommends is better.
The effectiveness of a power cutback climbout is dependent on a number of factors.
First, it is dependent on the type of aircraft, being most effective for those aircraft
powered by JT8D engines (727,737, DC-9) because of their high power to weight ratios
and High levels of exhaust noise relative to fan noise. This effect is shown in Figure
2-7. Figure 2-7 also shows that the noise exposed area is dependent on the altitude
2-9
-------
10
HEIGHT
(1000 FT)
ACCELERATE AND
RETRACT FLAPS
MAX CONT THRUST
ACCELERATE
IMAX CONT THRUST
, ACCEL TO V, +30 AND
' RETRACT FLAPS
120 r
110
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdBI 100
90
BOEING 707-3206
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 300,000 LBS
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°F, 70* R.H.
TAKEOFF FLAPS 14°
INITIAL CLIMB AT Vj + 10 KTS
REFERENCE 117
ATA PROCEDURE
REF PROCEDURE
110
100
APPROXIMATE
NOISE
90 LEVEL
(dBA)
80
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (NAUTICAL MILES)
22
24
26
SIDELINE
DISTANCE
(NAUTICAL
MILES)
90 EPNdb
AREA REDUCTION: NONE
Figure 2-5. Noise Data for Maximum Angle (ATA) Climbout
2-10
-------
10
6 "
HEIGHT
11000 FT)
4 -
2 -
MAX CONT THRUST (ALPA)
ACCELERATE
MAX CONT THRUST (REF)
CUTBACK TO 1000
FT/MIN CLIMB (ALPA)
ACCEL TO Vj + 30 AND
RETRACT FLAPS
GEAR
UP
120
110
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdB)
BOEING 707-320B
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 300,000 LBS
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°P. 70% R.H.
TAKEOFF FLAPS 14"
INITIAL CLIMB AT V, + 10 KTS
REFERENCE 117
ALPA PROCEDURE
REF PROCEDURE
100
90
¦X.
_l_
_l_
_1_
_l_
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (NAUTICAL MILES)
22
24
26
100
APPROXIMATt
NOISE
LLVfcL
90 lilBAI
SIDELINE i
DISTANCE
(NAUTICAL
MILES) 1
90 EPNdB
T_
AREA REDUCTION: 6%
Figure 2-6. Noise Data for Power Cutback (ALPA) Climbout
2-11
-------
Maximum Angle Climbout
Power Cutback Climbout
References 82, 117,168,170
AREA ENCLOSED
BY 90 EPNdB
NOISE CONTOUR
(SQUARE MILES)
BOEING 707,-300.000 lbs
BOEING 727,150,000 lbs
LOCKHEED L 1011:370.000 lbs
500
1000 1500 2000 2500
ALTITUDE OF POWER CUTBACK(feet)
3000
Figure 2-7. Effect of Aircraft Type and Cutback Altitude an 90 EPNdB Enclosed Area
2-12
-------
of cutback: for the 707, the 90 EPNdB area can be reduced most by making the cut-
back at approximately 2500 feet above the surface. This altitude, however, must be
weighed against the actual location of noise sensitive areas and the value of reducing
areas exposed to levels of noise above 90 EPNdB. Figure 2-8 illustrates the latter
point further, showing that the later the cutback is made, the more it reduces the noise
level directly below, but the length of effectiveness is decreased and the exposure to
noise levels above approximately 95 EPNdB (for the 727 aircraft) is increased.
In addition, one should note that power cutbacks are most effective for the moder-
ately high (but not extremely high) noise levels. Figure 2-9 shows that for the 727
aircraft, the maximum effectivity is for the 90 EPNdB contour. The area exposed to
100 EPNdB or greater is actually increased slightly as a result of the power carried
during acceleration and flap retraction. This increase in exposure to high noise levels
could perhaps be overcome by making the thrust reduction before retracting flaps;
this would reduce the subsequent effectiveness of the procedure, however, as indicated
by the following quotation from a NASA Report (115).
". . . the optimum profiles. . . can be characterized by a period of acceleration
as soon as possible after take-off, followed by a steep climb, which in turn is
followed by thrust reduction when the noise-sensitive area or a specified altitude
is reached. Before the transition from accelerating to climbing, the optimum
profiles achieved an airspeed that permitted full retraction of flaps. This
acceleration caused some altitude loss at the beginning of the noise-sensitive
area, but the disadvantage of a slightly lower altitude can be outweighed by the
advantage of greater thrust reduction that is possible in the clean airplane config-
uration. Thus, in the trade off between airspeed and altitude, gaining airspeed
until it is permissible to retract flaps can be more important than gaining altitude,
if the objective is to minimize the average perceived noise along the
noise-sensitive ground track."
For the larger, noisier 707 type aircraft, the power outbade is effective for
the 100 EPNdB contour as well as the 90 EPNdB contour but may increase the size
of the 110 EPNdB contour because of the flap retraction distance (refer again to
Figures 2-5 and 2-6). The overall effectiveness of the power outbade procedure can
be improved by having an automated flap retraction system, but this concept is still
in the early research stage (111).
Finally, even for a given aircraft type, the takeoff weight can effect the benefits
to be gained by a power cutback. As illustrated in Figure 2-10, the amount of benefit
and the optimum cutback altitude for the L1011 aircraft is very weight dependent.
2-13
-------
120
BOEING 727 - 200
Takeoff Weight 150,000 lbs
Reference 168
110
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdB) 100
Maximum Angle Climbout
Cutback at 500'
y 1 I Cutback at 1500'
Cutback at 2500'
90
0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (NAUTICAL MILES)
Figure 2-8. Centerline Noise Data for Various Power Cutback Altitudes
2-14
-------
70
60 -
50
ENCLOSED
AREA
(SQUARE
MILES)
40 -
30
727-200 AIRCRAFT
TAKEOFF WEIGHT 150,000 lbs
REFERENCE 168
20
10
ALPA
80
90
100
NOISE CONTOUR (EPNdB)
Figure 2-9. Enclosed Area as a Function of EPNL Contour for ATA
and ALPA Takeoff Profiles
2-15
-------
LOCKHEED L-1011-1
RB 211-22B ENGINES
SEA LEAVEL, 77° F, 70% R.H.
TAKEOFF FLAPS 10°
REFERENCE 82
AREA ENCLOSED
BY 90 EPNdB
NOISE CONTOUR
(SQUARE MILES)
TAKEOFF GROSS
WEIGHT (lbs)
430,000
400,000
370,000
340,000
3500
3000
1500
2000
2500
1000
ALTITUDE OF POWER CUTBACK (FEET)
Figure 2-10.
Effect of Aircraft Weight and Cutback Altitude
on 90 EPNdB Enclosed Area
2-16
-------
In general, if the location of the noise sensitive area is known, the takeoff profile
can be optimized to reduce noise there. In fact, the noise impact on people may in
some cases be reduced even if the area within the 90 EPNdB contour is increased,
such as in the case of an early cutback over residential areas followed by an expanded
contour over water or other sparsely populated areas.
In the extreme, optimization of the takeoff profile would mean different proced-
ures for every combination of runway, aircraft type, aircraft weight, and weather
conditions. Less variability could be achieved by having only the point of power cut-
back vary depending on the location of the noise sensitive community with respect to
the runway. Even less variability could be achieved by having two or three "standard"
noise abatement procedures which, while not necessarily optimum for any specific
situation, would provide a selection from which one could choose a profile that would
probably be better than no noise abatement procedures at all or only one standard
procedure.
Airline pilots, however, argue for a single standard procedure, asserting that
if a pilot always flies the same way he will react in the usual (and safe) way if an
emergency occurs. The countering argument asserts that no two takeoffs are alike
anyway because of differences in runway, weather, weight, obstacles, Air Traffic
Control (ATC) requirements, etc., therefore use of optimum climb procedures would
not in fact degrade standardization.
A spinoff advantage of a power cutback takeoff is that it consumes less fuel than
a full power (maximum angle) climbout. For a 300,000 lb. Boeing 707, the difference
is approximately 250 pounds of fuel (167). This is also a cost savings of approxi-
mately $3.75 per takeoff (based on a fuel cost of 1.5£ per pound). The reduced power
settings would probably result in increased air emissions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons but decreased emissions of nitrogen oxides (128). These air emission
effects are expected to be small, especially since the aircraft will be at altitudes
of 1500 feet and above when the power cutback takes place.
Conclusions: maximum angle (full power) climbouts and power cutback climbouts
are two technically feasible noise abatement procedures in current use. The choice
of which procedure is better (or which cutback altitude is best) depends on the location
2-17
-------
of noise sensitive areas with respect to the departure runway. The maximum angle
climbout is most beneficial for far downrange (more than approximately 10 miles from
the airport) noise problems. The power cutback climbout is most beneficial for near
downrange (approximately 4 to 10 miles from brake release) noise problems.
APPROACH AND LANDING PROCEDURES (JET AIRCRAFT
Several procedures have been proposed to reduce approach and landing noise. The
most important of these are:
1. Use of lower flap settings for approach and landing
2. Raising initial approach altitudes above 1500'
3. Raising all ILS glide slopes to 3°
4. Raising all ILS glide slopes to 3.5°
5. Use of two-segment approaches in VFR conditions
6. Use of two-segment approaches in IFR conditions
7. Use of decelerating approaches
8. Limitations on use of thrust reversers.
Each of these procedures will be discussed individually in the following sections.
REDUCED FLAP SETTINGS
Approaches made with less than full landing flaps reduce noise as compared to
a full flap approach because the airframe drag is less and thereby the power required
is lower.
Many aircraft (707, 727, 737, 747, DC-10, L-1011) have more than one
certificated flap setting for landing. Certain airlines, including American, Northwest,
and United use the reduced landing flap when conditions permit and also use an even
lower flap setting during the approach phase. The United Airlines procedure, for
example, calls for using one "notch" less than landing flaps for the approach, with
landing flaps (which may be one notch less than full flaps) lowered so that the aircraft
2-18
-------
can be completely stabilized in the landing configuration prior to reaching an altitude of
500 feet above the runway elevation (approximately 200 to 300 feet are required to
stabilize an aircraft following a configuration, airspeed, power, or attitude change).
Figure 2-11 shows that this type of flap management approach can reduce the area
exposed to 90 EPNdB or greater by approximately 30 percent.
The ATA endorses such a flap management approach and ALPA endorses it for
VFR flight subject to pilot discretion.
The reduced power settings result in lower rates of fuel consumption and also
reduced costs. The fuel savings is estimated to be approximately 380 pounds per
landing (or $5.70 based on a fuel cost of 1. 5£ per pound) for a Boeing 727 aircraft
(167).
Conclusion: reduced flap settings provide meaningful noise relief and are
technically feasible. In succeeding sections the flap management approach will be
used as the reference for comparing other procedures.
INCREASED INITIAL APPROACH ALTITUDES
Increasing the altitude at which the glide slope is intercepted can reduce
approach noise. The regulatory minimum altitude for turbine powered or large
aircraft is 1500 feet above the runway elevation (FAR 91.87 (d) (1)). For straight-
in approaches the area exposed to 90 EPNdB or greater can be reduced by 25% if
the glide slope intercept altitude is increased to 3000 feet (Figure 2-12). This noise
reduction is one of the purposes of the FAA "keep-em-high" program described in
AC 90-59 (112).
In some cases it may be argued that an increased intercept altitude increases total
noise exposure by causing the aircraft to fly a longer ground trade (when making a
curved approach). However, at least in VFR conditions, the experience at San Jose
Airport (see Technical Annex) indicates that in fact, rather than traveling a long
distance to intercept the glide slope from below, most pilots will actually choose to
make an approach steeper than 3° in order to shorten the distance. In IFR conditions
the requirement for a long stabilized final approach would require glide slope inter-
cept far from the airport anyway. To the extent that curved approaches might be
lengthened, additional fuel would be consumed (approximately 60 pounds per mile for
a Boeing 727) (167).
2-19
-------
HEIGHT 3
(1000 FT)
FLAPS 40
120
110
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdBI 100
90
BOEING 707-320B
LANDING WEIGHT 200,000 LBS.
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°F, 70% R.H.
3' GLIDE SLOPE
1.3 Vs t 10 KTS
REFERENCE 117
FULL FLAP APPROACH
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
110
FLAPS
FLAPS 50
FLAPS 25
_L
_L
_L
_L
_L
±
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NAUTICAL MILES)
11
12
13
100
APPROXIMATE
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
90
80
SIDELINE
DISTANCE
(NAUTICAL
MILES)
90 EPNdB
AREA REDUCTION: 30%
Figure 2-11. Noise Data for Flap Management Approach
2-20
-------
EXTEND GEAR ,
AND FLAPS 25°
FLAPS 14 . GEAR UP
HEIGHT
(1000 FT)
FLAPS 40'
FLAPS 40°
EXTEND GEAR
AND FLAPS 25°
FLAPS 14", GEAR UP
120
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdB)
110
100
90
BOEING 707 320 B
LANDING WEIGHT 200,000 LBSx
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°F, 70% R.H.
3° GLIDE SLOPE
1.3 Vs + 10 KTS
REFERENCE 117
3000 FT INTERCEPT
1500 FT INTERCEPT
FLIGHT PATHS
NOT WELL DEFINED
BEYONO THIS POINT
110
100
APPROXIMATl
NOISE LEVEL
(ilBAI
00
80
I
-L
_L
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NAUTICAL MILES)
12
13
1
SIDELINE
DISTANCE 0
(NAUTICAL
MILES)
1
90 EPNdB
—'
AREA REDUCTION 25%
Figure 2-12. Noise Data for 1500
Intercept Altitudes
2-21
and 3000 Ft
-------
Conclusion: the Mkeep-em-highn philospphy provides meaningful noise relief
and is technically feasible. Obviously such procedures must be closely coordinated
with other air traffic control requirements.
HIGHER GLIDE SLOPES
Higher approach angles result in reduced power settings and higher altitudes
which combine to reduce noise. Although the present FAA standard for new ILS glide
slope installations is 3° and a few older ILS glide slopes have been raised to 3°, there
still remain 190 installations (out of a total of 293 reported in a tentative FAA list)
with glide slope angles of less than 2.9° (many as low as 2.5°). (71)
o
A few air carrier airports have glide slope angles significantly in excess of 3
(see Table 2-1). Some additional (mostly military) airports with glide slopes in
excess of 3° are reported in reference 75. In all cases these glide slope angles were
instituted to clear high terrain. The San Diego airport accommodates nearly all
types of aircraft using a 3.22°|ILS orja 4.5° VASI even though the runway is quite
short (7,590 feet available for landing on runway 27). The ILS glide slope at Berlin
(Tempelhof) Airport was 4° prior to being lowered to 3.5° in 1968 (143). There is
no evidence to indicate that any of these higher glide slopes are unsafe.
Table 2-1
AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS WITH GLIDE SLOPES ABdVE 3°
Airport
Glide Slope
Angle
\
Weather Minimums
Ceiling (feet)/
Visibility (miles)
San Diego, Calif. (Lindbergh, Runway 09)
3.22° ILS
350/1
San Diego, Calif. (Lindbergh, Runway 27)
4.5° VASI
800/2
Annette Island, Alaska
3.27° ILS
250/ 1/2
Ft Worth, Texas (Meacham)
3.33° ILS
300/1
Berlin, Free Republic of Germany
(Tempelhof) 3
3.5° ILS
250/ 3/4
2-22
-------
FAR 91. 87 (d) (2 and 3) require that all turbine powered or large aircraft
properly equipped remain at or above the glide slope except for normal maneuvering
above and below the glide slope conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide
slope.
The noise reduction effect of raising the glide slope angle is approximately 2 to 3
EPNdB per one-half degree increase in glide slope angle as shown in Figure 2-13.
The considerable scatter in the data is evident in Figure 2-13 and again it should be
remembered that all noise predictions in this report are subject to similar uncertainties.
Figure 2-14 shows that a 0. 5 degree increase in glide slope angle will reduce the area
exposed to 90 EPNdB or above by approximately 25 percent. This procedure has the
advantage of reducing noise almost uniformly from the start of approach to touchdown.
Several members of the task group raised a safety issue regarding 3.5° ILS
glide slopes. Their argument is that increasing the glide slope angle increases the
descent rate, reducing the pilot's decision time while simultaneously causing a more
abrupt flare-out maneuver at the point of touchdown. The descent rate for various
airspeeds and approach angles is shown in Figure 2-15. The position of ALPA, ATA,
NBAA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and others is that
descent rates for angles above 3° are excessive (600 to 800 feet per minute). On the
other hand, several NASA reports, (9, 10, 116) indicate that descent rates of more than
900 to 1000 feet per minute near the ground are excessive. PSA procedures (95) require
that the copilot make a verbal call to the pilot if the descent rate exceeds 1000 feet
per minute.
Several task group members, San Jose Airport, NASA, Air California and others
indicated that they considered 3.5° approach angles to be safe and recommended their
adoption if the minimum weather conditions for landing did not have to be raised (85),
(100).
A monitoring study by the City of Inglewood, California (75) showed that when the
electronic glide slope was inoperative, pilots tended to fly at about a 3. 5° angle in
visual weather conditions.
2-23
-------
SOLID SYMBOLS ARE 2-SEGMENT DATA
+10 -
OPEN
SYMBOLS ARE SINGLE SEGMENT
•
O
BOEING (111)
i
FAA (70)
~
NASA (44)
~
NASA (3)
A
NASA (10)
NASA (116)
0
LOCKHEED (1)
#
NASA (94)
THEORETICAL SINGLE SEGMENT ESTIMATE (141)
NOISE LEVEL
RELATIVE TO
3° GLIDE SLOPE
(EPNdB)
¦10 -
-20
3 4 5
APPROACH ANGLE (DEGREES)
Figure 2-13. Effect of Approach Angle on Noise
2-24
-------
- 110
120
110
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdHI 100
00
BOEING 707-320 B
LANDING WEIGHT 200,000 LBS
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°F, 70% R.H.
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
1.3 Vs + 10 KTS
REFERENCE 117
3J ILS
3.5" ILS
J L_
i
J L_
3 *1
10
11
12
13
100
APPROXIMATE
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
90
80
SIDELINE
INSTANCE
(NAU1 lOAl
Mil t SI
90 EPNdB
AREA REDUCTION: 25%
Figure 2-14. Noise Data for 3.5° ILS Approach
2-25
-------
2000
REFERENCE 10
O APPROACH ANGLES
EVALUATED IN FLIGHT
KNOTS
app.
150
1500
z
s
i—
LL
UNACCEPTABLE
I-*
z
LLI
to 1000
LLI
Q
LL
O
111
£
C£
500
CURRENT JET TRANSPORTS
APPROACH ANGLE, 7, deg
Figure 2-15.
Variation of Rate of Descent with Approach Angle
2-26
-------
Current ILS weather minimums (Category I, approximate) are: 200 foot ceiling
and 0.5 mile visibility. Twenty four runways are equipped for Category II landings
with approximate weather minimums: 100 foot ceiling and 1/4 mile visibility. Table
2-1 suggests that the Category I weather minimums for a 3.5° ILS might have to be
raised to 250 foot ceiling and 3/4 mile visibility in order to preserve the decision
time available to the pilot after making visual contact with the runway. As shown in
Table 2-2, the weather conditions are likely to be between 200 ft/ 1/2 mile and 250 ft/
3/4 mile approximately 0.7% of the time.
Table 2-2
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WEATHER CONDITIONS
(Reference 120)
Percentage of time ceiling and visibility are
above levels indicated
Airport
(years considered)
200 feet
l/2 mile
250 feet
3/4 mile
1000 feet
3 miles
3000 feet
5 miles
Atlanta
(1946-1967)
98.3
97.6
88.7
77.5
Chicago
(1946-1965)
98.9
98.2
86.2
69.1
Los Angeles
(1949-1965)
97.7
96.9
78.9
57.6
New York
(1949-1965)
98.4
97.7
87.2
73.1
Average
98.3
97.6
85.3
69.3
The costs associated with raising the ILS glide slope are estimated by the FAA
to be (146):
• Relocate glide slope antenna, middle marker, and outer marker: $56,000 per
runway
• Flight check glide slope: $6,000 per runway
2-27
-------
If the timing were such that the adjustment coincided with a regular flight check of
the glide slope, only the equipment relocation costs would apply.
If the angle were raised to 3. 5° and it was necessary to raise weather minimums
also, there might be an additional cost associated with the delay or diversion of 0. 7
percent of all landings. This is estimated to be approximately 20 minutes or $200
per delayed flight plus passenger inconvenience. Assuming approximately 5 million
air carrier landings annually (there were 4.7 million in 1969 (500)) this amounts to
approximately $7 million annually (plus passenger inconvenience) if all glide slopes
were raised to 3. 5° and weather minimums had to be raised also.
Conclusion: glide slope angles of 3° are standard for new installations and result
in less noise than lower glide slope angles, yet a majority of existing glide slopes are
lower than 3°. Glide slope angles of up to 3.5° reduce noise even further and are in
use at a few locations to provide terrain clearance.
TWO-SEGMENT APPROACHES
Like the higher glide slope angles, two-segment approaches reduce noise through
the combined effect of reduced power settings and higher altitudes. In the two seg-
ment approach the initial descent is accomplished at a fairly steep angle (nominally
6°) and then a transition is made to a normal glide slope (nominally 3°) at an altitude
sufficient to safely reduce the initial high descent rates. Considerable noise reduction
is possible beneath the 6° segment, but no noise benefit occurs between the point
where transition is complete and the runway.
Figure 2-16 shows the noise reductions possible for the 707 aircraft and indicates
that the area exposed to 90 EPNdB or greater is reduced by 75 percent compared to
a flap management approach. This is a very significant reduction, especially since
the 707 is one of the noisiest aircraft in the current fleet. The noise reductions pro-
vided by two segment approaches for aircraft which already include noise suppression
may not be as great, but are still significant. For exainple, a two segment approach
for a 707 equipped with an acoustically treated nacelle reduces the 90 EPNdB area by
77 percent (to 9 percent of the untreated 707) (117); a two segment approach for the
L-1011 reduces the 90 EPNdB area by 62 percent (to 8 percent of an untreated 707) (1).
2-28
-------
&
oO
» '•o
3 -
HEIGHT
(1000 FT) 2
7&
^0
FLAPS 40°
NOISE
LEVEL
(EPNdB)
120
110
100
90
BOEING 707-320 B
200,000 LBS.
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL. 77°F, 70% R.H.
REFERENCE 117
TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
110
100
APPROXIMATE
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
- 90
80
_L.
_1_
_l_
4 6 6 7 8 9 10
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NAUTICAL MILES)
11
12
13
1
SIDELINE
DISTANCE o
(NAUTICAL
MILES)
1
90 EPNdB
^AREA REDUCTION: 76% *
Figure 2-16. Noise Data for 2-Segment Approach
2-29
-------
From a noise standpoint, the most effective procedure would be a very steep
initial angle with transition occurring very close to the runway. The initial angle is
limited, however, by the power and drag characteristics of the aircraft: under cer-
tain conditions initial angles of more than 6° would not permit speed stabilization or
might allow ice to build up in the engines (if icing conditions exist). Furthermore,
high descent rates (1600 feet per minute, instead of a normal 800 feet per minute,
see Figure 2-15) coupled with low power and long engine response times (7 seconds
instead of a normal 4 seconds, see Figure 2-17) make low altitude, close in trans-
ition hazardous. NASA tests using transition altitudes of 250 feet and 400 feet
showed that pilots felt slightly rushed using the 250 foot transition and therefore pre-
ferred a 400 foot transition (116, 186). ALPA and ATA have established positions
favoring having the aircraft completely stabilized on the glide slope by 500 foot
altitude; this requires a geometric point of transition at approximately a 700 foot
altitude (the aircraft actually begins the transition at a higher altitude and com-
pletes it at a lower altitude, the complete maneuver taking 200 to 300 feet).
Current NASA tests are therefore using approximately a 700 foot transition altitude
(60).
The various tests of two segment approaches which have been completed or are
in progress are summarized briefly in Appendix A. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) has conducted many tests and has demonstrated the
technical feasibility of this procedure including the use of automatic guidance for all
weather operation. Currently, tests are in progress under a NASA contract to
United Air Lines to demonstrate the feasibility of the two-segment approach in routine
airline operations. In addition, two segment approaches are already being conducted
on a regular basis in visual weather by PSA using 727 and 737 aircraft at all airports
it serves and b£ National Airlines using 727 aircraft at Miami (75). Furthermore,
Air California utilizes a VFR procedure which is a combination two-segment and
decelerating approach in their 737 aircraft (122). Approaches to the San Diego airport
are regularly flown at a 5° angle by all airlines serving that airport (aircraft types as
large as DC-8s) (79). The National Business Aircraft Association recommends the
use of two segment approaches in VFR conditions (26).
2-30
-------
ENGINE
RESPONSE
(TIME TO
MAXIMUM
THRUST,
SECONDS)
ESTIMATE BASED ON DATA
FROM REFERENCE 10.
0°
1°
6°
5°
APPROACH ANGLE (DEGREES)
Figure 2-17. Relation of Engine Response Time to Approach Angle
2-31
-------
There are numerous items of equipment available to provide guidance during
two-segment approaches. The most pertinent items of equipment are listed below
along with estimates of the investment costs (in 1973 dollars).
• Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) - All air carrier aircraft have at least
one DME receiver. When a DME transmitter is located on an airport, the
pilot has information in the cockpit regarding the distance from touchdown.
When electronically combined with a glide slope computer, two segment
approaches can be made with full flight director guidance. Currently only
16 airports have DME installed or on order. Present FAA programming calls
for 5 more in Fiscal Year 1975, 20 in FY 76, 20 in FY 77, and 40 in FY 78-82
(507). This is a significant slowdown from plans of a year ago which indicated
100 new installations by FY 75 (506). Based on information from Collins Radio,
NASA estimates that a dual DME transmitter installation costs approximately
$26,400 and delivery of 50 units could take place in 10 months under current
specifications (86). FAA cost estimates range from $45,000 to $60,000 per
installation (507, 146).
• Glide Slope Computer — One way of providing guidance on the upper segment
of a two segment approach is to install a special glide slope computer in the
aircraft. In conjunction with the DME on the airport, complete flight director
guidance is provided for the approach. Based on estimates from Collins
Radio and United Air Lines, NASA estimates the cost of a dual glide slope
computer installation to be $31,400 per aircraft (60). Deliveries could
begin one year after receipt of order.
• Vertical Navigation Equipment (V-Nav) - This is an extension of Area Navi-
gation (R-Nav) into three dimensions. It is an airborne system which can
compute aircraft position in space using the existing network of VORTAC
radio navigation stations. No airport DME or ILS is required (for non-
precision approaches). Cost estimates for such a system range from
$65,000 to $200,000 per aircraft if it is not already R-Nav equipped (179).
2-32
-------
NASA estimates a cost of approximately $9,000 for aircraft already R-Nav
equipped, based on data from Collins Radio, with a delivery time of approx-
imately 1 year (60). Few aircraft have R-Nav equipment at present, but
their numbers are expected to increase as new aircraft enter the fleet and
R-Nav routes are adopted by the FAA.
• Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) - This is a set of lights near the
runway which provide a visual glide slope. They are generally set for
3°, but at San Diego, for example, they are set at 4 1/2° for terrain
clearance. VASI's provide a convenient visual check on the aircraft's
approach profile. They cost approximately $30,000 (installed) each and
are available off the shelf (507).
• Visual Approach Monitor (VAM) - This is an electronic visual display in
the cockpit wherein the pilot controls the aircraft so as to keep a command
bar positioned across his view of the runway. This display will guide him
from a lo$r or high altitude through a smooth transition to a normal 3°
glide path. The cost is approximately $16,000 per aircraft including
installation and first deliveries could begin within 90 days from date of
order (109).
R)
• Microwave Landing System (MLS) - This is a future replacement for the
current ILS. Its noise abatement advantage is that multiple flight paths
or glide paths may be selected by the pilot. Present FAA planning calls
for initial installation of 10 units in FY 77, an additional 407 units in FY
78-82. The present cost estimate is approximately $200,000 each. (507).
According to NASA the time required for airline installation of guidance equip-
ment concurrent with scheduled aircraft downtime is 3 to 4 years for a normal
schedule, 2 1/2 to 3 years for a "crash" schedule. More rapid installation could
be accomplished but only by using unscheduled aircraft downtime with resultant
additional cost or reduced service (86). (An estimate for the downtime is approx-
imately 4 days per aircraft at an out of service cost of $7,000 per day (156, 516).)
The fuel burned on a two-segment approach is not significantly different than
the fuel burned on a flap management approach. This is, however, substantially
less than the fuel burned on a full flap approach (167). The data from Reference
2-33
-------
167 was based on an initial intercept altitude of 3000 feet, and the two segment fuel
comparison might be even more favorable if a higher intercept altitude were used.
Air pollution emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons may be increased
slightly by the lower power settings but the emissions of nitrogen oxides should be
reduced (128). All emissions would of course take place at flight altitudes.
An important issue concerns the use of "VFR only" two-segment approaches
such as those employed by PSA, National, Air California, at the San Diego
airport, and recommended by NBAA. The advantage of such a procedure is that it
can be implemented almost immediately, without waiting for tests and installation
of all-weather guidance equipment (visual contact with the ground provides the
necessary guidance). Although the noise benefit might not be as great as a
precisely guided approach, a "VFR only" procedure would still provide significant
noise benefits and would be useful most of the time. (Referring again to Table 2-2,
weather conditions are likely to be "VFR" (1000 foot ceiling and 3 mile visibility)
or better approximately 85 percent of the time and better than a 3000 foot ceiling
and 5 mile visibility approximately 69 percent of the time.)
The ALPA and ATA hold positions opposing introduction of any "VFR only" pro-
cedures. Their argument is that standardization is essential for safety and therefore
all approaches should be made in the same manner, whether IFR or VFR. The ALPA
contends that the reason PSA and Air California can use VFR procedures is that they
operate into only a small number of airports and the routes are short; therefore the
pilots are thoroughly familiar with each runway and also make many more landings
per month than a pilot who flies only transcontinental or international routes. Others
argue oppositely, saying that even under present circumstances VFR procedures are
often much different from IFR procedures, so the "standardization" called for does
not now exist.
Furthermore, ALPA contends that steep VFR approaches are likely to result in
landing accidents because of the high sink rates involved. One analysis of visual
approach accidents available to the task group did not bear this out, however.
Reference 97 analyzed 44 air carrier visual approach accidents by extracting data
from Civil Aeronautics Board, National Transportation Safety Board, International
Civil Aviation Organization, and individual state reports. Accidents considered visual
2-34
-------
were those with ceilings greater than 500 feet and visibility such that the runway
approach lights or lights in the airport area were visible. Accidents were not consid-
ered where structural integrity, fire, loss of control, thrust or power, icing, or
pilot incapacitation were involved or suspected.
The major common factor appeared to be that the accidents occurred at night
(37) or in degraded daytime visual conditions (7). With regard to approach slopes,
low approaches were the most common problem. In general, from distances of 5
miles to 1 mile from touchdown, 23 approaches were more than 100 feet below a 3°
slope, 11 approaches were more than 100 feet above a 3° slope, and 10 approaches
were within 100 feet of a 3° slope.
The most frequently referenced steep approach accident is the crash of a United
Airlines 727 at Salt Lake City in 1965. The facts, as reported by the National Trans-
portation Safety Board, were that the pilot had a history of poor judgement during
landing, he was not following any recommended procedure, the final approach angle
was as high as 9°, and the landing could have been saved if the pilot had taken any
action prior to an altitude of 148 feet (122). Therefore this accident does not appear
to justify non-use of properly developed VFR two-segment approaches.
The AOPA is concerned about possible wake turbulence hazards to light aircraft
landing on the same runway where heavy aircraft are making two-segment approaches.
Light aircraft have occasionally been forced out of control when flying behind and
below heavy aircraft. Since instrumentation for two-segment approaches may be too
expensive for light aircraft operators, a safety problem may exist. The FAA is
conducting experiments to define this problem more accurately. In visual weather
conditions light aircraft can maintain a flight path above the heavy aircraft by visual
reference. In IP*R weather, light aircraft not equipped with two-segment guidance
equipment would probably have to be spaced farther behind when following a heavy
aircraft conducting a two-segment approach. At several major airports either sepa-
rate runways are provided for light aircraft or a non-interfering runway use plan is
in effect to minimize the problem of wake turbulence.
Conclusion: Two-segment approaches provide significant noise reductions, are
technically feasible, and are already in use in some segments of the air transportation
system during VFR weather conditions. Some type of guidance equipment appears to
2-35
-------
be necessary and is available for VFR conditions (DME, VASI, or VAM). Completion
and evaluation of the current NASA test program should result in equipment
suitable for IFR two-segment approaches.
DECELERATING APPROACH
In a decelerating approach, the aircraft starts at a high speed and then thrust is
reduced to nearly flight idle. The aircraft then slows down during the approach because
of aerodynamic drag. The approach airspeeds can be controlled by progressively
lowering flaps and landing gear as necessary. Figure 2-18 shows the resulting noise
levels assuming a 3° decelerating approach.
The ALPA position is that the decelerating approach is never "stabilized," there-
fore it adds to the pilot's workload and detracts from his ability to properly judge the
progress of the approach. As pointed out by Lockheed, the decelerating approach is
best suited to aircraft with programmable automatic landing systems (1).
The Air California VFR procedure (127) is essentially a decelerating, two segment
approach. To the task group's knowledge, however, this is the only routine use of
this procedure and there have been relatively few flight tests of it. Very few aircraft
are properly equipped to conduct IFR automatic decelerating approaches.
Conclusion: the decelerating approach is technically feasible but has not been
proven adequate for widespread routine use. The decelerating approach does offer
the potential for meaningful noise relief, however, so research and development work
to make it acceptable for routine use should be intensified.
THRUST REVERSE LIMITATIONS
Communities located along the side of operational runways find thrust reverse
noise to be objectionable, especially at night (74). Its sharp application makes it
easily distinguishable from takeoff noise even though the level may be approxi-
mately 10 EPNdB lower.
Transport Aircraft have a certificated runway length in which they can safely
laud and stop. This distance is calculated without the use of thrust reversers and in-
cludes necessary safety factors. Figure 2-19 shows that in many cases these dis-
tances are considerably shorter than the runway length available. Using thrust
reversers shortens these distances even further.
2-36
-------
190K. FLAPS UP, GEAR UP
180K, FLAPS 14°. GEAR UP
170K, FLAPS 14°, GEAR DOWN
160K. FLAPS 25°, GEAR DOWN
150K, FLAPS 40°, GEAR DOWN \
HEIGHT
(1000 FT)
1.3 Vs + 10
POWER ON
120
110
100
90
BOEING 707-320 B
200,000 LBS
JT3D-3B ENGINES
SEA LEVEL, 77°F, 70% R.H.
3° GLIDE SLOPE
REFERENCES 117. 1
DECELERATING APPROACH
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
\
\
110
100
APPROXIMATE
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
90
80
I
_L
l
_L
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NAUTICAL MILES)
11
12
13
90 EPNdB
AREA REDUCTION: 25%
Figure 2-18, Noise Data for Decelerating Approach
2-37
-------
707-320
7,280 FEET
707-120B
6,550 FEET
727-200
4,800 FEET
REFERENCES 74, 500
737-100 4,000 FEET
747
6,800 FEET
199 RUNWAYS LONGER THAN 10,000 FEET-
Figure 2-19. FAA Runway Lengths for Typical Aircraft Types
(Landing without thrust reversers)
2-38
-------
ALPA and others contend, however, that in order for the pilot to use thrust
reversers properly when required he should use them on every landing. Boeing
points out (136) that it has been FAA policy to require that some effective additional
retarding devi :j be available before they will allow credit for all the wheel brakes
and spoileid. Furthermore, some members of the task group argued that in many
cases it is necessary to use thrust reverse in order to turn off the runway quickly
so that another aircraft may land or depart. On the other hand, the Massachusetts
Port Authority points out that runway and taxiway construction plans are based on
certificated runway length and cannot be used as an excuse to require thrust reversal.
Others have suggested that using a minimum amount of power during thrust reversal
is of value in stopping the aircraft and creates less noise than full power thrust
reversal.
It has also been pointed out that not using thrust reverse generally increases the
taxi time and resultant noise and air pollution (128).
Two foreign airports (Zurich, Switzerland and Stuttgart, Germany) have estab-
lished nighttime prohibitions against the use of thrust reverse (77).
There seems to be merit in the ALPA position that pilots maintain their
proficiency by consistently deploying the thrust reversers. However, the extensive
high power use of thrust reversers for landings on long, dry runways where there is
a sideline noise problem and no air traffic control urgency appears to be unnecessary
and undesirable. The tradeoff between sideline thrust reverse noise and aircraft
taxi induced air pollution is one which can only be made at the local level and should
be a consideration included in the airport certification process (see Section 3).
PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
Inasmuch as the vast majority of the aircraft noise problem occurs near airports
with jet aircraft operations, almost all of the time in the task group was occupied with
the jet noise problem. Nevertheless, people frequently report annoyance from
propeller driven aircraft and helicopters. The complaints come most often from the
vicinity of airports or heliports, but also frequently from instances of low altitude
flight away from the airport (39, 66).
2-39
-------
FAA AC 91-36 deals with this problem by recommending that piioi Ul UACU CUXU
rotary wing aircraft flying VFR maintain at least 2000 feet above noise sensitive areas
whenever possible (27).
A comparison of noise from jet aircraft, propeller driven aircraft, and helicopters
is given in Figure 2-20. It can be seen that jet aircraft are typically at least 10 EPNdB
louder than (twice as loud as) the other types of aircraft; therefore it is natural that
they have received the most attention.
In concept, the operational procedures for reduction of noise from propeller driven
aircraft and helicopters are much the same as for jet aircraft: keep them as high as
possible and at the lowest power settings possible. There are certain different con-
straints, however, as enumerated below:
1. In many cases the operators of general aviation propeller driven aircraft
and helicopters are not financially able to install special electronic guidance
equipment.
2. In most cases the operators of general aviation aircraft and helicopters do not
have access to computer aided flight planning.
3. The training and proficiency requirements for pilots are not as high in
general aviation operations as in air carrier operations.
For the reasons stated, operators of general aviation propeller driven aircraft
cannot be expected to fly sophisticated two-segment approaches in IFR conditions or
to compute the best climbout procedure for minimizing noise over a specified area.
On the other hand, most of their operations are VFR, the aircraft are capable of
descending at a steeper angle than jet aircraft, and noise levels are not so great that
power cutbacks on climbout are as essential.
Helicopters are a special case in that a good deal of their noise annoyance comes
from the "slap" of the large rotor blades. This generally occurs within a narrow range
of airspeeds and descent rates, as shown in Figure 2-21. As indicated, a noise
abatement approach, slightly steeper than a normal approach, can be made without
entering the blade slap regime.
2-40
-------
120 r
References 118, 504, 503
110
EFFECTIVE
PERCEIVED
NOISE 100
LEVEL !
(EPNdB) 1
90
80
70
OC
LU
—J
_l
LU
a.
O
oc
Q.
HI
Z
5
z
Ul
UJ
-J
O
z
55
DC
UJ
Ul
D.
o
oc
a.
UJ
Z
a
z
UJ
oc
£
8
UJ
z
H
X
12
~
I
i
tc
UJ
Ul
X
z
D
a
UJ
I
Ul
->
>
a
o
eo
ul
a
5
h"
UJ
—>
UJ
Z
5
z
UJ
*
>
a
o
a
S
o
oc
oc
<
z
Figure 2-20. Typical Noise Levels at 1000 feet, Maximum Continuous Power
2-41
-------
BLADE SLAP REGIME
500
MAXIMUM SLAP
. -i NOISE ABATEMENT APPROACH
REFERENCE 504
CLIMB
RATE -
(FEET PER MINUTE)
DESCENT
RATE -
(FEET PER MINUTE)
-500
-1000 »-
AIRSPEED
FLARE AND
LANDING
CONVERSION TO
APPROACH GLIDE
SLOPE
¦APPROACH
Figure 2-21. Helicopter Blade Slap Regime
-------
Because of the near vertical nature of helicopter takeoffs, power cutbacks are
not practical as a noise abatement measure. Noise reduction is achieved by a steep
climb profile as shown in Figure 2-22.
In summary, then:
1. Noise from general aviation propeller aircraft and helicopters is not as
extensive as noise from jet aircraft.
2. Departure procedures involving the steepest possible climbout angles provide
the best possible noise relief for general aviation and helicopter takeoffs.
3. Approach procedures using the steepest possible angle will provide the maxi-
mum noise relief on landing (helicopters should avoid the blade slap regime).
Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs) set for an angle of 4° to 5° could be
helpful for general aviation landing runways.
4. Enroute altitudes as high as possible will minimize noise away from airports
and heliports.
5. Further study of this problem may be warranted as noise from air carrier and
business jet operations diminishes.
2-43
-------
1000
10-DEGREE TAKEOFF
FROM GROUND
105
100
95 PNdb
1000
1000
1000 r-
DISTANCE
TO SIDE
OF GROUND
PATH - FT
0 -
1000
1000 r
1000
95 PNdb
25-DEGREE TAKEOFF
FROM GROUND
25-DEGREE TAKEOFF
FROM 500-FT ELEVATED V-PORT
95 PNdb
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
REFERENCE 504
6000
DISTANCE FROM TAKEOFF POINT - FT
Figure 2-22. Noise Exposure Contours for Transport Proprotor VTOL
-------
SECTION 3
AIRPORT NOISE CONTROLS
As was mentioned in previous sections, the majority of the aircraft noise problem
is associated with jet airplanes. Similarly, most of the concern centers around air-
ports that have jet operations. This study will therefore be most applicable to the 151
Air Traffic Hubs (175 airports) identified in Figure 3-1 and Appendix A. These hubs
accommodated approximately 96% of the 160 million passenger enplanements in Fiscal
Year 1971 (169). This does not mean that noise problems do not exist elsewhere: there
are 798 points served by air carriers, 3,240 airports in the National Airport System,
and more than 12,000 airports on record with the FAA (506). Many of the non-air
carrier airports have business jet operations which can be very noisy. Nevertheless,
the number of enplaned passenger^ is related to the population served by an airport,
the number of operations, and probably is also related to the population density near the
airport. Therefore the 175 airports in the "hub" network probably account for, if not
96%, at least a vast majority of the aircraft noise problem.
This section discusses the noise reduction potential of various measures available
at the airport level. The EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 1 Report
discusses the legal basis of these measures more fully (511). In general, that report
indicates that the airport proprietor can legally institute any non-discriminatory and
safe noise abatement controls on the use of his property. Furthermore, the Federal
Government (but not the state or local governments) can prescribe noise standards (in
terms of cumulative noise exposure) which must be met or bettered by the airport
proprietor. Finally, the optimum combination of procedures for a local airport
situation can only be determined by balancing the local and national needs for air
transportation with the local and national needs for a quiet environment.
The FAA, airlines, and airport proprietors have instituted some of the controls
listed below, but except in the case of the 1971 State of California Airport Noise
Standards, there has not been any comprehensive long range noise planning.
3-1
-------
a**or*
*w*«i
<. •«*»«
^ M""»«o»ol..
a. p„tfl
s
Or»«n»oy ^
*kc9hsw
Fall.
tvHal»
0r*n4 V«prtf
«il.».«.,V '•»¦•-! *
•VtoCiMk* '>•"*
Mtitm
Ch«o(«
iouffc •««i4
*»»«•>» «
Htt VlfM
/
J aim
»°»«»
.—,—iu\
/ \ I /s\
i | / i \ Y°""""d
,E,«»« ^ ¦ * y7
W-— »Sy¦•««/ utBanc » ¦ Cel*»kui /;
. I | . 0. .. • i~—Is
x ,5^
'• KM j ill / n ynemu J ¦*
-JV/i < /-J w"ki"~£
•n«Mu
Wrkfct, r.„.
_ S
x..
(
City \ ,
: iumob .' i*ii
! WtM* ¦. !..„«! ) V
' V /, r./ \ /
*¦''•"* i \ /-¦|....-,ill."*
S >¦ _r' . * M««**
j «*TttCM y -ss—^ * *«•««*• *
j X_r
S..J
/
4<*» *«ck * /
I * Sp»'"»Uw
i
U '•« Wh
/ * - r
l£«7«OlT '¦%~— * w«"°" >
r n**'®1",
_ _u X..— ^.fcm»aKT»<-C«fi«t
• «-.*«.,•¦¦'- amuHiH
,E'"iSSEI
> (CH«ri»n«
» CMWHHy**" "V>.
T" •• *
SOUTH CAMLtM X.
» C»"
"N
\
\
I
\
( KSSISS1WI
I IMKStAfM j
^ N««
Ori«n4«
Malbou
5° \
,t r«i«
Figure 3-i A.
A,r T**ttic Hubs r,
' Jane 30, i97I
-------
SCHEDULE LIMITATIONS
Limiting the number of operations each day is one means of reducing the cumu-
lative noise exposure to communities. The FAA has established hourly quotas on IFR
operations at John F. Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark, O'Hare, and Washington National
Airports but these were for the purpose of alleviating congestion, not noise (501). The
only airport known to be limiting schedules on its own authority and for noise abatement
is Orange County, California where the limit is 38.3 average daily departures (based
on an annual average) (140).
Schedule limitations are obviously capable of reducing the cumulative noise
exposure (from aircraft) to any extent desired (in the extreme case-closing the
airport). But it is equally obvious that closing airports would not be desirable
from the standpoint of providing air service to the public. The value of L^
for a single flyover is shown in Figure 3-2, and the variation of L^ with number
of operations is shown in Figure 3-3. It requires a halving of the number of
flights to reduce L^n by 3 dB (or the exposed area by 37 percent).
AIRCRAFT TYPE LIMITATIONS
Another tool available to airport proprietors is to restrict aircraft which create
noise above a specified level from using any particular runway. The Port of New
York Authority, for example, has a noise limit of 112 PNdB as measured at any of
its monitoring stations. The Los Angeles International Airport has a policy which by
December 31, 1974 will permit only aircraft which comply with FAR Part 36 Appendix
C noise levels (51).
The takeoff, sideline, and approach noise levels of various aircraft types are
shown in Figure 3-4 (see Reference 513 for the basis of these noise level estimates).
Aircraft type limitations can achieve single event noise reductions of up to 18 EPNdB
(comparing the approach noise levels of the 707-320B with the L-1011). The
reduction of cumulative noise exposure (L^) depends on the proportions of noisy
and quiet aircraft. Because of its logarithmic nature, the value of Ldn is dominated
by the noisiest aircraft. As an illustration, Figure 3-5 shows that L^ can increase
by 10 dB or more if there is a wide range of aircraft noise levels, even though the
average noise level remains the same.
The effect of aircraft type limitations at specific airports would be to generate
a competition for the quietest aircraft types. A redistribution of aircraft types would
most likely occur in the nationwide effort to achieve noise levels consistent with
3-3
-------
70
60
50
dn 40
-------
30
INCREMENT TO
(dB)
REFERENCE 512
10 100
NUMBER OF TAKEOFFS OR LANDINGS PER DAY
1000
Figure 3-3. Effect of Number of Flights on Cumulative Noise Exposure
-------
TAKE OFF (3.5 nautical miles from the start of takeoff roll)
(WITH CUTBACK)*
EPNdB
• CERTIFICATED
NOISE LEVELS
120
DC8-60
NO CUTBACK ON
747, DC10, L1011
DC8-50 OO
707-320B
• 747 100
110
BAC111-400
© 707 100B
• 747-200B
0 DC 10-30
727-200 ° 7208
727-100
• DC10-40
100
• DC10-10
727-200B
-AO0
• 737-200 ADV
LI 011•
FAR 36
Reference 513
O DC9-20
90
600
800
400
100
200
GROSS WEIGHT (1000 LBS)
Figure 3-4.
U. S. Air Carrier Fleet - Takeoff Noise Levels
(Sheet 1 of 3)
-------
SIDELINE (0.25 nautical miles from runway centerline except 0.35 nautical
miles for aircraft with more than 3 engines}
• CERTIFICATED
NOISE LEVELS
EPNdB
110
707-100B
720BO O
O 707-320B
BAC111 400 O
DC9-30
DC8-50 o DC8-60
DC9-
FAR 36
• 747-100
• 727-200
i -200B
737 200 ADV
727-100
100
DC10-30
737 100
747 200B
DC10-10
L-1011 <
• DC10-40
Reference 513
90
40
60
100
200
400
800
600
GROSS WEIGHT (1000 LBS)
Figure 3-4.
U. S. Air Carrier Fleet - Sideline Noise Levels
(Sheet 2 of 3)
-------
APPROACH (1 nautical mite from threshold)
EPN dB • CERTIFICATED
NOISE LEVELS
(-> FLAP SETTING
(DEGREES)
120
—O 707-320B
O DC8-50
707-100B
747-100
• (30)
720B
737-100
110
(25)
"<•) 727-200
DC9-20 C
O DC9-30
727-100
Tl(30)
! 4|«b)
747-200B
BAC111-400
FAR 36
727-200B
• (30)
L1011
T • (30)
737-200 ADV
100
REFERENCE 513
90
60
100
40
200
400
600
800
GROSS WEIGHT (1000 LBS)
Figure 3-4. U. S. Air Carrier Fleet - Approach Noise Levels
(Sheet 3 of 3)
-------
18 r-
INCREMENT TO
-------
Federal standards. Airports with the greatest noise problems would demand service
by only the quietest types. Airlines ordering new aircraft would certainly include
noise as a criterion, perhaps even pressuring the aircraft manufacturers to do
better than Federal noise emission standards require.
NIGHT CURFEWS
The subject of nighttime curfews is a very controversial one. Obviously, a cur-
few would reduce airline service to the extent that passengers and freight could not
arrive or depart during the curfew hours. Furthermore, even during the noncurfew
hours it would not always be possible to depart at any hour for a non-stop flight to
another airport with a similar curfew. The difficulties of rescheduling flights to
avoid curfew hours, possible resultant less efficient utilization of aircraft, and the
desire for a national system of airports open to all users at all times are other
reasons put forth in opposition to curfews.
Nevertheless, even if every airport in the world had curfews for 8 hours each
night, there would always be from 8 to 16 hours each day that one could fly nonstop
from any one to any other. A more complete analysis of the costs associated with
a nationwide curfew is contained in the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 4
Report (513). The legal authority for the airport proprietor to establish a curfew is
discussed in the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 1 Report (511).
Figure 3-6 shows the noise reduction effectiveness of a complete curfew
between 10 PM and 7 AM. For an airport with (initially) 11 percent nighttime
operations the reduction in is approximately 3 dB (an area reduction of approxi-
mately 37 percent). (The 12 airports analyzed in Reference 503 had an average of
11% nighttime operations, ranging from 7% to 19%. (189).)
Two U. S. air carrier airports and five foreign air carrier airports are known
to have some form of total or partial nighttime curfews. These are (77):
• Washington, D. C. (National)
• Orange County, California
• Stuttgart, Germany
3-10
-------
ior
INCREMENT TO
(dB)
REFERENCE 512
0
10
20
30
40
50
100
60
70
80
90
PROPORTION OF NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS {%)
Figure 3-6. Effect of Night Operations on Cumulative Noise Exposure
3-11
-------
• Paris, France (Orly)
• Osaka, Japan
m Tokyo, Japan
• London, England (Heathrow)
The Los Angeles International Airport's "over-ocean" preferential runway program
is also a form of night curfew (see page 3-15).
There does not appear to be any widespread desire on the part of major airports
to close at night, so in the absence of a Federal requirement, curfews will probably
not proliferate at a rate too fast for airline schedules to adjust in a gradual way. As
new aircraft noise abatement technology is introduced, the need for extensive curfews
or other restrictions will be reduced, thereby encouraging the introduction of quieter
aircraft at the earliest possible date.
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT OR TRIP LENGTH LIMITATIONS
The purpose of restricting aircraft to a maximum weight or a maximum trip
length would be to reduce noise by allowing only flights which can climb rapidly (or,
conversely, can cut back power the most). As can be seen from Table 3-1 and
Figure 3-7, limiting 707-320 trip lengths from 4500+ to 2500 miles (or a corres-
ponding weight limitation) would reduce noise by approximately 13 EPNdB at a dis-
tance of 20,000 feet from brake release.
One argument against such limitations is that more stops or more flights might
be required and this would increase the cumulative exposure. But since doubling the
number of flights increases the value of L^ by only 3 dB, it can be seen that weight
or trip length limitations may provide a noise benefit in some cases.
It should be pointed out that setting single event noise limits might accomplish
the same purpose as weight or trip length limitations.
3-12
-------
Table 3-1.
TAKEOFF PROFILES FOR VARIOUS TRIP LENGTHS
(Reference 503)
TAKEOFF PROFILE*
Aircraft Type
Examples
0-
500
500-
1000
Trip Length in N. Miles
1000- 1500- 2500- 3500-
1500 2500 3500 4500
4500 +
Large 4-engine turbojet
transports
Boeing 707-120, and 720
Douglas DC-8-10, -20, -30, -40
Convair 880
B
B
B
C D E
E
Large 4-engine turbofan
transports (standard
and stretched)
Boeing 707-320 B, C
Douglas DC-8-50, -8F, -60
series^
B
B
B
BCD
E
Three-engine turbofan
transports
(standard)
Boeing 727-100
B
C
C
D D
Three-engine turbofan
transports
(stretched)
Boeing 727-200
B
C
D
D D
Two-engine turbofan
transports
Boeing 737
Douglas DC-9
BAC 111
B
B
B
B
Large "new generation"
4-engine turbofan
transports
Boeing 747
B
B
B
BCD
E
Large "new generation"
3-engine turbofan
transports
Douglas DC-10
Lockheed 1011
B
C
C
D D
~See Figure 3-7.
-------
CO
I
H
1X1
LLI
Q
D
O
cc
o
LU
>
o
ffl
<
(—
X
o
3000 -
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
APPROXIMATE
NOISE LEVEL
RELATIVE TO
500 FT. ALTITUDE
(EPNdB)
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
DISTANCE FROM START OF TAKEOFF ROLL IN FEET
Figure 3-7. Generalized Takeoff Profiles for Jet Aircraft
-------
PREFERENTIAL RUNWAYS
It is presently common practice for the FAA, after consultation with airport
proprietors and airlines, to designate preferential runways. Use of these runways
reduces the number of flights which take place over noise sensitive areas. Pilots
are required by FAR 91. 87 (g) to use these runways whenever possible.
At the Los Angeles International Airport, for example, the proprietor has
designated that during the hours of 11 PM to 6 AM all takeoffs and landings must
take place on runways which place the airborne operations over water (51). This
rule is effective whenever tailwind conditions are less than 10 knots, and can only
be complied with by using opposing direction traffic over the Pacific Ocean. The
program was instituted after an experimental program showed that during these
hours the air traffic frequency was low enough to permit the over-ocean approaches
and departures to be conducted safely. When the wind exceeds 10 knots, only air-
craft which comply with the noise emission levels of FAR Part 36 Appendix C may
take off or land over the populated areas to the east of the airport.
Obviously, the noise benefit of establishing preferential runways can vary
greatly depending on the runway configurations and the configuration of noise
sensitive areas in the vicinity of the airport. If runways can be designated which
route air traffic entirely away from populated areas, the noise reduction can be
almost complete (an L^ reduction of up to 30 dB). In other cases, the best that
can be done is to choose a runway which is slightly farther from populated areas
or which affects fewer people.
All task group members concurred that preferential runways were a beneficial
noise abatement measure. No generalizations concerning their use can be made other
than that designation of preferential runways should take place after a careful analysis
of the local noise (and air pollution) situation.
PREFERENTIAL FLIGHT PATHS
As with preferential runways, preferential flight paths can minimize noise
impact by routings which avoid noise sensitive areas as much as possible. For
example, at the Washington, D. C. (National) airport which is operated by the FAA,
pilots making VFR approaches are required to follow the Potomac River to minimize
noise.
3-15
-------
As is the case with preferential runways, the noise benefit of preferential flight
paths is greatly dependent on the local airport and land use configurations, making
generalizations regarding the amount of benefit impossible. It can be said, however,
that once preferential flight paths are designated, their use should be enforced to the
maximum possible extent.
One question that often arises is whether it is preferable to concentrate flights in
one corridor or to spread them out in many directions (98). From an analysis of the
governing equations for Figures 1-1 and 3-3, it can be shown that as the number of
different flight paths is increased, the total area enclosed within any L, contour goes
1/3
up approximately as n where n is the number of distinct routes. Therefore, the
"least area" procedure is to concentrate the flights in one corridor. This will be the
most beneficial from a noise standpoint if the population is uniformly distributed.
However, if the population is sufficiently far from the runway, route dispersion may
be advantageous in that it shrinks the length of the contours even though the total area
is increased. Figure 3-8 shows a simplified airport situation where a single flight
route, even though directed towards the most distant population, still causes noise
exposure that could be eliminated by using multiple flight routes.
ENGINE RUNUP RESTRICTIONS
Restrictions on engine maintenance runups, especially at night, are in effect at
many airports. They have usually been worked out cooperatively between the airports
and the airlines. They are a useful tool for reducing noise exposure around airports.
The cumulative effect of engine runup restrictions depends on the type and number
of runups and the type of restrictions.
NOISE BARRIERS
A wall or earth berm of sufficient height can reduce sideline noise from aircraft
operating on the ground. On takeoff, the noise barrier has its major effect when the
aircraft is on the ground and still not airborne when passing a point approximately 45°
beyond a given location. On landing, the beneficial effect of a barrier extends both
forward and backward from the point of thrust reverse application.
3-16
-------
ADVERSE NOISE IMPACT-
CRITICAL Ldn CONTOURS FOR
•SINGLE PATH
•MULTIPLE PATHS
NOTE: The noise benefit shown for
multiple path would not exist if the
noise sensitive community were much
closer to the runway.
Of
X
N
\
\
\
\ \
\
\ \
\ '
\
\
/,
7
/
/ /
/
/
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
r
RUNWAY
Figure 3-8. Effect of Route Dispersion on Noise Impact
3-17
-------
Areas which potentially could be helped by a noise barrier at Los Angeles
International Airport are shown in Appendix A (Reference 22). The Minneapolis
St. Paul Airport Authority reports a 5 to 15 PNdB noise reduction from a "green
barrier" consisting of a 15 foot high earth berm and 25 foot high trees planted 60
to 100 feet deep. The cost for this mile long green barrier was approximately
$225,000. (163, 166).
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
Airport use fees based on noise (rather than on aircraft weight as at present)
have been proposed as an incentive measure to encourage use of the airport by
quieter aircraft. A scheme such as this is being implemented at the Los Angeles
International Airport (51). The use of economic incentives may be contingent upon
the lease arrangements between the airport and the airlines.
The exact noise benefit of such measures is difficult to predict. However, it is
likely that if the rate schedules are steep enough for the noisiest aircraft, they can
be made as effective as desired. The greatest effect would probably be gained by
having the schedules get steeper every year.
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
If a regulation is established for maximum permissible noise exposure around
airports, there should be an enforcement mechanism developed to insure compliance.
Communities and airports (Orange County, Port of New York Authority, Los Angeles)
are of the opinion that 24 hour monitoring is necessary to apprehend violators. On
the other hand, ALPA contends that pilots are a professional group and will adhere
as closely as possible to any regulations established.
Inasmuch as noise may also come from sources other than aircraft, monitoring
is also necessary to determine accountability for an adverse noise environment. It
would make no sense, for example, to ask that airport operations be reduced
significantly if the L^ values are dominated by truck noise.
Two kinds of monitoring were discussed in the Task Group: operations monitor-
ing and noise monitoring. For direct enforcement of operational procedures,
3-18
-------
operations monitoring is most appropriate. This can be done by observation in the
normal course of air traffic control. To actually provide a photograph of a radar
display or other record of a procedural violation would be expensive. The ATA
contends that the best operational noise monitors are the affected public. Proposals
to paint the aircraft number on the bottom of the wings may merit attention in this
regard (502, 509).
Noise monitoring is not entirely useful for enforcing operational regulations.
This is because variations in weather conditions, aircraft weight, and many other
factors affect noise levels even if a prescribed procedure is flown exactly. Noise
monitoring is, however, the appropriate tool for enforcing noise level regulations
or for gathering noise data for planning purposes.
Quite a number of foreign airports operate noise monitoring systems. Most
have established single event noise level standards, some have lower noise standards
for night operations. Only Frankfurt, Germany assesses any penalty against vio-
lators. The airports with monitoring systems are (77):
• London, England (Heathrow)
• Zurich, Switzerland
• Stuttgart, Free Republic of Germany
• Paris, France (Orly)'
• Osaka, Japan
• Tokyo, Japan
The State of California requires that airports which have a noise problem
monitor for both single event and cumulative noise. The single event monitors must
be directly under the approach and departure paths and the cumulative monitors (at
least 12) must be located approximately 1. 5 miles apart on the noise impact boundary.
Continuous monitoring is required where more than 1000 homes fall within the 70
CNEL (Community Noise Exposure Level, similar to L^) boundary. At least 4 weeks
per year of continuous monitoring is required for other airports (38).
3-19
-------
The costs of airport noise monitoring and enforcement as indicated by cost
estimates where monitoring is being done are shown in Table 3-2. The large variances
in the operating cost figures are primarily the result of differing philosophies regard-
ing the enforcement staff necessary (i. e. around-the-clock or merely spot check).
The Orange Comity Airport management is of the opinion that monitoring has
reduced noise by approximately 20 percent and monitoring any less extensive would
be ineffective (99).
The Los Angeles International Airport management thinks that the monitoring
required by California law is too extensive and too complex. They feel that fewer
stations and less sophisticated equipment would be adequate (81).
It appears that a monitoring program which consists of one 24 hour monitoring
period with one fixed or portable measuring station for every 1000 annual operations
might be adequater Such a measuring station, capable of recording and single event
dBA is estimated to cost approximately $10,000. This is $22 per monitoring day assuming
a useful life of 3 years and 150 days per year utilization. Further assuming that
each day of monitoring requires 1 man-day for set up, 1 man-day for date, reduction,
one man-day for analysis, and the equivalent of 1 man-day for maintenance, supplies,
and support services, monitoring costs (1973 dollars) for each 1000 annual operations
would be $422 (based on $100 per man-day). Using a rounded figure of $500 per 1000
annual operations, total annual monitoring and noise planning costs for the airports
listed in Table 3-2 would be (including equipment amortization or lease):
• Los Angeles $221,000
• Orange County 11,500
• Port of New York
and New Jersey 350,000
Individual airports could obviously perform more extensive monitoring if they so
desired.
Based on 5 million air carrier departures (10 million operations), the nationwide
annual cost of such monitoring under this logic would be approximately $5 million.
3-20
-------
Table 3-2
COSTS OF NOISE MONITORING
Airport
Annual
Operations
Number of
Stations
Equipment
Costs
Estimated Annual Oper-
ating Cost
Los Angeles, Calif.
443,000
15
$220,000
$100,000
City of Inglewood, Calif,
(adjacent to Los Angeles)
5
50,000
60,000
Orange County, Calif.
23,000
5
58,000
85,000
Port of Nevf York and New Jersey
(Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark).
700,000
10
175,000
750,000
-------
Conclusion: Cumulative noise exposure monitoring seems to be necessary to
ascertain whether public health and welfare standards are being met. Single event
monitoring may be desirable where an airport operator wishes to restrict the type
of aircraft by noise level or discriminate between airport and non-airport noise
sources. However, extensive monitoring systems or around the clock enforcement
do not seem necessary. The best way to assure correct use of flight procedures is
to have proper pilot training and pilot flight checks. FAA should include demon-
stration of noise abatement procedures as a part of pilot flight checks.
AIRPORT CERTIFICATION
It is the total effect of noise from many flights that creates the airport noise
"problem". Therefore neither flight procedures nor engine noise reduction can by
themselves assure that the problem will be solved. What is needed is a compre-
hensive plan for controlling all aspects of aircraft and airport noise. No such plans
are known to exist except at the Orange County (California) Airport (19). Nowhere
is there a requirement for such plans except in the state of California (510).
Part 139 of the Federal Air Regulations (FARs) requires that all air carrier
airports be certificated by the FAA (502). At present this certification is in regard
to aircraft and airport safety only although authority exists to include noise control.
The EPA Air craft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 1 Report (511) discusses the legal
basis of airport noise certification more fully.
The advantage of airport certification with respect to noise is that it could provide
the needed orderly planning process to ensure that noise standards are achieved in the
most effective and safe manner. It also would provide a framework within which the
optimum combination of procedures could be selected to solve the local noise problem.
The airport authority would specify in an application for certification and then in an
airport operating manual the procedures and limitations which are in effect or planned
and the cumulative noise levels that are expected to result from airport operations.
Public hearings would assure that local needs are considered. Final FAA approval
would insure that safety and the integrity of the air transportation system are preserved.
Since the health and welfare of airport neighbors is an important aspect of air
transportation, airport related noise should be included in the airport certification process.
3-22
-------
SECTION 4
NATIONWIDE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
CUMULATIVE NOISE BENEFITS AND COSTS
The noise abatement benefits and costs discussed in the previous two sections are
summarized in Table 4-1. The table shows the range of single event noise reductions
possible and also the range of reductions in the 90 EPNdB enclosed area for single
flyovers.
Table 4-1 also shows the estimated nationwide reduction in the and 75
(NEF 30 and 40) areas (the symbol > means "equal to or greater than"). For the airport
related procedures (curfews, schedule limitations, etc.)» no attempt has been made to
estimate the nationwide effect of each one, since it cannot be known in advance which
combinations will be selected as most beneficial at each airport. The combined effect
of these procedures is estimated to be an area reduction of 30%, although it could be as
high as 50% (or even higher at specific airports). The estimate is based on reducing
the percentage of night flights from 11% to 6% (reduces L^ by 1 dB), reducing the total
number of flights by 20% (reduces L^ by 1 dB and could increase load factors assum-
ing a constant level of demand), and using the other airport iptions to achieve an
additional 1 dB reduction in L^. (The total of 3 dB reduction in. L^ actually corres-
ponds to more than a 35% area reduction; other combinations of airport options could
also have been used.) For the flight procedures, the nationwide estimates are based
on a hypothetical "average airport" having a 2.75° ILS glide slope and 250 departures
(or landings) per day. At specific airports, the effectiveness may be greater or
smaller as shown in Figure 4-1.
The "Area Coefficient" in Figure 4-1 is the fraction of the L^ area that remains
after implementation of the specific noise abatement procedure (it is the difference
between 100 percent and the area reduction). The effectiveness of flight procedures
on L^ areas can be seen to be dependent on the number of operations. For example,
the two segment approach procedure is most effective at the busiest airports because
the L^ >65 and 75 areas extend well beyond the point of transition from 6° to 3°
approach angle. Power cutback departure procedures become effective for higher
values of L^ at the busier airports as these contours extend beyond the power cutback
point.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF NOISE BENEFITS AND COSTS
Procedure
Single event
noise reduction*
Single event
area reduction
(90 EPNdB)*
Estimated
nationwide
L65
takeoff or landing
area reduction *
Estimated
nationwide
Hta*75
takeoff or landing
area reduction*
Unit Costs**
Units
Nationwide Costs**
Reduced Thrust Takeofts
0-2 dB
0-20%
sideline oily
1%
-
possible engine wear savings
-
-
Power Cutback Departure
0-7 dB
0-15$
10%
6%
probable fuel savings***
-
Reduced Flap Settings on approach
0-5 dB
0-30$
20?
5%
probable fuel savings
-
-
Increased Initial Approach Altitudes
0-10 dB
0-25%
10%
-
-
-
-
3° U*S Glide Slopes
0-3 dB
0-25%
15%
15%
$50,000 per runway for system
change
$6,000 per runway for flight
check
probable fuel savings
100 runways
100 runways
$5 million
$1 million
3.5° ILS Glide Slopes
3-6 dB
25-44%
35%
35%
$50,000 per runway for system
change
$6,000 per runway for flight
check
or
$200 per delayed flight
probable fuel savings
200 runways
200 runways
3500 delayed flights per
year
$10 million
$1 million
$7 million per year
6°/3° Two Segment Approaches
0-17 dB
50-75%
64%
28%;
$60,000 per runway for DME
$31,400 per aircraft for glide
slope computer (IFR only)
$9*000 per aircraft for V-Nav
as addition to R-Nav (IFR only)
probable fuel savings
200 runways
1200 aircraft
1200 aircraft
$12 million
$38 million
$11 million
Decelerating Approaches
0-3 dB
10-25%
15%
5%
Undetermined
-
-
lferust Reverse Limitations
0-10 dB
0-75%
sideline only
-
"
possible brake wear cost
-
-
Preferential Runways
0-30 dB
0-100% \
Preferential Flight Paths
0-30 dB
0-100% J
Night Curfews
-
I
30% \
30%
Aircraft Type Limitations
0-18 dB
0-94% I
Schedule Limitations
0-30 dB
0-100% 1
Trip Length Limitations
0-13 dB
0-85% J
Airport Certification
$500 per 1000 operations
10 million operations
per year
$5 million per year
* Noise reduction or area reductions are not neoessarily additive: see text.
The symbol > means "equal to or greater than"
** All costs (savings) in 1973 dolltrs.
*** See text for^Uscussion of fuel savings.
-------
o CHICAGO (O'HARE)
~ LOS ANGELES
O NEW YORK (KENNEDY)
Q BOSTON
A SEATTLE (TACOMA)
O ALBUQUERQUE
O RENO
Q ORANGE COUNTRY, CALIF
MEDIAN AIRPORT SIZE BASED ON NUMBER OF PASSENGERS
CARRIED.
1.0
.9
.8
.6
AREA
COEFFICIENT .5
3oQ *
L„„ > 65 TAKEOFF
¦¦rJ n >75 TAKEOFF
dn > 75 LANDING
Ldn >65 LANDING
REFERENCES 500,503
X
X
100
300
6
8
9 1000
NUMBER OF TAKEOFFS (OR LANDINGS) PER DAY
(1969 AVERAGE)
Figure 4-1. Procedural Effectiveness Related to Airport Activity
4-3
-------
It should be pointed out that area reductions through combined procedural tech-
niques are not additive. In some cases procedures are not independent. For example:
increased initial approach altitudes are assumed as a part of two segment approaches,
reduced flap settings and higher glide slopes are not as effective if two segment
approaches are used, and reduced thrust takeoffs are not consistent with power cut-
back climbouts.
The proper method for determining the effectiveness of combined independent
procedures is to multiply the corresponding area coefficients together. Takeoff and
landing coefficients cannot be directly combined, however, because the takeoff areas
are about three times as large as the landing areas. At airports where takeoff and
landing directions are variable because of variable wind conditions (the majority of
airports), takeoff noise dominates the L^n areas, and a 64 percent reduction in land-
ing >65 area reduces the total L(jn> 65 area by only about 13 percent (based on
equal distribution of takeoffs and landings) (144). This is computed by adding on an
energy basis the "area average" noise levels as determined from Figure 1-1.
The noise benefits shown in Table 4-1 are considered to be conservative and to
under estimate the actual potential nationwide area reductions. This is so for two
primary reasons. First, the effectiveness of takeoff and landing procedures shown
in Figure 4-1 is based on Reference 503, which made no attempt to optimize the
procedures for each airport. Secondly, the area reduction estimates are dominated
by the less effective takeoff procedures as discussed in the previous paragraph.
Although this takeoff domination may be theoretically correct, it does not necessarily
reflect the real world situation. In fact, there appears to be evidence that approach noise
is the greater problem by a ratio of two to one at the largest airports (171).
The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing analysis are that noise abatement
procedures are more effective for the Ldn> 65 area than for the *^>75 area. The most
important procedures are power cutback climbouts and two segment approaches, which,
when combined, reduce the Ldn** 65 area by approximately 21 percent and the 75
area by approximately 9 percent. The 3.5° ILS glide slope is the most effective flight
procedure for reducing L(^n>75 areas, but for the most part significant-reductions in the
number of people exposed to 75 will be dependent upon quieter aircraft and land
use changes.
4-4
-------
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
To assess the overall implications of any of the proposed noise abatement
solutions discussed above, an analysis of total costs, both economic and social,
must be accomplished. This analysis must include the effects of a time-phased
implementation plan. Such an analysis is accomplished below for four alternative
procedural options. The options considered are:
1. Null Case (Do Nothing)
This alternative is characterized by normal attrition and replacement of
aircraft. There would be no regulations adopted. Research on operational
procedures and source noise abatement would continue but implementation
would be left to the discretion of the airlines.
2. Normal Effort Case
This alternative is similar to alternative number 1 except that there is more
emphasis placed on rapid research, pilot education is emphasized harder,
and regulations are adopted as they become accepted standard operating
practice for most airlines.
3. Accelerated Effort Case
This alternative is similar to alternative number 4 below except that the
time of implementation is stretched out. Many of the same regulations would
be adopted, but the effective dates would be made later to allow more time
for research, experience, technology, and economics to overcome any
presently unresolved problems.
4. Maximum Effort Case
This alternative is characterized by the attitude that money is no object.
Strict regulations would be adopted and made effective immediately or as
soon as production would allow. The regulations would include departure
and steep approach procedures immediately in VFR conditions, immediate
glide slope increases to 3.5°, rapid installation of equipment to permit IFR
two segment approaches, thrust reverse restrictions, initial approach
altitude restrictions, and airport certification requiring rapid reduction of
the area exposed to L^ levels above the Federal standard.
4-5
-------
Figures 4-2 through 5 indicate the schedules that would be associated with
instituting the procedures associated with each option.
Figure 4-6 shows the expected reduction in the area enclosed within the = 65
contour as a result of each option.
For each of these procedural options, some assessment is required of the costs
of implementation as well as the "public costs of noise. " The viewpoint is taken that
with the presence of noise a cost appears in either the utility or production functions
of those exposed for which they are not recompensed; i. e., costs fall on economic
activities other than those which produce the cost. The presence of aircraft noise
is a cost because it either reduces the utility or values of services that individuals
receive from properties exposed to this noise or it reduces the quality and delivery
of public services, e.g., educational and medical services, and other production
functions. In economic terms, aircraft noise is a technological externality. Economic
welfare and efficiency principles suggest that the social costs created by such noise
be internalized into the production functions for air transportation services, and that
the users of these services will then make rational decisions that translate into new
demands for transportation services based on the full costs of providing such services.
At this point in time, there do not exist sufficient data to estimate the demand
curve for a quiet environment. Consequently, no attempts are made here to equate
the demand for quiet with that amount of quiet which can be supplied by operational
procedures. What is investigated is the amount of public costs of noise that will not
be incurred if various operational procedures are implemented.
Several different means of estimating the cost of noise are employed in the follow-
ing analyses. In addition, two different techniques of estimating the acoustical bene-
fits are used: these benefits may be measured by the number of people no longer
exposed to 65 after implementation of the operational procedures (without regard
to how much their environment has improved) or by the average noise reduction felt
by all people within the L , = 65 contour.
an
First, the "avoidances of public costs" (or "social benefits") are developed using
hypothetical unit values of the costs of noise to people of $ 1 /person/year, $10/person/
year, $100/person/year and $1000/person/year. Note that no provision is made for
variable costs with differences in levels. For this analysis, the avoidance costs
4-6
-------
EPA RETORT TO CONGRESS
HEARINGS ON EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS
ADJUST ILS TO 3°
ADJUST ILS TO 354°
£>-
I
-a
INSTALL DME
THRUST REVERSE MINIMIZATION
MINIMUM ALTITUDES
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
H 20 1 20 h
-40-
OPTIMI2ED TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
VFR TWO SEGMENT APPROACH
PUBLISH TWO SEGMENT APPROACH CHARTS
INSTALL TWO SEGMENT EQUIPMENT
AIRPORT CERTIFICATION
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
198S
Figure 4-2. Null Case Schedule
-------
I
00
EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS
HEARINGS ON EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS
ADJUST ILS TO 3°
ADJUST ILS TO 3J4°
INSTALL VASIs AT 4°-5°
INSTALL DME
THRUST REVERSE MINIMIZATION
MINIMUM ALTITUDES
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
OPTIMIZED TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
VFR TWO SEGMENT APPROACH
PUBLISH TWO SEGMENT APPROACH CHARTS
INSTALL TWO SEGMENT EQUIPMENT
AIRPORT CERTIFICATION
1973
1974
{UNITS)
200 RUNWAYS
2400 UNITS
LEGEND
A ADVISORY CIRCULAR
~ EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION
1982
1983
1984
1985
Figure 4-3. Normal Effort Schedule
-------
-------
I
EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS
HEARINGS ON EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS
ADJUST ILS TO 3°
ADJUST1LS TO 354°
INSTALL VASIs AT 4°-5°
INSTALL DME
THRUST REVERSE MINIMIZATION
MINIMUM ALTITUDES
FLAP MANAGEMENT APPROACH
OPTIMIZED TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
VFR TWO SEGMENT APPROACH
PUBLISH TWO SEGMENT APPROACH CHARTS
INSTALL TWO SEGMENT EQUIPMENT
AIRPORT CERTIFICATION
A
A
A
A
A
1973
_ 200 RUNWAYS -
^ I
— 200 RUNWAYS—
I
(—200 RUNWAYS-
~
A
' A
A
A
¦ 200 RUNWAYS -
-1200 UNITS -
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
LEGEND
A ADVISORY CI RCU LAR
A EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Figure 4-5. Maximum Effort Schedule
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O NULL CASE (REFERENCE 503)
~ NORMAL EFFORT
O ACCELERATED EFFORT
A MAXIMUM EFFORT
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 L
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
CALENDAR YEAR
Figure 4-6. Procedural Reductions in Cumulative Noise Exposure
-------
are based upon the number of people no longer exposed to environments of 65. *
For the purposes of this investigation, the Reference 512 estimate of 7. 5 million
people exposed to aircraft noise above = 65 dB in 1972 will be used. ** In
developing the population protection estimates, a static 1972 population is assumed
and, further, it is assumed that the number of people no longer exposed to the
> 65 dB environment is proportional to the area removed from this environment due
to the implementation of operational procedures.
Tables 4-2 through 5 list the basic cost and benefit data for each of the four
options. In Table 4-5 an additional assumption is made that to accomplish two-segment
equipment installation in two years would increase the costs by $34 million. This
estimate is based on unscheduled downtime for 1200 aircraft, out of service costs
of $7000 per day, and installation time of 4 days per aircraft (516, 156).
A further assumption in Table 4-5 (Maximum Effort) is that a 3. 5° ILS either
(a) does not result in increased weather minimums, or (b) if it does result in
increased weather minimums it is only installed in a few critical locations, in which
case the estimated additional aircraft delay cost of $7 million per year accounts for
both passenger inconvenience and aircraft operating costs. (All other procedures
are to be instituted on a "non-interfering" basis so that there are no hidden passenger
inconvenience costs in any procedures except possibly the 3. 5° ILS.)
To compare costs and public "benefits" which are incurred and realized at
different times, the technique employed was that of discounting to present values
the future streams of these two elements. A rate of inflation of 3% per annum was
assumed for each element. Implementation costs were discounted at an 8% per annum
rate and the public benefits discount rate assumed was 10%.
~Recall that this is the cumulative noise level at which operational procedures
have their relatively greatest effect.
. **It is recognized that aircraft may not always be the dominant source of noise.
A later sensitivity analysis will examine this point.
4-12
-------
Table 4-2
NULL CASE BENEFITS AND COSTS
(all figures except lines 1 and 2 are in millions of 1973 dollars)
Benefits (% 1972 1^5*65 area)«
Benefits (People no longer exposed to
^>65)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Benefits at $l/person/yr
Benefits at $10/person/yr
Benefits at $100/person/yr
Benefits at SlOOO/pereon/yr
Install DME
1
1
1
1
1
5
Total Costs
1
1
1
1
1
5
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
* The symbol > means "equal to or greater than"
-------
Table 4-3
NORMAL EFFORT BENEFITS AND COSTS
(all figures except lines 1 and 2 in millions of 1973 dollars)
Totals
Benefits (% 1972 > 65 area)*
Benefits (People no longer exposed
to Ldn> 65
0
0
0
2%
150,000
2%
150,000
3%
225,000
- 7%
525,000
10%
750,000
11%
825,000
11%
825,000
11%
825,000
10%
750,000
9%
675,000
5,710,000'*
Benefits at $1 /person/yr
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Benefits at JlO/person
2
2
2
5
8
8
8
8
8
7
57
Benefits at $100/person/yi
15
15
23
53
75
83
83
83
75
68
570
Benefits at SlOOO/person/yr
150
150
225
525
750
825
825
825
750
675
5,700
Install DME
Flap Management Approach
IFR Two Segment Approach
1
PROBABI
1
E FUEL S;
1
VINGS
12
1
12
1
13
12
PROB/
BLE FUEI
SAVINGS
5
49
Total Costs
1
1
13
13
14
12
54
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
* The symbol > means "equal to or greater than"
**This number may be interpreted as "people-years of noise reduction"
-------
Table 4-4
ACCELERATED EFFORT BENEFITS AND COSTS
(all figures except lines 1 and 2 are in millions of 1973 dollars)
Totals
Benefits (% 1972 Ldn > 65 area)*
Benefits (People no longer
exposed to > 65 )
0
0
9%
675,000
13%
975,000
14%
1,050,000
18%
1350,000
18%
1350,000
18%
1350,000
18%
1350,000
16%
1,200,000
15%
1,120,000
15%
1,120,000
15%
1,120,000
12,710,000**
Benefits at Sl/peistm/year
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Benefits at SlO/pereon/yr
7
10
11
14
14
14
14
12
11
11
U
127
Benefits at SlOO/peison/yr
68
98
105
135
135
135
135
120
112
112
112
1,266
Benefits at UOOO/pereon/yr
675
975
1,050
1,350
1350
1350
1350
1,200
5
5
1,120
1,120
1,120
12,660
Adjust ILS to 3"
Install PME
Flap Management Approach
Optimized Takeoff Procedures
VFR Two Segment Approach
IFR Two Segment Approach
Airport Certification & Monitoring
3
2
PROBA
PROl
PI
3
3
;LE FUEL SI
ABLE FUEL
OBABLEFU
3
V1NGS
SAVINGS
sL SAVIN
17
5
3
;s
16
5
1
16
5
PRC
5
SABLE FU
5
!L SAVING
5
5
5
5
6
12
49
50
Total Costs
5
6
25
24
22
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
117
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
* The symbol > means "equal to or greater than"
•~This number may be intrepreted as "people years of noise reduction"
-------
Table 4-5
MAXIMUM EFFORT BENEFITS AND COSTS
(all figures except lines 1 and 2 are in millions of 1973 dollars)/
Totals
I
Benefits (% 1972 Ldn> 65 area)*
0
9%
16%
18%
19%
19%
19%
19%
19%
17%
16%
16%
16%
Benefits (People no longer
exposed to > 65 )
675,000
1,200,000
1350,000
1,430,000
1,430,000
1,430,000
1,430,000
1,430,000
1,280,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
15,255,000**
Benefits at $l/person/yi
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
• 15
Benefits at SlO/petson/yr
7
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
12
12
12
153
Benefits at tlOO/person/yr
68
120
135
143
143
143
143
143
128
120
120
120
1.526
Benefits at JlOOO/person/yr
675
1,200
1350
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1280
1,200
1.200
iaoo
15255
Adjust ILS to 3 1/2°
10
12
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
92
Install DME
3
6
3
12
Flap Management Approach
OPTIMIZED TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
VFR Two Segment Approach
IFR Two Segment Approach
PRC
PRC
PRC
BABLE FU
BABLE FU
BABLE FU
42
EL SAVIN
EL SAVIN
EL SAVIN
41
GS
GS
GS
83
Airport Certification &
Monitoring
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
55
Total Costs
13
65
56
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
242
1973 1974 197S 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
* The symbol > means "equal to oi greater than"
** This number may be interpreted as "people yean of noise reduction"
-------
Table 4-6 summarizes the present value computation results by option. Using
a criteria that an option is feasible for implementation if the present value of the
public benefit equals or exceeds the present value of the implementation costs, the
central question is: at what unit values per annum of the cost of noise to the public
are each of the options feasible ? Calculations from Table 4-6 indicate that under the
assumptions described, a unit value of $12/person/year justifies implementation of
the normal effort option, a value of $11/person/year would justify the accelerated
effort option, and a unit cost of noise of $19/person/year would justify the maximum
effort case. (Note that if the unit cost of noise is sufficient to justify "normal effort,"
it is also sufficient to justify "accelerated effort.")
It can be argued that after approximately 1980, the numbers of people exposed
to noise are more significantly reduced by the implementation of source noise control
options than by operational options and that, therefore, the public benefits of flight
procedures are overestimated in the above analysis. If the time period of this
analysis were shortened to 1974 through 1980, the respective unit values per person
per year would change to $38, $15, and $22 to justify the normal, accelerated and
maximum effort options respectively.
The above results are directly sensitive to the estimated number of people
exposed to noise above = 65. If the estimate of 7.5 million were to be too high
by a factor of two, then the unit public cost of noise required to justify any option
would double. In summary, if the public valuated noise costs at greater than
approximately $11 to $30/person/year, a program of at least "accelerated
effort" would be justifiable.
Another approach to balancing costs and benefits is to compare the costs of
alternative means of noise reduction. Recall that implementation of operational
procedures is only one set of options that is part of what must be a more compre-
hensive program to reduce the noise environment to levels that are consistent with
public health and welfare considerations. The EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study-
Task Group 4 Report (Reference 513) found that the most expensive environmental
noise redaction options are those of land use, e. g., soundproofing of residences,
redevelopment, etc. Since operational procedures reduce the number of people
exposed to cumulative noise environments, then by implementing these procedures,
4-17
-------
Table 4-6
Present Value Economic Cost and Social Benefit for Various "Costs of Noise" Assumptions
(all figures in millions of dollars, present value)
Option
Relative
Economic
Cost
Cost of Noise
$l/person/yr
Social Benefit
Cost of Noise
$10/person/yr
Social Benefit
Cost of Noise
$100/person/yr
Social Benefit
Cost of Noise
$1000/person/yr
Social Benefit
Do Nothing
0
0
0
0
0
Normal Effort
38
3
35
349
3,494
Accelerated
Effort
88
8
81
805
8,052
Maximum Effort
190
10
101
1,012
10,116
-------
there should result a reduction in land use costs vis a vis the costs if the procedures
were not implemented. This reduction is a "savings" that can be compared to oper-
ational procedure implementation costs to determine whether implementation of a
particular set of procedures is justified. *
The reductions in land areas within specific cumulative noise level contours translate
into reduced noise levels perceived by the receiver. Depending on the operational
procedure options implemented, the reduction in cumulative noise levels can be as
high as 17 dB. However, the conservative estimate of an "average" noise reduction
developed earlier in this section considering both takeoffs and landings as well as
all sizes of airports and averaged over the entire area within the = 65 contour
(including those areas for which operational procedures and not effective) results
in average noise reductions of 0 to 1. 7 dB depending on the option chosen. On the
average, this is the noise reduction felt by all people within the = 65 contour.
Reference 513 estimates that the cost of noise protection by land use (in this case
soundproofing) is $100 to $200 per person per dB for the environment of L^n = 65
(where flight procedures are most effective). Table 4-7 delineates the land use cost
reductions, based on the lowest land use cost estimate, that can be expected from
the implementation of various operational options.
It can be seen from the table that the reductions in land use costs exceed the
implementation costs of each option. The absolute magnitude of this savings is
greatest for "maximum effort". Again, if the population estimate is too high by a
factor of two, then the reduction in land use costs would be only half as great.
The absolute magnitude of the "savings" would then be greatest for "accelerated
effort."
~There is a methodological problem with this notion of "savings" that should be
recognized. Primarily it is one of cost incidence or "savings" to whom. This is an
allocation problem and the answer derives from the allocation scheme adopted. For
a more detailed discussion the reader is referred to Reference 511.
4-19
-------
Table 4-7
Reductions in Land Use Cost Resulting from Implementation
of Operational Procedures
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
<3)x(4)x<5)
Procedure
Option
Implementation
Costs (millions
of 1973 dollars)
Number of People
within 1980 =
65 contour before
implementation of
operational proced-
ures (millions)
Average Reduction
in Cumulative Noise
Level due to Oper-
ational Procedures
(dB)
Minimum Land
Use Cost per per-
son per dB at L^
= 65 (1973
dollars)*
Reduction in Land
Use Costs due to
operational pro-
cedures (millions
of 1973 dollars)
Do Nothing
0
6.6
0
100
0
Normal Effort
49
6.6
.9
100
594
Accelerated
Effort
112
6.6
1.5
100
991
Maximum Effort
237
6.6
1. 7
100
1122
~Reference 513
-------
Based on these findings, it is concluded that operational procedures result in
reduced noise impacts and, when they satisfy FAA regulatory constraints, are
justified on the basis of reduced costs to achieve a given level of cumulative environ-
mental noise.
So far, in this analysis, no attempt has been made to assign a specific numerical
value to the public cost of noise. Doing so is fraught with many difficulties and
uncertainties, especially since individual responses to noise vary widely. However,
this report would fall short if it did not suggest at least one scheme for making such
a determination. For example, one might attempt to find some form of compensation
that an individual would accept as balancing the adverse effects of the noise. Refer-
ence 517 suggests that perhaps a paid vacation away from the noise might be consid-
ered partial compensation. It hypothesizes a one week vacation each year at a cost
of $100 per person ($300 per family). If this is assumed to be applicable for those
that are exposed to cumulative noise levels 10 dB above some critical level (for
example, above Ldn = 65), then it follows that the cost of noise may be valued at
at least $10/person/dB/year. At this rate, "accelerated effort" noise abatement
flight procedures are justified if they are effective for 1.1 years or more (based on
columns 2, 3, and 4 of Table 4-7).
Still another way of looking at the cost-benefit equation is to place costs in the
perspective of how much they would increase the cost of a passenger ticket. Based
on 160 million passengers per year (Reference 169) and a 10 year amortization of
costs, the required fare increase per passenger would be 3
-------
transportation needs, environmental needs, and economic costs should take place.
Nevertheless, an estimate was made earlier in this section that airport procedures
might reasonably result in a 3 dB reduction in cumulative noise exposure nationwide.
An estimate of the "public cost" of a national curfew (one way of achieving a 3 dB
noise reduction) was made in Reference 513. The estimated nationwide cost averaged
approximately $100 million per year (other combinations of airport procedures may
have a lower public cost). For the year 1980, and assuming "accelerated effort"
flight procedures, an estimated 5,250,000 people would be within the = 65 contour
near airports. Calculations based on these estimates would then indicate that a
national curfew would be justified if the public cost of noise were greater than $6/
pers on/dB/year.
All of the above considerations seem to indicate that noise abatement flight
procedures corresponding to at least "accelerated effort" would be desirable. Over
the period 1973 to 1985, implementation of such a program would result in a reduction
of 13 million people-years of noise exposure at an economic cost of $112 million or
7. 5£ per passenger. Additional noise reduction may be achieved through implementation
of airport related procedures, with economic and social costs dependent on the com-
bination of procedures selected for each airport.
4-22
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A study of aircraft and airport operational noise abatement procedures has been
conducted in partial compliance with the Noise Control Act of 1972. All of the proced-
ures analyzed are presently in use in one form or another in scattered parts of the air
transportation system.
The data supplied by members of the EPA Aircraft Airport Noise Study Task
Group 2 lead the chairman to conclude that airport and flight procedures caii signifi-
cantly reduce aircraft noise impact on communities in a short time and at relatively
low cost. They need to be appropriately implemented, however, at airports through-
out the air transportation system. Pilots should always be authorized to deviate from
established noise abatement procedures whenever, in their opinion, the safety of
flight requires it.
The chairman's specific recommendations, and the conclusions on which they are
based, follow:
REGULATORY ACTIONS
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED ESTABLISHING STANDARD NOISE ABATE-
MENT TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
A small set of standard noise abatement takeoff procedures should be developed
from which one could be selected for use as appropriate to any departure noise situ-
ation. At least three distinct procedures should be considered:
Far Downrange—a maximum angle climbout, such as the one recommended by the
Air Transport Association (ATA) and in use by American and United Air Lines (among
others), is especially beneficial for areas that are far from the airport (more than
approximately 10 miles).
Near Downrange-a power cutback during climbout, such as the procedure
recommended by the Air Line Pilots Association or in use by Northwest Air Lines,
5-1
-------
Air California, North Central Air Lines, or at the Washington National Airport, is
especially beneficial for areas closer to the airport (a noise reduction of 2 to 7 EPNdB,
depending on aircraft type and weight, approximately 4 to 10 miles from the start of
takeoff). This procedure results in increased noise levels for approximately one
mile prior to the cutback (while flaps are being retracted) and again after power is
reapplied.
Sideline-use of reduced thrust from the start of takeoff roll (to the extent per-
mitted in the FAA approved aircraft flight manual considering takeoff weight, runway
length, and other conditions) is especially beneficial for areas alongside the departure
runway (a noise reduction of up to 2 EPNdB). This procedure should not be used if
near downrange noise is more critical because the reduced thrust takeoff results in
lower climbout altitudes.
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED ESTABLISHING STANDARD NOISE ABATE-
MENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
A small set of standard noise abatement approach procedures should be developed
from which one could be selected for use as appropriate to any landing noise situ-
ation. At least the following procedures (not necessarily independent) should be
considered:
Two Segment Approach-Initially, visual two segment approaches similar to those
in use by National Airlines, Pacific Southwest Airlines, Air California, all airlines
using San Diego International Airport, and recommended by the National Business Air-
craft Association appear feasible. Subsequently, with the use of instrumentation
similar to that which has been flight tested over the last 10 years by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the airline industry, this noise benefit could be extended to all weather
operations. This instrumentation is currently undergoing flight test in scheduled
airline passenger service by United Air Lines under contract to NASA. The noise
benefit from two segment approaches is approximately O to 17 EPNdB depending on
the distance from the runway (from approximately 2 to 10 miles). The total air
carrier fleet costs for airborne instrumentation (required for all weather operations)
are estimated to be $49 million.
5-2
-------
Flap Management Approach-procedures which use a reduced flap setting (and
consequently less power) during approach and landing are recommended by the Air
Transport Association and are employed by American Airlines, United Airlines,
and Northwest Airlines, among others. These procedures provide approximately
a 3 to 5 EPNdB noise reduction compared to a full flap approach.
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED RAISING MINIMUM FLIGHT ALTITUDES
)
Level flight maneuvering at the present minimum altitude of 1500 feet above
the airport for turbine powered or large aircraft can create approximately 10
EPNdB more noise than maneuvering at 3000 feet. A similar noise reduction could
occur if the minimum altitudes for other aircraft were raised from the present
1000 feet to 2000 feet. In developing regulations, care should be taken to avoid
causing excessive air traffic congestion and to avoid causing excessively long
ground tracks where they would result in increased noise exposure.
AN AIRPORT NOISE CERTIFICATION REGULATION SHOULD BE ADOPTED
Inasmuch as neither flight procedures alone nor noise source controls alone can
be expected to totally solve the noise problem, airport noise certification seems to
be the most logical way to assure that noise exposure to people is controlled and
reduced. The certification process envisioned would be a public partnership among
the Federal Government, the Airport Operator, the Airlines, and the affected
communities whereby all work together to achieve a meaningful, safe, and reason-
able solution to the noise problem. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inputs
would ensure that safety and national air transportation system needs are consid-
ered. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inputs would assure that national
environmental goals are considered. Airport and community inputs would assure
that local needs are considered. Airline inputs would assure that industry needs are
considered. Final approval authority would rest with the FAA.
The output of the certification process would be an airport implementation plan
wherein all the competing goals are addressed and a timetable for noise reduction is
set forth along with specific plans for meeting this timetable. The noise reduction
should be in accordance with public health and welfare requirements and should be
expressed in terms of cumulative noise exposure. Noise monitoring should be required
5-3
-------
where substantial noise problems exist. Federal funding assistance should be made
available for the noise certification process (estimated to cost approximately $5
million per year).
The FAA approved implementation plan for any airport might include designation
of preferential or restricted runways, preferential flight paths, preferential takeoff
procedures, preferential approach procedures, curfew hours or quotas, single event
noise limits, aircraft weight or trip length limitations, maintenance runup restric-
tions, or economic incentives for noise abatement. The cumulative noise exposure
benefit of these procedures may total only 1 or 2 dB or may total more than 10 dB,
depending on the extent to which they are implemented.
NON-REGULATORY ACTION
WHEREVER TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE. ALL INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM
(ILS) GLIDE SLOPES SHOULD BE RAISED TO AT LEAST 3 DEGREES
Approximately 65% of existing ILS glide slopes are at angles lower than the
standard for new installations (2.5 degrees to 2.9 degrees instead of 3 degrees).
A one-half degree increase in approach angle reduces noise by 2 to 3 EPNdB from
the start of approach to touchdown. It should be possible to raise all appropriate
glide slopes within two years. In addition, FAA and NASA should evaluate the use
of 3.5 degree ILS glide slopes (such as the one at the Berlin (Tempelhof) airport)
for airports with critical approach noise problems and adjust such glide slopes to
3.5 degrees as soon as these can be determined to be safe. The use of 4 or 5
degree Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI's) for visual noise abatement guid-
ance at general aviation airports also appears worthy of evaluation.
INSTALLATION OF DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME) CO-LOCATED WITH
THE GLIDE SLOPE AT AIRPORTS SHOULD BE EXPEDITED
This equipment is a probable prerequisite for visual and all weather two seg-
ment approaches. It should be possible to commission 200 installations within 4
years at a cost of approximately $12 million.
5-4
-------
AN ADVISORY CIRCULAR SHOULD BE ISSUED DISCUSSING THE NOISE EFFECTS
OF THRUST REVERSE
In some cases use of maximum thrust reversal on landing creates disturbing
noise and may not be necessary in order to stop safely. The appropriate use of
thrust reversers considering sideline noise problems, runway conditions, air traffic
control urgency, and air pollution could result in reduced noise.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON IMPROVED FLIGHT PROCEDURES SHOULD BE
ACCELERATED
Decelerating approaches, two-segment approaches with lower transition
altitudes, and automatic takeoff procedures have potential for further noise reduction
once safety and technical feasibility have been proven by FAA and/or NASA
evaluations.
ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS SHOULD BE MADE FAMILIAR WITH NOISE
ABATEMENT REGULATIONS AND PURPOSES
Controllers should be instructed to make use of noise abatement procedures,
flight paths, and altitudes to the maximum extent possible.
5-5
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
1. Drell, H., Submittal to EPAt Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force, Task
Group 2, Operations Analysis, The Lockheed - California Company, March 2,
1973.
2. NASA, A Preliminary NASA Report to the Environmental Protection Agency
for the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study (Chapter 3 - Operating Procedures),
Feb 28, 1973.
3. Denery, D. G. et. al., Flight Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Area
Navigation for Jet Transport Noise Abatement, NASA, AIAA Paper 72-814,
Aug 7-9, 1972.
4. Denery, D. G. et. ah, Preliminary Results on Two-Segment Noise Abatement
Studies, NASA TM X - 62,098, Sept 22, 1971.
5. Photograph, "Two-Segment Approach System Components for Noise Abatement
Flight Procedures Program," NASA, Jan 30, 1973.
6. Copeland, W. L. and Clark, L. R., Noise Measurement for a Three-Engine
Turbofan Transport Airplane During Climbout and Landing Approach
Operations, NASA TN D-6137, May, 1971.
7. Ollerhead, J. B., An Evaluation of Methods for Scaling Aircraft Noise
Perception, NASA CR - 1883, Oct, 1971.
8. Glass, Ray E., Noise Reductions Achieved on a 720-023 B Aircraft using
a Two-Segment Approach, NASA CR - 114417, Dec, 1971.
9. Peery, H. R., and Erzberger, H., Noise Measurement Evaluation of
Take-off and Approach, Profiles Optimized for Noise Abatement, NASA
TN D-6246, March, 1971.
10. Quigley, H. C., et. ah, Flight and Simulation Investigation of Methods for
Implementing Noise Abatement Landing Approaches, NASA TN D - 5781,
May, 1970 .
11. ALPA, "Policy on Noise Abatement, " received Mar 6, 1973.
12. Rockwell, R. N., Airport Noise and Aircraft Operations, ALPA paper
presented at FAA National Aviation System Planning Review Conference,
April 29, 1971.
13. FAA, "Criteria for Implementation of Jet Noise Abatement Take-off Profile,"
final draft Advisory Circular, March 20, 1968.
14. Rockwell, R. N., and Stefanki, J. X., Letter "To All Members, " ALPA,
Jan 27, 1970.
R-l
-------
15. Ruby, C. H., "Operational Procedures," ALPA, received Mar 6, 1973.
16. ALPA, "Statement of the Air Line Pilots Association in Regard to Community
Noise and Aircraft' Operations, " presented at N. O. I. S. E. meeting in
Washington, D. C., Oct 9, 1969.
17. Clark, H. E., and Marthinsen, H. F., "Committee No. 3, Operational
Noise Abatement Procedures Designed to Limit the Amount of Disturbance
Caused by Aircraft Taking Off, In Flight, or Landing," ALPA, International
Conference on the Reduction of Noise and Disturbance Caused by Civil
Aircraft, Nov, 1966.
18. Ewers, N. G., and Bresnahan, R. J., Preferential Runway Program at
Orange County Airport, County of Orange, California, Dec 18, 1972.
19. Bresnahan, R. J., Letter to Orange County Board of Supervisors, Subject:
"Report on Implementation of the Adopted Noise Regulations for California
(District 5), " County of Orange, Jan 26, 1973.
20. Ewers, N.; Bricken, G.; and Hilliard, J., Results of an Area Wide Noise
Monitoring System, County of Orange, prepared for Acoustical Society of
America, received Mar 6, 1973.
21. Hartranft, J. B. Jr., Letter to FAA Administrator John H. Shaffer, AOPA,
Nov 27, 1972.
22. City of New York, Department of Air Resources, paper regarding provisions
of New York Code requiring setting of airport/aircraft regulations,
received Mar 6, 1973.
23. Muncy, D. E., Letter, subject: "Revised Route, Oakland to San Jose Airports,
West Traffic Flow and San Jose "Keep-em-High" Procedures," FAA Oakland
Bay TRACON, Nov |0, 1972.
24. Nissen, J. M., "Program for Improving San Jose Municipal Airport
Environmental Quality as Affected by Aircraft, " San Jose Municipal Airport,
received Mar 6, 1973.
25. Flynn, Roger, paper containing recommended steps for noise abatement
approach, received Mar 6, 1973.
26. National Business Aircraft Association, NBAA Noise Abatement Program,
report SR 67-12, June, 1967.
27. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular Subject: VFR Flight Near Noise Sensitive Areas AC No. 91-36,
August 7, 1972.
R-2
-------
28. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, "Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL),
Requirements," Docket No. 12534; Notice No. 73-3, Federal Register,
January 30, 1973.
29. Department of Transportation, FAA, Proposed Application of Noise
Standards, "Newly Produced Airplanes of Older Type Designs," Docket
No. 12064, Notice 72-19, Federal Register, July 25, 1972.
30. Department of Transportation, FAA, Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
"Noise Type Certification and Acoustical Change Approvals, " Docket
No. 11412; Notice 71-26, Federal Register, September 17, 1971.
31. Department of Transportation, FAA, Advance Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, "Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit Requirements," Docket
No. 10664; Notice No. 70-44, Federal Register, November 4, 1970.
32. Department of Transportation, FAA, Advance Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, "Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type Certification Standards,"
Docket No. 10494, Notice No. 70-33, Federal Register, August 6, 1970.
33. Department of Transportation, FAA, Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
"Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom," Docket No. 10261, Notice No. 70-16,
Federal Register, April 16, 1970.
34. U. S. Congress, Public Law 90-411, "Control and Abatement of Aircraft
Noise and Sonic Boom, " July 21, 1968.
35. Sellman, E. W., Propeller Driven Aircraft Noise Type Certification
Standards (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), FAA Project Report, Report
No. 5 prepared January 22, 1973.
36. Fontaine, R. B., Letter to FAA, Subject: "Advance Notice of Proposed
Rule Making - Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements, "
Martin Aviation Inc., March 6, 1973.
37. Schettino, J. C., Letter to Robin Gegauff, March 12, 1973.
38. Wyle Laboratories, Supporting Information for the Adopted Noise Regulations
for California Airports. Final Report to the California Department of
Aeronautics, Report No. WCR 70-3(R), January 29, 1971.
39. Cuadra, Elizabeth, Letter to Lawrence Plumlee (EPA) regarding Police
Helicopters, EPA, March 10, 1973.
40. Airport Operators Council International, Policy Handbook, September 8,
1972.
41. Sperry, W. C., Ronk, L. A., and Cokenias, T. N., Information Brief on
Prediction of Aircraft Noise Levels for Planning Purposes, September 7,
1972.
R-3
-------
42. Ronk, L. A., Sperry, W. C., and Cokenias, T. N., Information ijriei on
Takeoff and Approach Noise for Boeing 727 Aircraft, January 8, 1973.
43. Meyersburg, R. B., and Williams, C. H., Committee No. 3: Operational
Noise Abatement Procedures Designed to Limit the Amount of Disturbance
Caused by Aircraft Taking Off, In Flight, or Landing, FAA, International
Conference on the Reduction of Noise and Disturbance Caused by Civil
Aircraft, London, November, 1966.
44. Zalovcik, J. A., Note on Effect of Thrust and Altitude bn Noise in Steep
Approaches, NASA, LWP-283, September 16, 1966.
45. Copeland, W. L. et. ah, Noise Measurement Evaluations of Various
Take-Off-Climbout Profiles of a Jet Transport Airplane, NASA, LWP-2QS,
April 6, 1966.
46. Hilton, D. A. et. ah , Measurements of Noise Produced by a
BAC-111-400 Series Turbofan Transport Airplane During Take-Off-Climbout
Operations, NASA, LWP-211, April 13, 1966.
47. Hilton, D. A. et. al., Measurements of Noise Produced by a Boeing 727
Turbofan Airplane During Take-Off-Climbout Operations, NASA, LWP-214,
April 20, 1966.
48. Noise - Making the Airport a Good Neighbor, submitted by R. B. Meyersburg,
received March 16, 1973.
49. Hilton, D. A., Ground Noise Measurements During Landing and Take-Off
Operations of the McMonnell-Douglas 188 (Brequet 94,1) STOL Airplane.
NASA, LWP-741, April 18, 1969.
50. Power, Joseph K., Bibliography of Federal Aviation Administration Noise
Reports, Department of Transportation, FAA, received, March 16, 1973.
51. Lockwood, Bert J., Letter enclosing data available on the LAX 5 point
program for noise abatement, City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports,
March 13, 1973.
52. Bender, George J., Letter to EPA, subject: "Noise Abatement Segmented
Approach Procedure," March 16, 1973.
53. Bender, George J., Letter to EPA, subject: "Two Segment Approach
Procedure and Wake Turbulence," March 16, 1973.
54. Flynn, Roger, paper presenting views on aircraft and airport operational
procedures, received March 19, 1973.
55. Meyersburg, R. B., Some Thoughts on Reducing Approach Noise.
March 19, 1973.
R-4
-------
56. Bedore, Lawrence P., Letter to EPA transmitting information, NBAA,
March 14, 1973.
57. NBAA, NBAA Noise Abatement Program, received March 19, 1973.
58. Bedore, Lawrence P., Letter to all NBAA representatives subject:
"Recommended Changes to NBAA Noise Abatement Program," NBAA,
November 10, 1972.
59. Women's Advisory Committee on Aviation, Aviation and the Environment,
Department of Transportation, FAA, November 1971.
60. NASA, Chapter 3. Operating Procedures for Aircraft Noise Reduction,
received March 19, 1973.
61. Bresnahan, Robert J., "Effectiveness ojf the ECOLOG I Noise Monitoring
System Installed at Orange County Airport as a Noise Abatement Tool,"
Orange County Airport, March 16, 1973.
62. Treece, Lloyd L., Noise Abatement In Flight, United Air Lines,
received March 19, 1973.
63. FAA, Operational Evaluation of a Selectable Glide Slope Computer,
Experimental Special Instrument Approach Procedure Charts, April, 1970.
64. Tucker, John R., Take-off Flight Path Studies, Air California, March 1,
1973.
65. "Organization of Treatments and Levels for Analysis of Variance for Aviation
Advisory Commission Noise Tradeoff Study, " received March 22, 1973.
66. Schettino, John C., Letter to M. P. Kelly regarding Opa Locka Airport,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, received March 22, 1973.
67. Tanner, Carole S. and Glass, Ray E., Noise Measurements Obtained During
Visual Approach Monitor Evaluation in 747 Aircraft. Hydrospace Research
Corporation for NASA, May 1972.
68. Hurlburt, R. L., Memorandum to the file subject: "Major Noise Airports, "
U, S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 3, 1973.
69. Tanner, Carole S., Measurement and Analysis of Noise From Four Aircraft
in Level Flight (727, KC-135. 707-3203 and DC-9). FAA Report FAA-RD-71-
83, September, 1971.
70. Tanner, Carole S., Measurement and Analysis of Noise From Four Aircraft
During Approach and Departure Operations (727, KC-135, 707-320B, and
DC-9), FAA Report FAA-RD-71-84, September, 1971.
R-5
-------
71. FAA, "Glide Slope Angles at Airports," December, 1971.
72. FAA, "Airports Where 2-Segment Approaches will Afford Noise Relief, "
received March 29, 1973.
73. Mergell, Merle, Letter to John Schettino regarding aircraft noise study,
City of Inglewood, California, March 26, 1973.
74. The communities of El Segundo, Inglewood, Lennox, Playa Del Rey, and
Westchester, California, Joint Policy Statement on Airport Noise, Supporting
Technical Data, December, 1972.
75. Hurlburt, Randall L., Steep Approaches for Aircraft Noise Abatement-A
Collection of Research Studies, City of Inglewood, California, July, 1972.
76. City of Inglewood, California, "Aircraft Noise Abatement Alternatives,"
Environmental Standards Circular, September, 1971.
77. Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Survey of Aircraft Noise Standards and Monitoring
Systems At International Airports, City of Inglewood, California, Report
Summary, July, 1972.
78. Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Study of Steep Approaches for Noise Abatement
Flown by Pacific Southwest Airlines, City of Inglewood, California,
November, 1972.
79. Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Comparison of Aircraft Approach Angles at Los
Angeles and San Diego International Airports, City of Inglewood, California,
June, 1972.
80. Lockwood, Bert J., Memorandum to Randall L. Hurlburt, Subject:
"Task Group 2—Position Report," City of Los Angeles, Department of
Airports, March 22, 1973.
81. Lockwood, Bert J., Memorandum to Randall L. Hurlburt, Subject:
"Monitoring System-Los Angeles International Airport, " City of Los Angeles,
Department of Airports, March 30, 1973.
82. Lockheed-California Company, submittal to EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study Task Force. Task Group 2, Operations Analysis. March 26, 1973.
83. Lockheed-California Company, Submittal to EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study Task Force, Task Group 2, Operations Analysis. March 28, 1973.
84. United Airlines, Flight Operations Manual, "Special DCA Noise Abatement
Procedure, " February 25, 1972.
85. NASA, Response to Task Group 2 Questionnaire, received April 4, 1S78.
R-6
-------
86. NASA, "Implementation of VFR/lFR 2-Segment Approach Capability for Noise
Abatement, " received April 2, 1973.
87. Blumenthal, V. L., letter to R. L. Hurlburt, Subject: "Boeing Comments for
EPA Task Group 2, " The Boeing Co., March 30, 1973.
88. Rockwell International, Position Questionnaire Comments, Task Group 2,
received April 2, 1973.
89. Hinton, Lloyd, Memorandum to Randall L. Hurlburt, Subject: "Response
to Position Questionnaire dated 3/19/73, " National Organization to Insure
a Sound-Controlled Environment, April 2, 1973.
90. Air Line Pilots Association, Comments on Position Questionnaire-Task
Group 2 , March 19, 1973.
91. Bennin, Robert, Memorandum to Task Group 2, Subject: "Response to
Position Questionnaire, " City of New York, March 27, 1973.
92. Bedore, Lawrence P., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding responses to
questionnaire dated March 19, 1973, National Business Aircraft Assoc.,
Inc., April 4, 1973.
93. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Position Questionnaire Comments,
Task Group 2, received April 9, 1973.
94. Bourquin, Kent, et. aL , Initial Flight and Simulator Evaluation of a Head
Up Display for Standard and Noise Abatement Visual Approaches, NASA,
TM X-62, 187, February, 1973.
95. Carmichael, Robert E. L., Letter to Randall Hurlburt regarding policies
involving noise abatement during arrivals and departures, Pacific Southwest
Airlines, March 28, 1973.
96. ALPA, Take-off Thrust Chart, Sea-Level, STD Day (707-320B), received
April 9, 1973.
97. Sundstrand Data Control, Inc., Visual Approach Monitor, received April 9,
1973.
98. Hart, P. E., Population Densities and Optimal Aircraft Flight Paths,
University of Reading, October, 1972.
99. Bresnahan, Robert J., Cost Benefit Analysis of the Ecolog I Noise
Monitoring System, Orange County Airport, March 28, 1973.
100. Tucker, John R., memorandum to EPA, subject: "Response to Task Group
2 Questionnaire, " Air California, March 29, 1973.
R-7
-------
101. Bresnahan, Robert J., response to Task Group 2 Questionnaire, Orange
County Airport, April 4, 1973.
102. Bender, George J., Draft "Submittal to Environmental Protection Agency
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force Task Group 2 - Operations
Analysis," Boston-Logan Airport, April 4, 1973.
103. Soderlind, Paul A., Letter to Administrator of FAA regarding takeoff and
approach noise, Northwest Airlines, Nov. 24, 1970.
104. Amin-Arsala, Betsy, Memorandum to Task Group 4, Subject: Concept of
Airport Certification, Washington University, April 2, 1973.
105. N. O. I. S.E., "Airport Certification, " received April 18, 1973.
106. Flynn, Roger G., Answers to Position Questionnaire-Task Group 2,
March 19, 1973.
107. Regan, John M., Comments on aircraft and airport noise problems to
ONAC fi FAA, March 22, 1973.
108. FAA, excerpt from National Aviation System Plan, 1972, April 18, 1973.
109. Christiansen, Roy, Letter to Randy Hurlburt regarding enquiry on the
Visual Approach Monitor, Sundstrand Data Control, Inc., April 10, 1973.
110. Flynn, Roger, "Take-off Procedure - 707 & 727, " received April 18, 1973.
111. Gregoire, M. C. & Streckenbach, J. M., Effects of Aircraft Operation on
Community Noise, Boeing Report-June 1971.
112. FAA, Advisory Circular-subject: "Arrival and Departure Handling of High
Performance Aircraft, " February 28, 1973.
113. Nissen, James M., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt containing responses to
position questionnaire, City of San Jose, California, Airport Department,
April 6, 1973.
114. Randall, Robert L., Memorandum Re: "Legal Authority available for
cc tain actions discussed in Position Question-fbr Task Group 2, dated
3/ 0/73," received April 19, 1973.
115. Erzberger, Heinz, et. al., "Technique for Calculating Optimui-
Abatement Take-Off Profiles," Progress of NASA Research Relating to
Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft, NASA SP-189,
October 8-10, 1968.
116. Quigley, Hervey C., et. al., "Flight Investigations of Methods for Imple-
menting Noise Abatement Landing Approaches, " Progress of NASA Research
Relating to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft, NASA SP - 189,
October 8-10, 1968.
R-8
-------
117. Russell, R. E., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt transmitting noise data for the
707-300, The Boeing Company, April 20, 1973.
118. Gray, Damon C., Results of Noise Surveys of Seventeen General Aviation
Type Aircraft, Hydrospace - Challenger Inc., FAA report FAA - EQ - 73 -
1, December, 1972.
119. Schelp, D. A., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt transmitting performance data for
the 707-320B airplane, The Boeing Company, April 13, 1973.
120. Haggard, William H., Letter to Randy Hurlburt transmitting "Revised
Uniform Summary of Surface Weather Observations," U. S. Department of
Commerce, National Climatic Center, April 25, 1973.
121. Illston, F. E., Letter to Randy Hurlburt submitting noise data, American
Airlines, April 26, 1973.
122. Civil Aeronautics Board, United Air Lines, Inc. Boeing 727, N7030U,
Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 11, 1965, Aircraft Accident Report, June 7,
1966.
123. FAA, Amendment to FAR Part 91-General Operating and Flight to Rules to
add Section 91.55 "Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom," Federal Register, March
28, 1973.
124. Nissen, James M., Testimony to Senator John V. Tunney regarding air-
craft retrofit, City of San Jose, California, September 14, 1972.
125. Bedore, Lawrence P., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding NBAA responses
to questionnaire dated March 19, 1973, NBAA, May 14, 1973.
126. Nissen, James M., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding answers to Position
Questionnaire of 3/19/73, San Jose, California, April 4, 1973.
127. Tucker, John R., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding initial draft of Task
Group 2 report to Congress, Air California, May 11, 1973.
128. Sanjour, W., Memorandum to R. Hurlburt, Subject: "Air Pollution
Implications of Some of the Measures Proposed in the Task Group 2 Draft
Report, " Environmental Protection Agency, May 17, 1973.
129. Marthinsen, Harold F., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding EPA's Report-
Draft'No. 1 of Chapter 3, Air Line Pilots Association, May 18, 1973.
130. Bennin, Robert S., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding Task Group 2 draft
report, Environmental Protection Agency, May 16, 1973.
131. Belles, R. E., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt, regarding Draft #1, Chapter 3,
Airport/Aircraft Noise Study Report, Rockwell International, May 14, 1973.
R-9
-------
132. Bedore, Lawrence P., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding EPA report
Chapter 3 (Operations Analysis), National Business Aircraft Assoc.,
May 14, 1973.
133. Drell, H., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding Task Group 2 Report Chapter
1, Lockheed-California Co., received May 14, 1973.
134. Lockwood, Bert J., Memorandum to R. Hurlburt, Subject: "Comments-
Chapter 3: Operations Analysis-Task Group 2," Department of Airports,
City of Los Angeles, California, May 8, 1973.
135. Blumenthal, V. L., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt, regarding Draft #1 of Chapter
3, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, May 11, 1973.
136. Linnert, T. G., and Kayne, V. J., Letter to Federal Aviation Administration
regarding High Performance Aircraft Corridors, ALPA and AO PA, April 13,
1970.
137. Kayne, Victor J., Memorandum to Mr. Miller, Subject: Draft Report of
EPA Task Group 2, AOPA, May 9, 1973.
138. Bresnahan, Robert J., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding draft of Chapter
3: Operations Analysis of Task Group 2 Report to Congress, Orange County,
California, May 10, 1973.
139. FAA, Charts on Unmodified airplane noise values for May 7, 1973 demon-
stration flights at Dulles Airport, received May 11, 1973.
140. Flynn, Roger, Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding Draft Report of Task Group
2, Air Transport Association, May 11, 1973.
141. Bolt, Beranek and Newman -Noise Reduction Charts, received May 11, 1973.
142. Bishop, Dwight E., Letter to Randall Hurlburt regarding the 100 and 90
EPNdB noise contours for takeoff of a Boeing 707-320B, Bolt, Beranek
and Newman, May 17, 1973.
143. Wertenbaker, George L., Letter to Randall L. Hurlburt regarding ILS glide
slope angle for runway 27L (Tempelhof), May 14, 1973.
144. Hurlburt, Randall L., Landing Procedure Correction to AAC, 30 NEF impact
area, EPA, May 11, 1973.
145. Meyersburg, R., Draft Advisory Circular regarding Reduction of noise
during approach and landing, May 22, 1973.
146. Skully, R. P., Letter to Alvin Meyer regarding the draft EPA report
(Operational Procedures), FAA, May 21, 1973.
R-1Q
-------
147. Treece, L. L., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding the draft report to
Congress, United Air Lines, May 18, 1973.
148. Bresnahan, Robert J., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding draft report to
Congress, Orange County, Calif., May 17, 1973.
149. Hinton, Lloyd, and Tyler, John, Memorandum to R. Hurlburt Subject:
"Comments and Recommendations for draft No. 1, Chapter 3 of the Report
to the Congress, "N. O.I. S. E. May 18, 1973.
150. Bender, George J.» Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding draft report to
Congress, Boston Logan Airport, May 7, 1973.
151. Flynn, Roger G., letter to Randall Hurlburt related to Northwest Airlines
"high flight director" approach, Air Transport Association, June 19, 1973.
152. Massport. What is Massport doing about Aircraft Noise. Boston Logan
Airport, May 18, 1973.
153. FAA, "Notices to Airmen," Airman's Information Manual, page 3A-2 (District
of Columbia), April 12, 1973.
154. FAA, "Washington National Airport Noise Abatement Procedures,"
Effective June 1, 1970.
155. Air Transport Association, "Takeoff Procedures for Washington National
Airport," August 21, 1972.
156. Hurlburt, R., Memo to the Files Subject: "Two Segment Equipment
Installment Time," EPA, May 24, 1973.
157. Spencer, Jonathan A., Letter enclosing draft noise data for 707-320 B;
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 25 May 1973.
158. Schettino, John C., Memo to Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise
Control Programs, Subject: "Aerospace Industries Association of America,
Inc. (AIA) Letter Dated May, 1973" (letter attached), EPA, May 31, 1973.
159. Schettino, John C., Letter to Mr. Bohonis regarding his letter of April 17
(letter attached), EPA, June 4, 1973.
160. Tyler, John and Hinton, Lloyd, Letter to Randall L. Hurlburt Re:
"Comments and Recommendations for the report to the Congress,"
N. O. I. S. E., June 6, 1973.
161. Lockwood, Bert J., Memorandum to Randall L. Hurlburt Subject:
"Comments—Operations Analysis—Task Group 2," City of Los Angeles
Department of Airports, June 5, 1973.
R-ll
-------
162. Schmidt, Claude C., Letter to Randy Hurlburt forwarding data
related to Minneapolis Green Barrier, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro-
politan Airports Commission, June 8, 1973.
163. Midwest Planning and Research Inc., "Plans for Green Belt Construction at
World Chamberlain Field for Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports
Commission," May 1, 1972.
164. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Assoc., Inc., "Specifications for
Greenbelt Construction at World-Chamberlain Field for Minneapolis-St.
Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, M.A. C. Contract No. 59.292,
Federal Project No. 8-27-0059-03," May 1, 1972.
165. Minnesota, State of, Amendment to Minnesota Statutes 1969, Section
360.107 relating to construction of an acoustical barrier at Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport, Approved July 22, 1971.
166. Eldred, Kenneth M., Letter to Raymond G. Glumack regarding acoustical
performance of tree-covered earth berm at World-Chamberlain Field,
Wyle Labs, June 6, 1972.
167. Schelp, Don A., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding fuel usage for
approach and takeoff procedures, Boeing, June 18, 1973.
168. Spencer, J. A., and Myer, T. H., A Computer Simulation Study of Noise
Abatement Procedures; Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., Draft BBN
Report No. 2567, 29 June 1973.
169. Civil Aeronautics Board and Department of Transportation, excerpts
from Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers. June
30, 1971.
170. Belles, R. E., Letter to Randall L. Hurlburt regarding comments on Task
Group 2 draft reports, North American Rockwell, June 28, 1973.
171. Hurlburt, R. L., "A Survey of Noise Problems as perceived by the Airport
Administration at 19 Large Hub Airports," EPA, June 30, 1973. •
172. Blumenthal, V. L., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt
Subject: "Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Position on Task Group
2, 'Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety, and
Costs,' " Boeing, J^ine 29, 1973.
173. Linnert, Ted G., Letter to Randy Hurlburt enclosing comments and a
position paper relating to Task Group 2, ALPA, June 29, 1973.
174. Flynn, Roger G., Letter to John Schettino inchading comments on Task
Group 2 Draft Report of June 1, 1973, July 2, 1973.
R-12
-------
175. Hinton, Lloyd V., Letter to Randall Hurlburt including positions related to
Task Group 2, N.O. I. S.E., Received July 2, 1973.
176. Reilly, J. Donald, Letter to Randall Hurlburt enclosing comments on
Task Group II draft report, AOCI, July 2, 1973.
177. Informatics, Inc.. Information Brief on Select Bibliography of Acquired
Documents for Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study, EPA, Received
June 26, 1973.
178. Hinton, Lloyd V., Letter to Randall Hurlburt including positions related to
Abatement Flight Procedures Demonstration with Sound Measurements,"
N.O.I.S, E., June 6, 1973.
e
179. Hurlburt, R. L., Memorandum to File Subject: "Telephone Conversations
with Lee Goolsby, NASA," EPA, April 3, 1973.
180. McPike, A. L., Letter to Randall Hurlburt transmitting comments on June
I, 1973 draft report of Task Group 2, Douglas Aircraft Company, June 29,
1973.
181. General Aviation Manufacturers Association, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association Comments on the Draft Report oh Operations Analysis Including
Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety, and Costs for Environmental Protection
Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study, Task Group 2. Received July
9, 1973.
182. Moore, Clifton A., Letter to John C. Schettino transmitting comments on
Airport Noise Task Group Draft Reports, June 29, 1973.
183. Blumenthal, V. L., Letter to John C. Schettino transmitting position letters,
Boeing, June 29, 1973.
184. Bresnahan, Robert J., Letter to Randall Hurlburt concerning comments on
Task Group 2 Draft report.dated June 1, 1973, Orange County Airport June
27, 1973.
185. von Kann, Clifton F., Letter to Dr. Meyer regarding EPA Task Groups,
Air Transport Association, July 3, 1973.
186. Rogers, Robert A., Wohl, Bernard; and Gale, C.M., Flight Evaluation
of Two-Segment Approaches for Jet Transport Noise Abatement, Amer-
ican Airlines, Inc. For NASA, June, 1973.
187. Duffelmeyer, H. James, letter to Randall L. Hurlburt enclosing statement
regarding PSA two-segment approach, City of Foster City, California, July
II, 1973.
R-13
-------
188. Hurlburt, Randall L., memo to Mark Dees subject: "Historical Intent of
FAR 91.87 (d)," City of Inglewood, California, September 9, 1971.
189. Hurlburt, Randall L., Information Brief on "Night Operations at Airports,"
EPA, July 19, 1973
190. Blumenthal, V. L, letter to William C. Sperry attaching tabulation of
landing thrust and velocity versus flap setting, Boeing, July 6, 1973.
191. Skully, R. P., letter to Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr. transmitting project
report Amendment to Federal Aviation Regulations to Provide for a Takeoff
Noise Control Operating Rule, FAA, 5 February, 1973.
192. Schlegei, Ronald G., Letter to John Schettino summarizing position of
Sikorsky Aircraft, Sikorsky Aircraft, July 2, 1973.
193. U.S. Department of Commerce, Letter to John C. Schettino submitting
views concerning EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study, July 19, 1973.
The following references are not a part of the Task Group 2 master file:
500. FAA, FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation. 1970 edition.
501. FAA, Federal Air Regulations, Part 93, "Special Air Traffic Rules and
Airport Traffic Patterns."
502. FAA, Federal Air Regulations. Part 139, "Certification and Operations:
Land Airports Serving CAB - Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers Oper-
ating Large Aircraft other than Helicopters. "
503. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., Aircraft Noise Analysis for the Existing
Air Carrier System. Report to Aviation Advisory Commission, September
1, 1972.
504. Cox, C. R., VTOL Noise. Bell Helicopter Company, April, 1973.
505. NASA, Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology, March 30, 1973.
506. FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-1982,
March 1972.
507. FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-1982,
March 1973.
R-14
-------
508. Portola Valley Noise Abatement Committee, Letter regarding need for
larger, visible aircraft identification numbers, for ground based aircraft
identification in communities, Portola Valley, Calif., March 26, 1973
(in Task Group 1 Master File).
509. Evans, M., Letter to E. Cuadra summarizing her remarks at March 30
meeting of Task Group 1, April 2, 1973 (in Task Group 1 Master File).
510. California, State of, "Title 4: Subchapter 6: Noise Standards," California
Department of Aeronautics (in Task Group 4 Master File).
511. Cuadra, Elizabeth, Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport
Noise and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State, and Local
Governments, Report of EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 1.
NTID 73.2, July, 1973.
512. Von Gierke, Henning, Impact Characterization of Noise Including
Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise
'Exposure, Report of EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group 3.
NTID 73.4, July, 1973.
513. Sperry, William C., Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis
Including Retrofitting. Report of EPA Air craft/Airport Noise Study Task
Group 4, NTID 73. 5, July, 1973.
514. Sperry, William C., Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA
Noise Regulatory Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and
Airport Operations, Report of EPA Air craft/Airport Noise Study Task
Group 5, NTID 73. 6, July, 1973.
515. Nethery, Sidney, Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities for
Reduction Without Inhibition of Military Missions. Report of EPA Aircraft/
Airport Noise Study Task Group 6, NTID 73.7, July, 1973.
516. FAA, "Airline Economic Computer Model: Volume I-Detailed Discussion,"
FAA-EQ-72-4, June, 1972.
517. Hurlburt, Randall L., A Complete Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of a
Quiet Engine Retrofit Program, City of Inglewood, California, January 15,
1971.
R-15
-------
Appendix A
TECHNICAL ANNEX
This technical annex contains excerpts or summaries
of certain research programs or analyses which have been
submitted to the Aircraft/Airport file. It is not a complete
record of these documents but is simply intended to provide
a more in-depth understanding of the background material
submitted to Task Group 2 and considered in the writing of
this report. A complete bibliography is included in the
REFERENCES section of this report and a complete file
of documents is maintained by EPA.
Wherever possible, summaries, conclusions or
summary figures are reprinted verbatim from the original
report. Where this was not possible summary information
is given based on data in the original report.
A-l
-------
Technical Annex
Contents
(Excerpts from the following documents)
Takeoff
Page
1. NASA, Technique for Calculating Optimum Noise Abatement Profiles,
Reference 115. A-4
2. NASA, Noise Measurement Evaluations of Various Takeoff Climbout Pro-
files of a Jet Transport Airplane, Reference 45. A-6
3. NASA, Measurements of Noise Produced by a BAC - 111-400 Series
Turbofan Transport Airplane During Take-off - Climbout Operations,
Reference 46. A-7
4. NASA, Measurements of Noise Produced by a Boeing 727 Turbofan
Transport Airplane During Take-off - Climbout Operations, Reference 47. A-10
5. Air California, Take-off Flight Path Studies, Reference 64. A-13
6. ALPA, Standard Take-off Profile, Reference 14. A-15
7. Lockheed - California Company, Submittal to EPA regarding L-1011
noise contours, Reference 82. A-19
Takeoff and Landing
8. NASA, Noise Measurement Evaluation of Take-off and Approach Profiles
Optimized for Noise Abatement, Reference 9. A-22
9. NASA, Noise Measurements for a Three-Engine Turbofan Transport
Airplane During Climbout and Landing Approach Operations, Reference 6. A~23
10. Boeing, Effects of Aircraft Operation on Community Noise, Reference 111. A-24
11. Hydrospace, Measurement and Analysis of Noise from Four Aircraft
During Approach and Departure Operations (727, KC-135, 707-320B, and
DC-9), Reference 70. A-36
12. FAA, Paper on Noise Abatement, Reference 48. A-44
13. San Jose, Keep-em-High Procedures, References 23, 24. A-46
14. NASA, Operating Procedures for Aircraft Noise Reduction, Reference 505. A-47
15. NASA, Note of Effect of Thrust and Altitude on Noise in Steep Approaches. A-66
16. NASA, Flight Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Area Navigation for Jet
Transport Noise Abatement, Reference 3. A-67
A-2
-------
Page
17. NASA, Flight and Simulation Investigation of Methods for Implementing
Noise.Abatement Landing Approaches, Reference 10. A-69
18. City of Inglewood, Steep Approaches for Aircraft Noise Abatement -
A Collection of Research Studies, Reference 75. A-70
19. Lockheed - California Company, Submittal to EPA regarding advanced
operational procedures, Reference 1. A-87
20. NASA, Initial Flight and Simulator Evaluation of a Head-up Display for
Standard and Noise Abatement Visual Approaches, Reference 94. A-91
Airports
21. Los Angeles Department of Airports, Five-Point Noise Abatement Pro-
gram, Reference 51. A-96
22. Cities of El Segundo, et. al., Joint Policy Statement on Airport Noise,
Reference 74. A-99
23. Hydrospace, Measurement and Analysis of Noise from Four Aircraft
in Level Flight (727, kc-135, 707-320B, and DC-9), Reference 69. A-104
24. City of Inglewood, A Survey of Aircraft Noise Standards and Monitoring
Systems at International Airports, Reference 77. A-106
25. Civil Aeronautics Board and Department of Transportation, excerpts
from Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers.
Reference 169. A-109
A-3
-------
27. TECHNIQUE FOR CALCULATING OPTIMUM
NOISE-ABATEMENT TAKE-OFF PROFILES
By Heinz Erzbergcr, Homer Q. Lee, H. Rodney Poory,
and Fred J. Drinkwater III
NASA Ames Research Center
SUMMARY
An analytical technique has been developed for determining take-off and climbout
profiles of jet aircraft that minimize the noise in a noise-sensitive area near an airport.
Because the technique is analytical, it is especially suited to the study of the effect of
such factors as engine noise characteristics, location of noise-sensitive area, and opera-
tional constraints on the optimum profile for noise abatement.
Two important elements of the technique are the division of the ground track of the
profile into a section near the airport having low sensitivity to noise, followed by one
that is noise sensitive, and the formulation of a criterion for comparing the noisiness
of different profiles. The criterion used in this study was the average perceived noise
along the noise-sensitive section of the ground track. Any other criterion could be. used
instead.
The technique was applied to the calculation of optimum profiles for a typical cur-
rently inservice jet transport. Although the complete specification of the profiles gen-
erally depends on the noise characteristics of the engines and on other factors, the opti-
mum profiles calculated herein can be characterized by a period of acceleration as soon
as possible after take-off, followed by a steep climb, which in turn is followed by thrust
reduction when the noise-sensitive area or a specified altitude is reached. Before the
transition from accelerating to climbing, the optimum profiles achieved an airspeed that
permitted full retraction of flaps. This acceleration caused some altitude loss at the
beginning of the noise-sensitive area, but the disadvantage of a slightly lower altitude can
be outweighed by the advantage of greater thrust reduction that is possible in the clean
airplane configuration. Thus, in the trade off between airspeed and altitude, gaining air-
speed until it is permissible to retract flaps can be more important than gaining altitude,
if the objective is to minimize the average perceived noise along the noise-sensitive
ground track.
A piloted fixed-base simulation of take-off profiles demonstrated the reduction in
average perceived noise that is possible with the optimum climbout profile. No unusual
difficulties in flying this profile on the simulator were encountered by the pilot.
A-4
-------
OPTIMUM AND SIMPLIFIED OPTIMUM PROFILES
1500 -
1000
ALTITUDE,
ft
500 -
AO
END OF NOISE-SENSITIVE
GROUND TRACK
V
BEGIN FLAP
RETRACTION
OPTIMUM
SIMPLIFIED OPTIMUM
150
200
AIRSPEED, knots
250
Figure 3
OPTIMUM PROFILES WITH 1500-ft ALTITUDE CONSTRAINT
THRUST AFTER POINT B
25 5001b
40 0001b TO 1500 ft,
THEN 16 0001b
40 0001b TO 1500 ft,
THEN 16 6001b
1500 -
1000
ALTITUDE,
ft
500
STEEP CLIMBOUT;
167 knots, 25° FLAPS
OPTIMUM FOR TURBOFAN;
207 knots, 0° FLAPS
// NOISE REDUCTION: 4db
OPTIMUM FOR TURBOJET;
Jj 200 knots, 0°FLAPS
NOISE REDUCTION: 7db
BEGINNING OF NOISE- B
SENSITIVE AREA .i
j i L_
10
15 20 25 30 35 x I03
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE,ft
Figure 4
-------
NOISE MEASUREMENT EVALUATIONS OF VARIOUS
TAKE-OFF-CLIMBOUT PROFILES OF A
JET TRANSPORT AIRPLANE
By W. L. Copeland, D. A. Hilton, V. Huckel,
A. C. Dibble, Jr. , and D. J. Maglieri
SUMMARY
Noise measurement evaluations have been conducted on a Boeing 720
turbojet-powered aircraft for several climbout profiles involving various
climb speeds, flap settings, and engine pressure ratios, and these data
were correlated with airplane operations and position data.
The main result of these studies is that power reductions generally
result in reduced noise levels on the ground compared to those associated
with a full-power take-off-climbout. Further, the amount of noise reduction
attained depends upon the amount of power reduction and the noise level
profile on the ground is related directly to the engine power schedule.
A-6
-------
MEASUREMENTS OF NOISE PRODUCED BY A
BAG-111-14-00 SERIES TURBOFAN TRANSPORT AIRPLANE DURING
TAKE-OFF-CLIMBOUT OPERATIONS
By D. A. Hilton, W. L. Copeland, and A. C. Dibble, Jr.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Noise measurement evaluations have been conducted on a BAC-IH-UOO series
turbofan powered airplane for three climbout profiles Involving various engine
power settings and flap settings during two segment climb, and these data
were correlated with airplane operations and position data.
The main results of these studies are that power reduction during the second
segment of climb generally result In reduced noise levels on the ground. Further,
the amount of noise reduction attained depends upon the amount of power reduction,
and the noise level profile on the ground is related directly to engine power
schedule.
A-7
-------
Schematic
Profile
NOISE
MEASURING
STATIONS
i7T/~'< tf'H
A.
Power
REDUCED M I5cc FT, ALT.
Figure 5-- Schematics and descriptions of various
noise tests.
Description of Procedure
Full take-off power at VV> + 20 kts. with 18° flaps.
After 400 ft. altitude retract flaps to 8° and
accelerate to 170 lets. At 1500 ft. altitude reduce
power from full take-off power to 89# rpm with 8°
flaps and maintain until reaching 30°0 ft. altitude.
Then proceed SOP climb not to exceed 210 KIAS.
Full take-off power at Vp + 20 kts. with 18° flaps.
After 400 ft. altitude retract flaps to 8° and
accelerate to 170 kts. At 1500 ft. altitude reduce
power from take-off power to 8Tf> rpm with 8° flaps
and maintain until reaching 3000 ft. altitude. Then
proceed SOP climb not to exceed 210 KXAS.
Full take-off power at V2 t- 20 kts. with 18° flaps.
After 400 ft. altitude retract flaps to 8° and
accelerate to 170 kts. At 1500 ft. altitude reduce
power from take-off power to rpm, retract flaps
to 0 holding 87$ rpm until 3000 ft. altitude. Then
proceed SOP climb not to exceed 210 KIAS.
flight profiles used for take-off-climbout
-------
izo
Ho
\oo
9o
80
7o
\1oZ.
in
lEo r
Wo -
CD
I60 -
-a
-z.
9o -
CL
80 -
70 -
l%2
m
\2o
\lo
loo
90
So
7o
ivoo
•STAl.
a
O RUtvi i.
~ RUKl H.
A RUK) 3
197©
rt
ZZQa
n l.
3 loo
(a) Pkof\le 1 ( Run} 2)
d
RukI i.
P
RUKi Z
A
RONi 3
Q
RUSJ 4
b
RUn) %
A
RUM 6
17 Zo
-I ci
t92o
a l.
22 3o
_i n_—
(b) Profile. 2 6*ef. Run* 1)
O Rum 1
~ Rui-J 2.
$
I600
j Q
1800
n 1
-4-
I9i>0 .
S.T* is>TaOC?.. prom "START OF- TAVCE-orC Rouv., FT.
Figure 13.- Normalized, perceived noise levels along ground track of airplane for
Profiles 1, 2, and 3*
A-9
-------
MEASUREMENTS OF NOISE PRODUCED BY A
BOEING 727 TURBOFAN TRANSPORT AIRPLANE DURING
TAKE-OFF-CLIMBOUT OPERATIONS
By D. A. Hilton, A. C. Dibble, Jr., and W. L. Copeland
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Noise measurement evaluations have been conducted on a Boeing 727 turbofan
powered airplane for three climbout profiles involving various engine power
settings and flap settings during two segment climb, and these data were corre-
lated with airplane operations and position data.
The main result of these studies is that power reductions during the second
segment of climb generally result in reduced noise levels on the ground compared
to those associated with a full-power take-off climbout. Further, the amount
of noise reduction attained depends upon the amount of power reduction and the
noise level profile on the ground is related directly to the engine power
schedule.
A-10
-------
Schematic
— NICHE
MEASURING
\ STATIONS
POWtR *SftwC.t6
AT ISOO FT, ACT.
Figure 5-~ Schematics and descriptions
noise tests.
Profile
Description of Procedure
Pull take-off power at V2 + (10 or 20 kts) with
15° flaps. After UOO ft. altitude retract flaps
to 5° and add 10 kts to climb speed. At 1500 ft.
altitude reduce power from take-off power to
power required for 500 fpm rate of climb holding
V2 + (10 or 20 kts) and 5° flaps. Maintain
these conditions until reaching 3000 ft. altitude
then proceed SOP climb not to exceed 210 KCAS
(Deck angle limitation 15°).
Pull take-off power at V2 + (10 or 20 kts) with
15° flaps. After **00 ft. altitude retract flaps
to 5° and then to 2° prior to reaching 1500 ft.
altitude. At 1500 ft. altitude reduce power
2 from take-off power to power required for 500 fpm
rate of climb holding airspeed and 2° flaps.
Upon reaching 3000 ft. altitude proceed SOP not
to exceed 210 KIAS (Deck angle limitation 15°).
Full take-off power at V2 + 10 kts with 15°
flaps. At 1000 ft. altitude reduce power from
take-off power to maximum continuous power
holding Vg + 10 kts and 15° flaps. After
3 reaching 2000 feet altitude retract flaps and
accelerate as per schedule (Deck angle limitation
15°)
of various flight profiles used for take-off-climbout
-------
110
100
90
80
70
60
1014
1601
A
2160
A 1
2481
A—
13 17 21 25 29
(a) Profile 1 Cref. run 3)
110
¦ trft
100
•
CD 90
TJ
g 80
70
¦
60
1028
. A
ill 3
1$62
2118
2526
17 21 25 29
(b) Profile 2 Cref. run 2.)
110
100
90
80
70
60
O Run 1
~ Run 2
O Run 3
Run 4
k. Run 5
DkRun 6
2810
A
33 37 41 45X103
O Run 1
~ Run 2
O Run 3
2967
—A
33 37 41 45X103
O Run 1
~ Run 2
^ Run 3
A Run 4
1123 1700 2284
Sta. 1 sta. 2 Sta. 3
A i A i A i.
3847 SRj,
Sta. 4
-¦—~
-£Q>
5535
Sta. 5
A
33
13 17 21 25 29
(c) Profile 3 Cref. run 2)
Distance from start of takeoff roll,Ft
37 41 45X103
Figure 13.- Normalized perceived noise levels along ground track of Boeing 727 airplane for
Profiles 1, 2, and 3»
A-12
-------
March 1, 1973
SUBJECT: Take-off Flight Path Studies
1. In addition to our constant surviellance of fuel load and gross take-
off weight studies, Air California has been an active leader in the
industry in the development of inflight techniques to minimize the
noise impact on our airport neighbors. This has been accomplished
by introducing specific procedures during take-off and approach to
landing at each noise sensitive airport. Additional tests have been
conducted to minimise .the ground run-up noise on the, airport's surface
by location and positioning of aircraft.
2. Since the beginning of our operations at the Orange County Airport in
1966, we have rigidly followed a noise abatement departure which has
proven very effective. Subsequent to the installation of the "ECOLOG"'
Noise Monitoring stations at this airport, we have been able to update-
our existing procedures as well as flight-test new concepts in our goal
to minimize noise.
7. Through the excellent cooperation of the airport noise abatement
staff and the ECOLOG Monitor stations, and valuable assistance
from the Boeing Company Noise and Aerodynamics staff, computor
data indicated we did indeed have a means of further modifying our
departure profile and predicting the benefits of such changes.
8. Figure 3 illustrates the comparison of the new analysis procedure
with the present procedure. In order to minimize the noise at the
critical location, noise monitor M-l, the airplane must attain the
highest possible altitude and then reduce thrust to the lowest practical
value prior to overflying M-l.. In the new procedures, additional
altitude is gained by NOT USING engine bleed air for cabin air condi-
tioning (this function is assumed by the airborne APU) thus providing
additional take-off and climb thrust from the engines. At 95,000 lbs.
this extra performance would result in approximately 50' additional
altitude over M-l, however the noise improvement from this altitude
increment alone would be small. By reducing thrust just before the
airplane overflies M-l, significant noise reduction is obtained.
Relative to the present procedures, a reduction of 9 db is estimated
at M-l. Because thrust was reduced at about 900 ft. altitude instead
of climbing to 1500 ft., the airplane overflies M-2/M-3 with 350 ft.
less altitude. This altitude loss will increase noise at M-2/M-3 by an
estimated 3 db.
A-13
-------
IO A : C: u.1 it;; :*CH -'v>
r,i:>)HiCA wv itr? co.
-mnTT
™T—
r
—T
i
I 'C A' LLI
.. * ^ss» * s bm § % ; Vta* • S « 4 « 0 4 i <• n!*** .
r^'s?^
*** if ^ i "fc iii ^uk. ' ii W "•%» «i' v
v *^fi ««K. j»~. r»» >»y« JW1-.
•-««^l a WR^g^.4 *3» «
v-ijry -fr a
* % « w >* **o v Uu* ™
! -
pRPijeDu^e
'-; ¦ p
] ANALYSIS PROC-EDU^E
;.;;;.:.j
-f?S"ice51
f- I '
:~ packs "oF'jFli fic p€/?sdsxn'M;eHc>| pflfiriarftt
;». POUTER-8^c« DeTERfnfwED BY CHART ! ^ ! '
: r
cziP
_?LC/*RUeR.
:+. Powefi IS DEDUCED TO l.5j EPR> j (jTSD-7) M
!ri S C*'f
• . I •
!« «{'»£?»
9-Z EC 00
{. HicWeft Airiru^l,,;.,
_2._L£ SS„ poW BR 1
¦ M: <
- i
< ,- r ' < r : ¦
t L _ * ¦ .1
i ¦
V>R^:-
' '
\ !::
""v"
i\
¦_l \ < i r!' j
; "r "" i 1 I": ': | ..
i.. j ! .
; } t ; ; ;
I\ i
f \
A. S E fjc! £>
>
i
3. less Noise (<*, obV i i
» i > , V ; . ? |
•f.LOWERALTtTUOE
:s. same power |1.
£. INCREASED fVoltse (3 pb) i
.. 1 ......
. i ¦
zR w-i
J ttP/£T 2!6
500 1 COO .'SCO
¦¦ i POWER-BACK Ai-TiTODE
OVER M-2, M-3i i
X = pOVJER-BACK POIXT
M-ra
: M- f
Wei'/POST oAr
16, oca
tz.ooa
/<>-ooo
tcooo
iTSMPefi bTGn,tr-eo?
-GROSS WflQ^iT ^ S 5)000 lias
J A J flCRfl FT. 5 L1 B OBIN<5. T37
£NG1N£S * ;j"T8D-7 i 1
I
|
}~
i
/////////»//».///*///a
O&AMGt ! COONTV AtRPOFcH |
B.OOO'
4-00 O'
&CQO
n^r>,
-------
ALPA Standard Take Off Profile
Experimental noise abatement flight tests, in which ALPA participated, were conduc
at Wallops Island, Virginia in 1967 by NASA using various airline aircraft. The noise produ
was carefully measured cit designated points and several different flight procedures ana confi-
ations were used to endeavor to find the best takeoff profile consistent with safely and which
produced the lecist amount of overall noise exposure to a community. (See Attachment A-l_
t.hrough A-3.)
A Standard TakeOff Profile (STOP) was agreed upon by the Air Transport Association
FAA, and ALPA in May, 1968. It was to have been put into operation In the summer of 196
by issuance of an Advisory Circular by the FAA. However, for unknown reasons, this AaVIs*
Circular was never issued. Sfnce tfjat time, ALPA has actively attempted to have a standard
takeoff program revived by i^ite FAA and the airlines.
The ALPA Noise Abatement Committee therefore proposes that all pilots use the stcrr:
takeoff profile as outlined in A^tbchment B. The Commiltee also proposes that the pilots qf
airline v/prk out the procedures to be fallowed with their individual airline operations mc.ntr
because there are possible slight yc\rialiens in the procedure, dependent on aircraft type and
airline preference.
A-15
-------
Attachment A-l
SCHEMATIC
PROFILE
DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE
ALPA Proposed Standard Takeoff
Profile for Soeing 727
1500 ^
400
/
i 2 f S * * »
%
Takeoff power at V2 + 10 knots with 15° fIc
Ar 400' altitude begin retracting flaps per s>
end accelerate to 210 knots. Ficps to be at
to 1500' c'tfvuce. Ar 1500' eft?rude reduce
to that required to maintain 1.5% positive g
v/ith one engine inoperative (opproximerely
rare of climb ar 210 knots with one engine i}
Maintain ct 210 knots.
6000 ft.
£ 1500 ft
Oi Jr
400 tor
L " ' *J ~ '* »
Jy)
Takeoff power cf V2 + 10 knots v/ith 15° f!c;
400' cititude begin reducing to 0° f!aps as p
schedule and acce'crate to 210 knots. At 1.
altitude reduce to maximum continuous pewe
accelerate to 220 knots. At 6000" altitude
smooth acceleration to 250 knots and maintc
stabilized power.
1500
/
/
S i
A
u
u
t
Takeoff power ai- Vj + 10 knots v/ith 15° He'
not exceed 15° deck angle. At 1500- a'titu
power to that required for 500 fpm rate of ci
15° flaps end speed required for holding 15"'
angle. Mcintcin this speed end configuret:o-
-------
•»
^ o
> —J
i z>
'
profile 3
. /M
40001
profile 2
3200 •?
i
2400 -o
rofsle 4
1600 -?•
/'AH-:'/
P-SSj
<«vt«
* * ALPA Standard TakeOff ProfII
Dir-tonco from 5>;-c:rf of TcVrpff Roll. IPfV"!
-------
120
no
100
Profile 3
-------
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY TASK FORCE March 26, 1973
TASK GROUP 2, OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
T i. -X ¦
LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY '1 : '
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA !¦ ' r
The material submitted is a study of the effect of variations of
weight, flap angle, and other parameters on noise contour foot-
prints. The numerical data are for the Lockheed L-1011-1 TriStar
widebody transport; they are believed to be generally representa-
tive of any transport of the same class powered by high-bypass,
quieted engines. The principal results are that the contour areas
are much smaller than those of older narrow body aircraft and that
cutback procedures are much less effective.
In summary -
o Iso-noise contour footprints provide a more-useful evaluation of an
airplane's noise impact on a community than do the three FAR Part 36
conditions.
o The 90 EPNdB contour exposure area is used as an evaluation reference.
The 90 PNdB or 80 dBA contours would give similar results.
o Use of the RB.211-22B engine in place of the -22C will reduce takeoff
noise exposure area about 15$ at and above the FAR Part 36 reference
day temperature of 77°F. Below the -22C flat rating point at 66°F,
areas for the two engines are approximately the same.
o Variation of takeoff or landing weight changes exposed area by about
0.015 sq. mi. (10 acres) per 1000 pounds, or less than 1$ of the
total exposed area.
o Lower flap angles for takeoff expose slightly smaller areas, particularly
at heavier weights.
o Takeoff thrust-cutback at 3-5 n.mi. increases exposed area above
390,000 pound TOGW. For maximum TOGW, minimum exposed area is
achieved by cutback about 5 n.mi. from brake release, for lighter
takeoff weights at smaller distances, down to 3 n.mi. for 3'-t0,000
pound TOGW.
o Use of DLC increases noise exposure about 10$ at maximum design
landing weights. At this same weight, flap angle reduction is worth
about 0.09 sq. mi. (55 acres) per degree. For 33° flaps there is a
23$ reduction in exposed area from the maximum 4-2° flaps; and if 25°
flaps were to be used, there would be a reduction of about 50$ from
the U2° operation.
o The combined approach/takeoff operation of a "JOJ/BC-S type aircraft
exposes ten times the area that an L-1011-1 does, and a 727 type
about five times the area.
It should be remembered that noise footprints should be considered as broad
brush lines. Noise varies quite slowly with distance and, considering a 9®
EPNdB contour, for instance, there is a significant area between the 89.5 and
90.5 EPNdB lines; yet subjectively the difference in noise would be insignificant.
The areas within a contour should not be read with excessive precision.
A-19
-------
!'J
EErEC/ Of. C UT3/} CM OA/.
tA/1 ECF/:'. NOSE, 'EXPO SURE
A#£/;:¦ FA'CLO S£a , BY-.90& pMc/8..
NO.....CVr&/fCK
30?,,,:
vczo., . yzc?
/¦•J. T j / COO
A-20
-------
<*7- 2. V'Z2- LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY
n ..r-
j
• •• • r •
p*c*a*£d or.
c»-n £'7-_ 2. V-Z2-
CHtCMtO
: • i I
; j :
A DIVIS'ON CP tOC**UD A:«C*AfT CO^^'ATlON
r*ot-..
•»COt«._
mz*ctrr ••© .
.!_....! .1:..j.. :,^jL-ioii-.l/iii/l07/D^8 FOOTP/UNT. COM PARISON
j_. .' | j...:.! | L: • .... ¦._...:... SO. BPNde .! .J L...! J
MfiKiM(/M \ D£S /lo-M WEi^H TS ,
£A/CL0S£P />*£/*S (S$V/>XZ 57/171/7£
..!...:..'. j/?/:¦£ or? \/)?pro<*c.tr.
L-iOU ;
MILES) :
7Q7AL
l.t.
j | 7 07/DCS
¦107/DC-8 \
101 -1
SO i HO
20 i to , 0 ,10 20 30 , HO \ SO \ 60 70
90 ; 100 \ I/O : 120
DISTANCE TO THRESHOLD,,IOOOPT. j DlSTA/fCS FROM BMKE RelE/jSE, IOOO f7~
-------
NOISE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION OF TAKEOFF AND APPROACH
PROFILES OPTIMIZED FOR NOISE ABATEMENT
H. Rodney Peery and Heinz Erzberger
Ames Research Center
SUMMARY
A flight investigation to determine the effective perceived noise level associated with certain
takeoff and landing profiles has been conducted using the Ames CV-990 aircraft. The tests were
designed to evaluate noise-optimum takeoff profiles, previously obtained in an analytical study, and
to investigate the potential for noise abatement of nonstandard approach procedures.
During the takeoff tests, the flaps were set at either 27° or 10° and the climb airspeeds varied
from V2+15 to V2+50 knots (V2 refers to the takeoff safety speed of the aircraft). Power was
reduced to yield either 500 or 750 ft/min rate of climb when the aircraft reached 1500 ft altitude.
The assumed noise sensitive ground vtrack extended along the runway centerline from 3.5 to
5.7 nautical miles from the start of the takeoff roll.
The average of the noise measurements taken at points along the noise sensitive portion of the
ground track was used to compare the various takeoff profiles. The takeoff that produced the least
average noise, 90.5 EPNdB, used takeoff flaps of 10° and a climb airspeed of V2 +50 knots to
1500 ft altitude, at which point power was reduced to yield a 750 ft/min rate of climb. (Flaps were
retracted soon after takeoff while the aircraft was accelerating to V2+50 knots.) The average noise
of a reference profile was 96.4 or 5.9 EPNdB more than the optimum profile. The reference profile
used 27° of flaps throughout the takeoff-climbout and a climb airspeed of V2+15 knots to 1500 ft
altitude where the power was reduced to yield a 500 ft/min rate of climb. These results verify
previously obtained analytical calculations.
The landing profiles were flown along a 3° glide slope at constant flap settings of 50°, 27°,
10°, and 0°. The approach speed for each profile was 1.3 Vsl+10 knots (VSl refers to stall speed
of the aircraft at the flap setting and gross weight used in the approach). In addition, a decelerating
profile with engines at flight idle and 0° flaps was flown over a single noise measuring station at an
altitude of 1000 ft. Reducing the flap setting from 50° to 0° on the approach reduced the noise
from 110.5 to 106.5 EPNdB along the ground track between 5 and 1 nautical miles from the
touchdown. The decelerating overflight with engines at flight idle reduced the noise an additional
12.5 EPNdB compared to the 0° flap approach at the same altitude.
A-22
-------
NOISE MEASUREMENTS FOR A THREE-ENGINE
TURBOFAN TRANSPORT AIRPLANE DURING CLIMBOUT
AND LANDING APPROACH OPERATIONS
By W. Latham Copeland and Lorenzo R. Clark
Langley Research Center
SUMMARY
Noise measurements have been made for a three-engine turbofan transport airplane
during climbout and landing approach operations in which the airplane operating proce-
dures were carefully controlled. These controlled procedures included an orderly
scheduling of operating variables such as engine power, speed, altitude, and flap settings.
The results of these studies are presented for seven climbout operations involving various
climb speeds, flap settings, and engine^power settings and three for landing approach
operations involving various glide-slope angles. The noise data were correlated with
airplane operating procedures and position.
In general, the results from the climbout studies indicated that lower noise levels
(6 dB to 14 dB) were associated with profiles employing lower engine powers during
second-segment climb. Also, for a given climb profile and climb rate,xslightly higher
noise levels are associated with operations employing fixed flaps than with a specified
flap retraction schedule.
The results from the landing approach studies indicated that generally lower noise
levels were associated with the steeper glide slopes. For these steeper glide slopes the
noise reductions attained (4 dB to 9 dB) resulted from both the increased altitude and the
lower engine powers.
A-23
-------
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATION
ON COMMUNITY NOISE
by
M.C. GREGOIRE
and
J. M. STRECKENBACH
&&irn.£, WHSMA/GroA/
June 1971
A-24
-------
M. C. Gregoire and J. M. Streckenbach
The Boeing Company
Commercial Airplane Group
Seattle, Washington
ABSTRACT
Several means of reducing community noise through
changes in airplane operations are discussed and specific exam-
ples given. The discussion is divided into two general areas of
responsibility: regulatory changes affecting traffic in the airport
vicinity and operational or procedural changes available to the
airlines, The latter category is further divided into those
procedures currently optional to the pilot and airline and those
that can be made available through airplane system modifica-
tions. Flight profiles for specific airplanes at specific airports are
included, along with the noise reductions available. System block
diagrams and actual flight data are provided when available. It is
concluded that significant reductions in community noise can be
attained through operating changes, without affecting safety, and
at low cost. Recommendations are made for a course of action to
define and implement feasible techniques.
The third area, noise-abatement operating procedures, is
discussed as the main topic of this paper.
NOISE REDUCTION THROUGH
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
A potential for significant relief of the community noise
problem at relatively low cost lies in several areas of airplane
operation in the vicinity of airports. In 1966, Oscar Bakke of the
FAA presented a paper that discussed several aspects of air traffic
control and flight procedures as related to reducing community
noise.''* Some of the general areas discussed by Mr. Bakke are
covered in this paper, with the added benefit of several years'
study and actual flight testing conducted since his paper.
Examples are presented for specific aircraft in an attempt to add
emphasis to the feasibility of several methods of reducing
community noise.
INTRODUCTION
Public pressure is increasing daily against the airlines, the
airframe and engine manufacturers, and local airport authorities
to reduce aircraft-generated noise in airport communities. Three
general areas of community noise improvement have been and
continue to be studied to solve this ever-increasing problem. The
three areas can be summarized as:;
1) Reduction of the noise at its source by quieting the
engine installations on the aircraft
Recommendations of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) relative to safety considerations in estab-
lishing noise abatement operating procedures'^) are recognized as
typical constraints in the discussions that follow.
Potential areas of noise reduction through operating pro-
cedures fall roughly into two categories: {1) Federal or local air
regulations and (2) operating procedures that are or may be made
available to the airlines.
Regulatory
Holding and maneuver
altitudes
Operational
Delayed flap and
gear extension
2) Changes in land utilization in airport communities
3) Changes in operational procedures in the vicinity of
airports
The first of these areas has been the subject of extensive
investigation by industry and government agencies for several
years. Recent enactment of Federal Air Regulations, Part 36, by
the Federal Aviation Administration has established noise criteria
for the design and certification of new aircraft not previously
certificated. Although not the subject of this paper^eonsiderable
work now being dol%\ in industry and government programs is
related to examining means.of retrofitting the existing fleet of
commercial fanjet transpou uircraft to significantly reduce their
community noise levels.;As would be ejected, the magnitude of
noise reduction attained*^ closely related to-technical feasibility
and to the economics of airplane modification and Operation.
To summarize the second area, it will only be stated here
that both Federal and local agencies are continuing to study the
possibilities of community noise relief through better land
utilization. Such studies encompass the subjects of improved
planning for new airports, tightened building codes and zoning
restrictions, and revised land utilization around existing airports.
Obviously, as in the case of retrofitting the current licet with
quieter engine installations, economics is an important and
unavoidable consideration in land utilization studies.
• Optimized traffic
patterns
• Glide slope
Glide slope
intercept altitude
• Two-segment
approaches
• Flap position
for landing
• Takeoff
procedures
As will be discussed later, any consideration of these potentials
for noise relief must include their relationship to safety, airplane
performance constraints, aircraft modification requirements,
pilot acceptance, the geography of the specific airport, and the
economic aspects of the change.
Regulatory Changes
ni general, any action taken to increase the height oi
atfccil't over a community will reduce noise in the community.
Many complai-nts in the past have been based on aircraft flying at
low altitude for miles over- Hie community during landing
approach. The FAA "keep 'em high" order,1released on
September 19, 1970, has community noise reduction as one of
its purposes. Approach and departure handling of commercial
jets at many airports are already reflecting the benefits of this
order. Specific quantitative examples of implementation of such
procedures will be shown later in this paper.
A-25
-------
altitudes over suDuroan areas are suuwn m nguic i iu i>o>v u
sizeable effect on noise under the aircraft. The example shown is
based on a 727-200 airplane at a landing weight of 150,000 lb.
Besides the noise-reduction benefits of increasing the altitude,
additional benefits exist in selection of airplane configuration
(e.g., flaps and landing gear). As illustrated, in the zero-flap,
gear-up configuration, a noise reduction of 9 EPNdB* results
from increasing the altitude from 1500 to 3000 ft. Avoiding flap
and gear extension until really required, combined with the
1500-ft altitude increase, gives noise reductions of as much as 16
EPNdB.
that the airplane followed a path above the ILS glide slope. These
flights have demonstrated that raising glide slopes is worthy of
consideration as a noise-abatement action.
Analyses conducted by Boeing generally confirm the North-
west Airlines flight data. Figure 2 illustrates the trades between
glide slope angle and noise for the 727-200 airplane at various
distances from the runway threshold. Noise reductions on the
order of 5 to 7 EPNdB are shown for a 1° increase in glide slope.
Similar benefits are available with other aircraft.
100
16 EPNdB
_ 90
9 EPNdB
I
Down
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ALTITUDE (1000 FT)
Figure 1. Effect of Holding or Maneuver Altitudes on Noise
It is apparent from this that, in any cases where holding or
maneuver altitudes can be raised and clean configurations
maintained within constraints established by traffic require-
ments, definite reductions in community noise can be realized at
little or no cost.
Optimized Traffic Patterns. The noise benefits available
through optimizing traffic patterns are mainly related to routing
of arriving and departing aircraft over nonsensitive areas of the
community. This is being done at many aiports now, in some
cases at the expense of traffic handling flexibility. Rerouting of
traffic in the JFK International Airport area in New York to
avoid flying over densely populated areas has severely restricted
the traffic handling flexibility of that airport, but there is no
questioning the direct benefit of such action to the noise-
sensitive public.
Glide Slope. Standard glide slopes at airports throughout
the world have'been generally established on the basis of safety,
pilot acceptance, and airplane performance capabilities. This
should not preclude a further look at glide slope changes as a
potential area for noise abatement, as long as these same factors
are kept in mind. The easiest point of departure for discussing
glide slope changes starts with the fact that 3° glide slopes are
generally accepted and are standard at many airports today.
However, approximately 30% of present glide slopes at major
United States airports are as low as 2.5°.
Numerous actual test fliffits -have -been, conducted by
Northwest Airlines^ on 707, 727, and 747 aircrSfrat-slide
slopes on the order of 1/2° above the ILS slope. These flights
have demonstrated approach noise reductions of 1 to 5 PNdB,
depending on the airplane type and microphone location. The
~The EPNdB noise unit incorporates adjustments for the
subjective effects of aircraft noise on humans, including
corrections for tone and duration, as defined in Federal Air
Regulations, Part 36, dated November 3, 1969.
23-3.0° =^5°
110
CO
Q
Z
ui 100
O
z
90
5 EPNdB
r~
2.5°
"0»
~r
7 EPNdB
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 2. Effect of ILS Glide Slope on Noise
Another way of looking at the noise benefits of higher glide
slopes is the change in community area in square miles subjected
to a given noise level. Figure 3, again using the 727-200 airplane
as an example, shows the area in the community under the
approach path subjected to a noise level of 90 EPNdB or higher
as a function of glide slope angle. Note that a change from 2.5° to
3.5° glide slope will result in nearly a 70% reduction in the
community area subjected to the reference noise level. This can
be related to 70% of the population in a residential area.
The foregoing discussion has related to small changes in
glide slope that we believe could be implemented at relatively
low cost at all airports without degrading safety.** They represent
changes that appear to be well within the region of acceptance by
most airline pilots flying current-generation jet transport aircraft.
Precedence has been established and demonstrated by the 3.22°
ILS glide slope at San Diego International and by hundreds of jet
landings per week for several years on the 3.5s ILS glide slope on
runway 27L at Berlin's Tempelhof Airport. To our knowledge,
no landing accidents have occurred at Tempelhof that could be
attributed to the glide slope angle. Pilot acceptance of 3.5° glide
slopes, without need for changes in approach techniques, has
-been indicated by the Air Line Pilots' Association.^
**For Category II landings, FAA Advisory Circular 120-29,
dated September 25, 1970, specifies a 3" maximum glide slope.
Reconsideration of this limitation may be justified in the
future in light of community noise benefits of increased glide
slope angles.
A-2fr
-------
| 0.5
~ 0.5
oc
ui
£ 0.5
HI
0 0
1 °-5
inresRoia-
90 fcPNdB contours
0.5
0
2.5°glide slope
Area : 10.0 sq mi
3.0°glideslope
5.2 sq mi
5 °'5
_L
3.5 glideslope
3.2 $q mi
-L.
3456789 10
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI*
Figure 3. Noise Footprint Comparisons of Various Glide Slope Angles
11
12
13
Future development of the currently planned microwave
scanning-beam guidance system will provide additional noise-
reduction capability in the areas of traffic patterns and glide
slopes. Such a system will provide pilots with programmed,
curved, precision flightpath guidance data in both elevation and
azimuth, permitting steeper descents and avoidance of residential
communities.
Glide Slope Intercept Altitude. The effect on community
noise of glide slope horizontal intercept altitude is illustrated in
figure 4. Here again, using the 727-200 in a simplified example,
the airplane is shown approaching the ILS glide slope at altitudes
of 1500 and 3000 ft. In both approaches, the same flap and gear
positions are used. The 7 EPNdB lower community noise for the
airplane at 3000 ft is due only to the altitude difference. This
simple case illustrates the type of noise benefits currently being
attained through implementation of the FAA "keep 'em high"
order discussed previously.
i-
u-
I-
I
O
u3
x
4Cr Flaps
Advance
throttle
25°Flaps, gear down
i—r
gear down -
120
-no
QO
O
z
O.
111
54 100
UJ
U)
O
z
90
80
1
7 EPNdB
1500
=t
:t
~
14
2 4 6 8 10 12
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 4. Effect of Horizontal Intercept Altitude on Community Noise
has been instituted for noise control. We have constructed the
illustration using a 727-200 airplane, following our understanding
of typical Love Field approaches by these two arrival routes,
including vectors to final approach course. Although the ground
tracks for the two approaches are different, their respective
altitudes above the community serve to compare the differences
in noise levels under the flightpath attributed to low versus high
profiles. Similar noise benefits can be shown for any jet transport
approaching Love Field on these profiles.
_ 8
H
I—
X
o
UJ
X
•>gO.
15°t
I ^
Flaps
3tf>-
T.2S°
Bridgeport Two ^
"""
Flaps
30° -
110
100
m
o
z
£ 90
UJ
in
5
z
80
70
SgPAvo .
Xi
4 8 12 16 20
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure S. Effect of Increased Attitude on Noise in Dallas-Love Field
Arrival Routes
24
Now let us take a situation in which the noise abatement
principles of the FAA order have been implemented at a major
airport. Figure 5 shows two arrival profiles into Love Field,
Dallas, Texas, using runway 13L. The Bridgeport Two arrival was
in use prior to August 20, 1970. Since then the Holly One arrival
Another example of what higher intercept altitudes will do
for community noise is shown in figure 6. Here a 707-320B
airplane is shown at various intercept altitudes approaching the
2.75° ILS glide slope on JFK runway 22L in New York City.
Again, as in the Dallas illustration, it is seen that implementation
of higher altitudes over the community provides significant noise
relief at minimal cost.
A-27
-------
o
o
o
X
a 2
CD
Q
z
a.
UJ
Ui
c/j
O
z
0
120
110
100
90
80
Flaps
T
14°
50°
-4^
14°
¦"l.
-14°
!.75°Glide s
<
I
lope 25°
\
\
L_
Interce
Dt altitudes
1700 Ft
i
\
V ,
I
8.5 EPNdB
1
3000 Ft
L\
9 EPNdB
-r1-
5000 Ft
4 8 12 16 20 24
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 6. E ffect of Increased Altitude on Noise in New York—JFK
Arrival Routes
Airline Operational Changes
The foregoing discussion has shown some of the community
noise benefits attainable through changes in Federal and local
regulations related to holding altitudes, traffic patterns, glide
slopes, and glide slope intercept altitudes. Now let us look at
some of the procedural options available (or that can possibly be
made available) to the airlines for reducing community noise,
separate from regulatory changes. In some cases, as will be
discussed, equipment modification may be necessary or desirable
to permit certain procedures without adverse effects on safety or
pilot acceptance.
Delayed Flap and Gear Extension. Noise in the community
can be reduced by delaying landing flap and gear extension until
close to the runway threshold. Figure 7 compares two cases for a
727-200 airplane. Note that, for several miles over the com-
munity, the Relayed flap and gear extension reduces the noise on
the order of 7 EPNdB. This option is available to the airlines
without airplane modification. The minimum distance from the
threshold at which landing flaps and gear are extended is subject
to pilot discretion but can be considerably closer in than is often
practiced, with no effect on safety.
Whatever the distance from the threshold may be for the
above technique, using current airplane systems, the distance can
be reduced even further if sufficient systems automation is
provided to avoid increasing pilot workload or degrading safety.
To gain the maximum noise benefit from delayed flap and gear
extension, the procedure must be capable of maintaining reduced
thrust levels until the airplane is beyond the noise-sensitive area,
e.g.. probably less than 1 nmi from the threshold.
Figure 8 shows that, using the same profiles as in figure 7
but delaying extension of landing flaps until closer in and with
the aid of systems automation, the noise reduction under the
flightpath continues to within less than 1 nmi from the runway
threshold.
o
o
o
I
o
UJ
X
r Advance throttle J
i-Gear down, 40°flap
t
Jo°?W,9ear
120
_ 110
CO
Q
Z
- 100
UJ
10
O
z
90
80
r-7 E
PNdB
40
'Plap
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 7. Noise Reduction by Delayed Flap and Gear Extension
H*
U.
8
O
X
0
Gj
1
I I
Advance throttle
Gear down, 40 flap
,5° pap
120
S 110
QQ
a
z
cl
uj
- 100
UJ
i/i
O
z
90
80
¦
-6 EPNd
B
1 «
s
8
EPNdB-i
Os
aPs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 8. Noise Reduction by Delayed Flap and Gear Extension-
Automated Approach
Figure 9 compares the noise levels of figures 7 and 8 by
means of noise footprint contours. The contour for flying down
the glide slope with 40° flaps and gear down has an enclosed
community area of 5.2 sq mi. By delaying extension of flaps and
gear, this area is seen to reduce by 64'A or 127c, depending on
whether the profiles of figures 7 or 8 are used.
As previously stated, delaying flap and gear extension to as
late as shown in figure 8 requires sufficient system modifications
to avoid increasing pilot workload or degrading safety. The
Boeing Company has improvised a closed-loop system that holds
to these guidelines. A closed-loop system is one that has a
programmed schedule but has the inherent logic and feedback to
correct for deviations from the schedule. The system has been
A-28
-------
40°f(aps, gear dcwn
Area - 5.2 sq mi
90 EPMcfB coniours
Oelaved flaps and gear
Area - ).9 so m
Threshold
Delayed Claps and gear
with automation
Area =• 1.5 sq mi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DISTANCE FBOJW THRESHOLD (NM)
Figure 9. Noise Footprint Comparisons of Delayed Flap and Gear Approaches
operated in a flight simulator and flight tested on the company-
owned 727-200. The components of the system, shown in the
block diagram of figure 10, consist of:
1) Autothrottles
2) Electrohydraulic flow valves
3) Flap position transmitters
4) Control panel
5) Auto flap coupler
6) Autothrottle computer
7) Visual landing aid sight and computer
8) Central air data computer
AiripMd
Autoflap coupler
Primary ntflru control
CtntrM
nr tod
computet
S*wo
impliftw
Ft»
COlt'O'
valv»
7r#rtf»r
Hydraulic
motor
tnnuar
valva
Pilot- -
control C
Hydraulic
htpply
Nydr*ultc
'•turn
An0)a ot
UtKfc
itnior
Bn«i
HltciiOn
Circuit
Throw#
Aulo
——. TStuft
th/Ctilt
AHrmattr
5) As [lie airpfane passes through approximately I 200 t't
above the runway, the system is triggered.
6) The altitude change demands a speed reduction that is
accomplished by retarding the throttle.
7) The flaps are controlled by airspeed and extend as
speed is reduced.
,S) When Haps reach the final desired position and the
airspeed is within 5 kn of the final speed set on the
bug, the throttles advance automatically to arrest the
deceleration. At this point, the airplane is about 200 ft
above the runway. The airspeed then stabilizes and is
constant until landing flare is initiated.
Throughout the autoflap approach, because of speed pro-
gramming, the airplane's body attitude remains constant. The
sample flight profile, figure H, demonstrates the automatic flap
management experienced with the Boeing flight test airplane.
This particular profile was flown without use of the autopilot by
manually following the instrument cues.
; 25,000
15,000
5,000
CJ 30
LU
O 20
40 30 20 10 0 50
COORDINATION TIME (HR-MIN-SECt
Figure 11. Autoflap Approach—727-200 Flight Test
Figure 10. Autoflap Schematic-Approach Mode
The procedure that has been the most successful follows:
!) The pilot establishes approach configuration - flaps 15°.
gear down, altitude above 1 500 ft, and airspeed e<.\ua!
to VrL,f + 55 kn.
2) Prior to intercepting the glide slope, the autoflap
system is armed by selecting the LAND mode on the
control panel.
3) The flap handle is then moved to the desired final Hap
setting, and the corresponding final approach speed is
set on the speed index (bug).
4) The glide slope is captured and final descent initiated.
Note that the low thrust level for approach Haps is held
during the flap extending period until the 350-l't altitude point.
The speed and altitude are bled off smoothly us the flaps extend.
The maximum throttle movement during flap extension was 1.3°
{System refinements, such as automatic trimming devices and
autopilot, are being investigated to reduce this amount even
further.) At the point svhere Haps are full down and speed isVro)-
+ 5 kn. thrust required to hold the glide slope (about 21.000 lb)
is applied automatically. The remainder of the approach is flown
normally.
In view of the substantial noise reduction shown in figure N.
tins concept merits further development.
A-29
-------
Two-Segment Approaches. Significant reductions in com-
munity noise result from intercepting the final glide slope from a
steep descent, say 6°, as compared to flying the glide slope from
many miles out. Figure 12 compares the approach profiles and
corresponding community noise levels of a 727-200 airplane
following a normal (3°) glide slope, and the same airplane
performing a two-segment approach with steep descent to the
glide slope. Flap and gear configurations are the same in both
profiles, so the noise benefits shown are related only to
differences in airplane descent angles. Note that the transition is
made at 1000 ft altitude (about 3 nmi from the threshold^). This
will give the pilot adequate time to stabilize on the glide slope
without revisions to the current airplane systems.
x
<£
LU
X
Glide slope
120
110
Ofl
o
z
§i100
U)
(/)
O
z
90
80
I—5-
5 EPNdB
3°
-9.6 EP
MdB
H-
u.
X
o
uj
X
Glide slope
120
£110
O
z
a.
uj
^100
CO
O
z
90
80
1—5.2 Ef
NdB
13 El
NdB
2
S 0.5b
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 13. Two-Segment Approach with Close-In Transition
90 EPNdB contours
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 12. Two-Segment Approach
By providing system automation to permit transition from
the steep descent segment to the glide slope closer to the airport,
the noise benefit to the community improves, as shown in figure
13. This illustration uses the same airplane configurations as
shown in figure 12, but transition from 6° to 39 slopes is initiated
at 250 ft altitude, less than a mile from the threshold. Figure 13
shows noise reductions on the order of 5 to 13 EPNdB at
distances of 1 to 6 nmi from the runway threshold. These are
significant reductions, certainly of a magnitude readily discern-
able to residents living under the approach flightpath of the
airplane.
Figure 14 compares the noise footprint contours of the
above two-segment approaches with a normal 3° glide slope. Note
the significant noise benefit of a 73% area reduction in the
contour for the close-in transition of figure 13.
Regarding the feasibility of operating on such a profile, let
us discuss means of accomplishing this steep descent with close-in
transition within limits of safety and pilot acceptance.
Simulator development and flight testing of the Boeing
model 367-80 (707/KC-135 prototype), conducted in 1968
under the NASA/Boeing investigation of noise abatement landing
approaches'^7^8), demonstrated that two-segment approaches
UJ
z 0
3
K 0.5
UJ
H*
Z 0.5
UJ
20
2 0.5
Threshold
K
3°GMde slope
Area = 5.2 sq mi
>
Two-segment approach
Area ¦ 2.6 sq mi
g 0-5
1°
§0.5*-
Q
Two-segment approach
with autoflaps
Area ¦ 1.4 sq mi
x
tBolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc/6^ considered two-segment
approaches in their 1970 stydy, with transition from 6° to 3"
slopes at 3 nmi from the threshold.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 14. Noise Footprint Comparisons of Two-Segment Approaches
with close-in transition are feasible. This investigation was flown
at Oakland International Airport using the existing glide slope of
2.65® and steep descent of 6° with intercept altitudes of 250 and
400 ft. The research airplane was equipped with improvements
over current jet transports, including a modified flight director,
an autothrottle, and stability augmentation that improved
longitudinal and lateral directional handling qualities. The test
profiles were flown by one airline pilot, six FAA pilots, and four
NASA pilots under simulated instrument conditions.
The conclusions reached were that two-segment profiles
could be flown in a modified jet transport with the same
precision as a conventional instrument approach without a
significant increase in pilot workload and with a significant
reduction in community noise.
Adoption of such procedures for airline use would require
further development and tests to establish the requirements and
operational limitations of two-segment approaches in an
environment more representative of airline operations and under
conditions of combined adverse weather and airplane equipment
or guidance failures.
A-30
-------
community noise reduction is the pilot option of flap position
selection during approach and landing. We have probably all
experienced actual flights in which landing flaps were dragged for
many miles over a residential community prior to intercepting
the glidepath. Figure 15 compares two approaches for the
727-200 in the same profile but at different flap positions. It
shows that, at the same altitude, there is a noise difference of
from 3 to 7.6 EPNdB between these two cases. As a comparison,
a 707-3 20B or C landing at 25° flaps is about 3 to 4 EPNdB
quieter at 1 nmi from the threshold than when using the normal
50° flaps. Modification to permit 25° landing flaps on these
airplanes has been determined feasible. The 5-kn higher landing
speed for 25° flaps would result in about a 340-ft increase in
landing field length.
3(J° Flaps
Advance
throttle ¦
Down
Down
15°
Advance
throttle
2
Down
40'
0
120
4 EPNdB
-110
8 EPNdB
40° flaps
15EPNdB
15° flaps
0
2
4
8
12
6
10
14
16
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 16. Combined Effects of Flaps, Altitude, and Glide Slope
on Approach Noise
1201 f
¦3 EPNdB
5 EPNdB
ACP Flaps
8 EPNdB
801
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 15. Effect of Flap Setting on Approach Noise
If we now combine the above flap options with the effects
of intercept altitude and moderate change in glide slope discussed
earlier, we have the picture shown in figure 16, showing
significantly greater noise reductions than in figure 15.
Both of these profiles are within the limits of current
airplane capability and operating procedures and we believe
would not require any special equipment or techniques.
Now let us include the capabilities available through the
approach system automation discussed in connection with
delayed flap and gear extension and with steep, two-segment
descents. Modifying the figure 16 profiles to include these
capabilities as well as a 3.5° glide slope, we arrive at figure 17,
which represents the total potential noise reduction available
through adoption of approach noise abatement regulations and
procedures and development of appropriate equipment.
Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedures. Many takeoff profile
choices can be, and have been, investigated for reduction of
community noise. The most obvious, involving only the choice
between takeoff power all the way versus power cutback at some
acceptable altitude, is recognized as a means of reducing noise in
the close-in community.
Mr. Bakke^1) compared several takeoff procedures proposed
by the FAA, by the Air Line Pilots' Association, and standard
4
Gear
up
LL
Advance
throttle
•Retard throttle
Advance
throttle"
40®Flaps
2
40'
Down
0
\T
EPNdB
1 \
i
r1
40° 1
laps
T
VJ1 EPN
J
dB ^
1
17 EPf\
dB
15°
Flaps
J
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD (NMI)
Figure 17. Approach Noise Reduction Potential Through Combination of
New Techniques
operating practices of five major airlines. Some of these
procedures, monitored in actual day-to-day operations at JFK
International Airport, demonstrated noise reductions over the
community on the order of 4 to 7.5 PNdB. Such reductions are
to be encouraged. Studies at Boeing have generally confirmed
these findings. Noise-abatement takeoff procedures can be
performed effectively with virtually all present-day jet transport
aircraft without modification of the aircraft, with no effect on
safety, and with little effect on pilot workload. Beyond this,
techniques involving some automation and capable of even
greater noise benefits are believed within easy reach. Discussions
of specific examples of both types of procedures follow.
Again, using the 727-200 airplane as an example, figure 18
compares two takeoff profiles, both employing power cutback at
3.5 nmi from brake release but using different flaps. Power
cutback in both cases is to the level that would maintain level
A-31
-------
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (1000 FT)
Figure 18. Comparison of Two Takeoff Profiles—Manual Flap Retraction
flight with one engine inoperative. Both airplanes take off with
25° flaps. One maintains this flap setting throughout climbout,
whereas the other, after accelerating to V-> + 10 kti, retracts flaps
to 15°. Note that the 15° climbout permits a steeper climb
gradient (lower noise at takeoff power) and cutback to lower
thrust (one-engine-out level flight thrust for I 5° instead of 25°).
resulting in lower noise after cutback due to both greater altitude
and lower thrust. In the case illustrated, the noise reductions are
1 KPNdB and 4 F.PNdB before and after cutback, respectively.
This procedure is optional to pilots, requires no airplane
modifications, and is similar to operations being used at the
present time by certain airlines. Comparable noise reductions
were experienced by NASA during 1968 noise abatement
takeoffs' ' of the Ames CV-990 airplane at Wallops Station.
An improvement in the noise picture of figure 18 is
attainable by incorporating an automated flap system, permitting
speed-controlled programming of flaps during climbout. Figure
19 illustrates such a procedure, in which, in one ease, the flaps
are programmed to 10° after a 25° takeoff, and in the other case,
the llaps are 25° all the way. Figure 20 shows a reduction of 50',f
in the land area enclosed by the 90 FPNdU footprint contour for
the autoflap profile.
The additional noise benefit of this procedure seems to
justify further investigation of means by which it can be accepted
as routine. The closed-loop system mentioned earlier, but in a
takeoff mode, has been simulator tested and (light tested by
Boeing. Tiie system is shown in the block diagram, figure 21. and
consists of a simplification of the approach mode.
9°6 8 to 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (1000 FT)
Figure 19. Comparison of Two Takeoff Profiles-Automated Flap Retraction
The takeoff procedure is simple, utilizing the following:
1) Pilot selects the takeoff flap position.
2) He then arms the autoflap system by selecting the
TAKEOFF mode on the control panel.
3) The flap handle is moved to the position to which the
flaps will be retracted.
4) The flaps do not move until an electrohydraulic
transfer valve is opened.
5) The transfer valve will not open until the following
conditions are satisfied:
a) Airspeed must exceed V-? + 10 kn for the takeoff
flaps.
b) Landing gear must be up and doors closed.
6) When the above conditions are met, the flaps retract at
the normal rate to the position selected previously.
7) When this position is reached, the airplane establishes
best climb profile.
Threshold
90 EPNOB contours
M
26 flaps
Area - 39.5 sq mi
Autofiaps
Araa * 20.1 sq mi
SO 100
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (1000 FT)
Figure 20. Noise Footprint Comparisons of Takeoff Profiles
150
A-32
-------
Flap*
Amplifier
Gaar up
logic
Hydraulic
Flap
throttla
Primary flight comto'.i
Flap
Figure 21. Autoflap Schematic-Takeoff Mode
The system also has the capability of sensing horizontal
distance. This information is obtained from the autothrottle
accelerometer, which uses double integration to compute the
horizontal distance. The computed distance then is compared to
a reference distance, and, if exceeded, a light will be illuminated
in the cockpit to alert the pilot to initiate noise-abatement thrust
cutback procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the foregoing discussion and on the results
of testing conducted by NASA, the FAA, the aircraft industry,
and the airlines, the following general conclusions are drawn:
1) Significant reductions in community noise can be
attained through early adoption of readily available
regulatory and procedural operations changes in the
vicinity of airports. Such changes can be made at little
cost, would require no particular increase in pilot skill
or pilot workload, and are not considered to have any
effect on safety.
2) Further noise reduction benefits are available through
certain additional operating procedures requiring
development of techniques and equipment modifica-
tions to avoid increasing pilot workload.
These conclusions were generally supported in an April
1971 paper,presented by the Air Line Pilots' Association at
the FAA National Aviation System Planning Review Conference.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the potential community noise benefits to be
gained through noise abatement operating procedures, a two-
phase positive course of action to define and implement feasible
techniques is recommended. We suggest that such a program be
conducted under FAA sponsorship as an industry cooperative
effort, with AIA, ATA, and ALPA working together as a team.
Phase I would entail early implementation of regulatory and
operational procedures that can be accomplished at little cost
and with little or no equipment modification. Typically, they
include:
1) Establishing minimum holding pattern and maneuver
altitudes of 3000 ft or higher over the terrain
2) Routing traffic oyer low population densities to the
extent feasible
3) Raising all glide slopes to a minimum of 3°, with 3.5°
being given serious consideration
4) Hstahlishing minimum glule slope Horizontal mtenv.nt
altitudes of 3000 ft or higher over the terrain
5) Delaying extension of landing flaps and gear as long as
practical
6) Using reduced landing flap settings whenever operating
conditions permit (at the expense of some increase in
landing speeds and landing field lengths)
7) Using segmented takeoff profiles adaptable to each
airplane type, specifics of such profiles to be worked
out cooperatively by the airlines, the manufacturers,
and the FAA
Phase II would include development of additional noise
abatement procedures, discussed in this paper, requiring airplane
and/or ground equipment modification to preclude degrading
safety or increasing pilot workload. The program should consider
all U.S. subsonic turbojet-powered commercial transport aircraft
as candidates.^ Participating AIA companies would develop
techniques and related equipment modifications for their respec-
tive models and flight test the procedures using company, FAA,
and airline/ALPA pilots. It would be desirable to standardize
procedures, to the extent permitted by individual airplane
characteristics, to simplify adoption by the airlines.
Firm technical data would be derived to form a basis for
maximum exploitation of the noise-abatement benefits of regula-
tory and operational changes, including appropriate ground and
airborne systems modifications. The program should aim toward
ensuring adequate safety; attaining worthwhile noise reduction;
eliminating those procedures determined not feasible or worth-
while; and gaining FAA, airline, and pilot acceptance.
It is further recommended that applicable air regulations,
such as FAR, Part 36, be modified such that encouragement and
incentive is given to poise abatement through operating pro-
cedures. This should be an inherent part of the overall effort to
reduce community annoyance.
REFERENCES
1. Oscar Bakke, "Air Traffic Control and Flight Procedures,"
paper included in a report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel,
Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports, Office of
Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President,
March 1966.
2. ICAO lettei AN 1/54.6-70/32, app. A, annex 16, atch. C,
"Guidance Material Relating to Safety Considerations in the
Establishment of Aircraft Noise Abatement Operating Pro-
cedures,"March 19, 1970.
3. Arrival and Departure Handling of High-Performance Air-
planes, FAA order 7110.22, September 19, 1970.
4. WittrsHn- S-. Hieronymus, "New Landing Method Aimed at
Reduction in Approach Noise." Aviation Week. March 1,
1971, pp. 46 and 47.
ft The program should include the results of the FAA-sponsored
measurement program currently being conducted by Hydro-
space Research Corporation.^" Four different airplanes are
being subjected to noise measurements while Hying a variety
of noise-abatement approach and takeoff profiles.
A-33
-------
5. -tttplxin Robert N. Rockwell (Chaw-nan, l\oise Abaumcnt
Committee, Air Lines Pilots' Association), "Airport Noise
and Aircraft Operations," paper presented at the FAA
National Aviation System Planning Review Conference,
Washington, D.C., April 29, 1971.
6. D. I . Bishop and R. D. Horonjeff, Noise Exposure Forecast
Contours for Aircraft Noise Tradeoff Studies at Three Major
Airports, Final Report FAA-NO-70-7, Contract FA
68WA-1900, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., July 1970.
7. Clarence C. Flora, Gerhard K. L. Kriechbaum, and Wayne
Willich, A Flight Investigation of Systems Developed for
Reducing Pilot Workload and Improving Tracking Accuracy
During Noise-Abatement Landing Approaches, NASA Final
Report CR-1427, Contract NAS 2-4200, The Boeing
Company, October 1969.
8. Ilervey C, Quigley, C. Thomas Snyder, t-mmett B. Fry, Leo
J. Power, and Robert C. Innis of Ames Research Center; and
W. Latham Copeland, Langley Research Center, Flight and
Simulation Investigation of Methods for Implementing
Noise-Abatement Landing Approaches, NASA Technical
Note TN-D-5781, May 1970.
9. H. Rodney Peery and Heintz Erzberger, Noise Measurement
Evaluation of Takeoff and Approach Profiles Optimized for
Noise Abatement, NASA Technical Note TN D-6246, March
1971.
10. Operational Procedures Noise Reduction Program, FAA
contract awarded to Hydrospace Research Corporation.
Program procured under FAA RFP WA5R-1-0236,
November 16, 1970. Scheduled for completion (final report
draft) on July 1, 1971.
•A-34
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
A-35
-------
FAA-RD-71-84
l&-c.; cH 3/3-9/'? 3
PA" A
MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE
FROM FOUR AIRCRAFT DURING
APPROACH AND DEPARTURE OPERATIONS
(727, KC-135, 707-320B, AND DC-9]
Carole S. Tanner
HYDROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION
1360 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92106
J«T£SOt
tparapo^y
U.S. International Transportation Exposition
Dulles International Airport
Washington, D.C.
May 27-June 4, 1972
SEPTEMBER 1971
FINAL REPORT
Availability is unlimited. Document may be released to the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, for sale to the public.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Systems Research and Development Service
Washington, D.C. 20591
A-36
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this work was to measure, evaluate, and identify the
noise levels along the flight track generated by 727, KC-135, 707-320B, and
DC-9 aircraft. The aircraft were directed to operate in a wide variety of
takeoff and approach procedures. The effort involved acquisition of acousti-
cal, meteorological, aircraft tracking, and aircraft operational data. Micro-
phones were located four feet above the ground in an array parallel to the flight
track along the extended runway centerline up to 10 nautical miles from the
runway threshold. All tests were conducted at the National Aviation Facilities
Experimental Center (NAFEC) during a four-week period in April 1971.
A-37
-------
Table II. Takeoff Procedures
j Hun
! No.
Takeoff {
Weight j Parameters
T
Segment A-B
Altitude;
hb j Segment B-C
Altitude
he
Segment C-D
Segment D-E
(3000 ft)
T1
T5
j Max
; Land
Max
T.O.
T3
T4
T2
T6
T7
T8
Max
Land
Max
Land
Max
Land
Max
T.O.
Max
Land
Max
i Laud
Speed
Thrust
_Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
Speed
Thrust
Flap
V2 10*
T.O.
T.O.
v2 10-
T.O.
T.O.
v2 10
T.O.
T.O.
V2 20
T.O.
T.O.
V"2 20
T.O.
T.O.
V2 20
T.O.
T.O.
V2 26
T.O.
5
V2 10
T.O.
T.O.
400
400
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
j 250K
T.O.
Clean
' 250 K
T.O.
Clean
' V'zf"
T.O./EPR-1
Clean
' V2 20
EPR-2
T.O.
" V2 20
EPR-t
T.O.
' V2 20
:epr-1
T.O.
I V2 20
:epr-1
i5
V2 10
I 1.6 EPR
i 14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2500
250K
ERCT
Clean
NA
250K
ERCT
Clean
Vzf
EPR-1
Clean
NA
250K
Climb T.
Clean
V2 ' 20
EPR-2
T.O.
V2 "30
EPR-1
T.O.
V2 20
EPR-1
T.O.
V2 20
EPR-1
5
250K
1.72 EPR
Clean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPR-1 Thrust necessary to maintain straight and level flight at
maximum takeoff weight with one engine out
EPR-2 An EPR setting intermediate between EPR-1 and takeoff settings (ERCT)
NA Not applicable
T.O. Takeoff setting
ERCT Enroute climb thrust
Maximum 15-degree pitch angle.
Zero flap speed.
10 N. M
Table III. Approach to Landing Procedures (Maximum Landing Weight)
3000 FT
3.1 SEGMENT —
2.6 SEGMENT
(NORMAL GLIDE
SLOPE)
3.6 SEGMENT
6 SEGMENT
1500 FT
1000 FT
NOTE:
GEAR UP AND APPROACH
CONFIGURATION UNTIL
REACHING B, C. OR D.
Profile
Configuration
Land-Max
Land-Alt
Approach
- Conventional (1500 ft-F-D-E)
All*
A12
A13
Conventional (3000 ft-A-H-E)
A21
A22
A23»*
Two Segment (A-C-G-E)
A41
High Glide Slope (3000 ft-A-I-E)
A31
Middle Glide Slope (3000 ft-A-B-E)
A51
* Segment F-D of profile All will be flown at two different configurations;
A11A as identified. A11B will tie flown at a lesser flap setting.
** Reconfigure to landing flap, max, at 500 feet.
A-38
-------
SWEraSEEEffiS
Xi
200-219,000 LB
42-50°F
4- RELATIVE HUMIDITY. .41-56%
WIND SPEED.
WIND DIRECTION
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT
H TEMPERATURE
.10-13 KT
.340 DEG
SAE B
O-RUN 1
RUN 2
* - RUN 3
z . run 4 r
RUN5
r- RUN 6
••• ;-r
20 30 40 50 60
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT x 1000)
Figure C-3. Takeoff Profile Tl, 707-320B Aircraft
® © © ©
© ©
© ©
©
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 200-219,000 LB
TEMPERATURE 42-50° F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. .41-56%
WIND SPEED 10-13 KT
WIND DIRECTION 340 DEG
REFERENCE
20 30 40 50 60
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT X 1000)
Figure C-l. Takeoff Noise Levels for Profile Tl,
707-3 20B Aircraft
A-39
-------
10
inn-
; ! !AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 205-220,000 LB i !
"i^ri TEMPERATURE 47-64°F
I . i RELATIVE HUMIDITY..30-58%
4 WIND SPEED 8-14 KT
i : WIND DIRECTION 330-360 DEG
D - RUN 1
A - RUN 2
~ - RUN 3
Z- RUN 4
~ - RUN 5
»- RUN 6
~ - RUN 7
20 30 40 50 60
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT x 1000)
Figure C-ll. Takeoff Profile T3, 707-320B Aircraft
Q (D (D
® ©
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT.... 205-220,000 LB
TEMPERATURE 47-64°F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY..30-58%
WIND SPEED 8-14 KT
WIND DIRECTION 330-360 DEG
REFERENCE
O *9 APRIL 1971
~ 20 APRIL 1971
20 30 40 50 60
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT X 1000)
Figure C-9. Takeoff Noise Levels for Profile T3,
707-320B Aircraft
A-40
-------
10
-IMtMtHih
t! ;: l:; ixui.
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 193-218,000 LB
TEMPERATURE 56-60° F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. .34-38%
WIND SPEED 10-11 KT
WIND DIRECTION 350-360 DEG
; |
'Tl~i
j-i I
li-i-
i ' !
"1 Li
4. :
-Tt
i ,..i-
44-H
1-1 i.
fP
4-'-
TJ
a
r
I -: 11
1
I ; '
• i. I a - RUN 1
'¦Hi - RUN 2
] i't
; L
I X - RUN 3 ;- j-
-4.
:X - RUN 4 1 ;
» - RUN 5
U-
»- RUN 6
10 20 30 40 50 60
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT x 1000)
70
80
Figure C-15. Takeoff Profile T4, 707-320B Aircraft
REFERENCE
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 193-218 ,000 LB
TEMPERATURE 56-60°F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. .34-38%
WIND SPEED 10-11 KT
WIND DIRECTION 350-360 DEG
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
DISTANCE FROM BRAKE RELEASE (FT X 1000)
Figure C-13. Takeoff Noise Levels for Profile T4,
707-320B Aircraft
A-41
-------
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT..
TEMPERATURE .
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
WIND SPEED
WIND DIRECTION
198-218,000 LB
50-64°F
30-43%
11-15 KT
10-360 DEG
FT INTERCEPT
B - RUN 1
A - RUN 2 :
-r* - RUN 3 -
X - RUN 4
~ - RUN 5
w - RUN 6 t
+ - RUN 7
10 20 30 40 50
DISTANCE FROM LANDING THRESHOLD (FT x 1000)
Figure C-39. Approach Profile A21, 707-320B Aircraft
© ©
130
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT.... 198-218,000 LB
a
RELATIVE HUMIDITY..30-
WIND SPEED
WIND DIRECTION,
11-15 KT
10-360 DEG
120
100
REFERENCE
W'
70
30
60
20
40
50
-10
0
10
DISTANCE FROM LANDING THRESHOLD (FT X 1000)
Figure C-37. Approach Noise Levels for Profile A21,
707-320B Aircraft
A-42
-------
o
o
o
X
H
B
p
H
15
J
<
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT 189-214,000 LB;
TEMPERATURE 56-60°F ,
RELATIVE HUMIDITY..34-38%
f WlND SPEED 8-11 KT
tfIND DIRECTION 330-360 DEG u-i
3000-FT INTERCEPT
a - RUN 1
A - RUN 2 u
! x - RUN 3
X - RUN 4 r,
* - RUN 5 :
: w - run 6 I...
L3
-10
10 20 30 40 SO
DISTANCE FROM LANDING THRESHOLD (FT x 1000)
Figure C-55. Approach Profile A41, 707-320B Aircraft
© © © © © © © © © ©
X 30 f i i i j i i i | t j i I ' ] >
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT.... 189-214,000 LB
TEMPERATURE 56-60 °F
RELATIVE HUMIDITY. .34-38%
WIND SPEED 8-11 KT
WIND DIRECTION 330-360 DEG
REFERENCE
[Srf
W
flfll ' I i I 1 1 -1 1 I
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISTANCE FROM LANDING THRESHOLD (FT X 1000)
Figure C-53. Approach Noise Levels for Profile A41,
707-320B Aircraft
A-43
-------
FAA Paper on Noise Abatement
The FAA's Office of Environmental Quality, established in January
1971, is moving to curb the noise problems created in the past and
impacting citizens and communities today.
The problem of reducing approach noise has been more knotty than
reducing departure noise. With today's navigational equipment, oper-
ational deviations are difficult and preferential routings cannot be
used for noise abatement. However, with the development of ystems
such as microwave instrument landing systems such flexibility will
be possible.
Concurrently with the development, simulation and test of departure
procedures, we were working on noise reduction procedures for approach.
Six weeks after the new departure procedures were begun, the airlines
instituted a new standard approach procedure that provides considerable
relief to people on the ground in the approach area.
In this new procedure the aircraft operates with a lower landing flap
setting when permissible and a lesser approach flap setting throughout the
approach. By using a lesser flap setting, draft is reduced and a lower power
setting is required to maintain a steady descent. This results in lower
sound levels. Figure 4 shows three approaches by a 727 on a standard 2P
glide slope beginning at 6 miles from runway, touchdown. Some pilots have
assumed landing flaps of 40° at this 6 mile point while others have used
30° flaps. In the new standard (bottom part of the figure), 25° approach
flaps are used until the aircraft is descended to 1,000 feet (3 miles) where
it transitions to 30° flaps by 2 miles. This results in up to 7 db less
noise at 6 miles from runway touchdown with a reduction in noise evident at
3 miles. No improvement is evident closer in except when compared with those
aircraft using 40° flaps. This procedure is not limited to the 727, and,
in fact, greater noise reductions can be achieved by some of Che noisier
aircraft. A-44
-------
-------
San Jose Airport Keep-em-High Procedures
The FAA, in cooperation with the San Jose Municipal Airport, has established
"keep-em-high" procedures for SJC. This procedure, designed to minimize noise
and reduce conflicts between large and small aircraft, requires air carrier aircraft
on approach to maintain at least 5000 feet altitude until within the designated "descent
area" (see Figure 1). This effectively confines noise from aircraft to the final ap-
proach corridor.
VFR approaches may make visual descents from 5000 feet after crossing the
180° radial from SJC, shown as the heavy dotted line in Figure 1. The result is that
in VFR conditions many pilots make approaches at a descent angle of approximately
4° (to shorten the distance travelled) instead of the normal 3°, thus reducing noise
considerably.
4(.
[tnti
"j. f\ r>
V \
Bon
A-46
-------
AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY
A Report by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the
Environmental Protection Agency for the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
March 30, 1973
A-47
-------
Ill - OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION
Operational procedures can be used effectively for noise control in both landing-
approach and the takeoff-clijnbout phases of the mission. The interrelated factors of
aircraft altitude, engine throttle setting, flap angle setting, and aircraft speed are
significant.
NASA, in cooperation with FAA and the airlines, has been involved in developing and
evaluating operational procedures for noise reduction for a number of years, both for
takeoff-climbout and landing-approach situations. The takeoff-climbout studies (refs. 1
to 4) have been helpful in evaluating the noise reduction potential for various flap angle
and engine throttle schedules for a number of aircraft. These data have also been use-
ful as a guide in defining the optimum procedures for particular operations.
A main finding of these takeoff-climbout studies is that the optimum conditions for
noise alleviation depend on the configuration details (particularly, type of engine) and
operating characteristics of the aircraft and thus will probably be different for each new
aircraft. The landing-approach studies on the other hand have indicated potentially
larger noise reductions, and they are not so configuration oriented. Three noise reduc-
tion techniques that have been proposed are the two-segment approach, the energy
management or decelerating approach, and the curved ground track approach.
The two-segment approach concept is illustrated in figure III-l. The upper profile
represents the two-segment approach, and the lower profile is a standard instrument
landing approach. Using the two-segment approach, the aircraft approaches on a steeper
TWO-SEGMENT
APPROACH
NORMAL
APPROACH
RUNWA
Figure III-l. -/Two-segment approach concept
A-48
-------
than normal glide slope and then makes a transition to the standard approach path in
time to stabilize before landing. By keeping the aircraft higher above the ground and
reducing the engine power because of the steeper angle, the two-segment approach
lessens the community noise near airports.
In the energy management or decelerating approach, the aircraft initiates the ap-
proach at a relatively high airspeed and then slowly decelerates to landing speed at
greatly reduced power. Because of the reduced power, the noise under the approach
path is reduced. The decelerating approach is attractive because it has the potential
of providing some noise relief all the way to the threshold. This technique might be
combined with the two-segment approach in order to use the best feature of each.
The third procedure is based on avoiding noise sensitive areas by approaches on a
curved ground track. This technique is being used under visual conditions today. With
the advent of area navigation and the microwave landing system, this technique can be
extended to instrument flight conditions and combined with the two-segment approach.
Although these noise abatement flight procedures are well within the performance
capability of current day jet transports, they impose new requirements on the pilot
duties and workload, on the pilot displays, on the guidance and navigation system, on the
aircraft control system, on Air Traffic Control (ATC) flow of aircraft to high density
runways and on parallel runway operations, and possibly different wake turbulence ef-
fects. A substantial effort is therefore required to develop suitable avionics for noise
abatement procedures and to obtain sufficient experience so that they are accepted for
routine operations.
For the purpose of this report, the NASA program directed towards developing
operational procedures for noise abatement is divided into two parts. The first part is
aimed at developing operational avionics and flight procedures that will allow aircraft to
make two-segment approaches under instrument flight conditions during routine
scheduled operation. This part of the program is currently under way, and significant
progress has been made. The second part is aimed at determining the feasibility of
other techniques for noise abatement such as the decelerating approach or curved ground
track approach. The second part of the program also addresses the problem of how to
best utilize new navigational aids such as the microwave landing system. Work related
to the second part of the program has not yet been initiated.
PROGRAM HISTORY
The FAA and NASA have conducted several studies to obtain a preliminary determi-
nation of the feasibility of using modified operating procedures to reduce the noise
perceived by the airport community. Both agencies have determined that significant
A-49
-------
noise Reduction can be achieved by using the two-segment approach. NASA has been
prijbnatily concerned with the evaluation of pilot displays that would be required to make
noijse ^bating two-segment approaches (refs. 5 to 8). The FAA has been primarily con-
cerned with developing the necessary guidance systems (refs. 9 and 10). In these
studies, experimental equipment was evaluated to assess concept feasibility.
NASA and American Airlines recently completed a program to incorporate the
results of the previous studies into operational equipment. The goal of the program was
to assess the operational feasibility of the two-segment approach as a method of
reducing airport community noise (ref. 11). For these tests, an area navigation system
was used to compute the upper segment, and the instrument landing system (ILS) glide
slope was used for the lower segment. The localizer was used throughout the approach.
A key feature of the program with American Airlines was the provision of a continuous
vertical steering command on the flight director. This was required to insure that
transitions from level flight to the upper segment could be made without overshoots and
those from the upper to the lower segment could be made without going below the normal
ILS. The additional power needed to correct for going below the ILS is particularly
objectionable because it creates higher perceived noise on the ground in the region of
the transition. This effect is illustrated in figure ni-2.
The tests with American Airlines were conducted during a 30-day period in the
summer of 1971 at the Stockton, California* Metropolitan Airport. Stockton Metropolitan
Airport was selected for these tests because of the low traffic density and good visibility
800r-
244
APPROACH
ANGLE,
DEG
183
600
ALTITUDE, w
ALTITUDE, ]22
200
0
10
CHANGE IN
NOISE LEVEL 0
PNdB
-10
2.0
. DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD, N.MI.
I I I 1 1 1
9 0 .9 1.8 2.8 3.7
DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD, KM
Figure III-2. - Effects of inadequate guidances.
A-50
-------
prevalent during the test period. The program demonstrated that two-segment ap-
proaches might be operationally feasible and warranted a much more extensive and
thorough evaluation under actual operational conditions.
The results of the program with American Airlines were presented to the NASA
Research and Technology Advisory Committee on Aeronautical Operating Systems and to
the Ad Hoc Panel on Noise Abatement by Operational Procedures. These advisory
committees are composed of individuals representing the airlines, airframe manufac-
turers, avionics suppliers, the Air Transport Association (ATA), the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA), FAA, and DOT. The committees agreed that the two-segment
approach appeared operationally feasible and warranted additional evaluation. They
recommended that further flight evaluations be conducted under representative opera-
tional conditions in two aircraft types: A Boeing 727 aircraft, because these aircraft
account for the largest number of arrivals and departures and are owned by more air
carriers than any other aircraft, and a long-range aircraft such as the DC-8 or Boeing
707 because these aircraft differ significantly from the Boeing 727 and have a larger
noise footprint. The panel also recommended that the results of these two flight pro-
grams be extrapolated through analysis and simulation to determine the applicability
of the two-segment approach to the other aircraft in today's fleet.
TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH
The first part of this program consists of several steps. The first two steps are
being conducted with United Air Lines and call for separate flight evaluations using a
Boeing 727-200 and a McDonnell-Douglas DC-8-61, each equipped with different avionics
for providing vertical guidance during the approach. The Boeing 727 will be equipped
with a special purpose glide slope computer, and the DC-8 will be equipped with an area
navigation system. Both systems will be designed and built by the Collins Radio
Company under contract to NASA. The glide slope computer system is being evaluated
as an inexpensive retrofit for aircraft not equipped with area navigation equipment. The
area navigation system is being evaluated to determine the operational feasibility of
modifying the existing airborne area navigation equipment to provide the two-segment
capability. K the aircraft has an installed area navigation system, this concept appears
to be the least expensive way to add the two-segment approach capability. Another step
in this part of the program involves the extension of the flight results to the other air-
craft in today's fleet.
A-51
-------
STEP A: DEVELOPMENT AND FLIGHT EVALUATION OF A SPECIAL PURPOSE
GLIDE SL0PE COMPUTER IN A BOEING 727-200 AIRCRAFT
NASA Ames Research Center began wqrk on this program with United Air Lines and
the Colling Radio Company in July 1972. The program objectives are to develop an
inexpensive avionics retrofit kit that will make an aircraft capable of a two-segment
approach and to evaluate the two-segment approach in a Boeing 727-200 aircraft during
regular Scheduled service.
Th0 program includes avionics design and fabrication; a simulation study aimed at
developing a procedure and profile that is safe under adverse conditions; an engineering
flight ^valuation devoted to equipment checkout, certification, and verification of the
approach profile established during the simulation study; a 1-month series of off-line
flight,evaluations; and a 6-month evaluation in revenue service.
'the avionics design and fabrication, the simulation study, the engineering flight
evaluation, and the off-line pilot evaluation have been completed. The results of these
phases have not been completely reviewed and analyzed, but preliminary indications are
thai the avionics and two-segment approach are operationally feasible in the Boeing 727
an^ acceptable to the airline community.
In the simulation study the task was to make the concept into a practical, operational
reality since the basic concept of the two-segment approach had been established by
previous studies and research projects. In the design of the two-segment procedures,
the basic profile was divided into eight parts as illustrated in figure III-3. The effect of
\
\
UPPER
CAPTURE POINTS
UPPER
SEGMENT
INTERSECT
ALTITUDE
UPPER
upper^SJransit,on
SEGMENT,
ANGLE- J N.
aLOWER CAPTURE
' POINT
LOWER
TRANSITION
/-GLIDE SCOPE
LOWER
INTERSECT ALTITUDE
+DME
RUNWAY
Figure III-3. - Noise abatement approach profile simulation variables.
A-52
-------
each part on the approach was examined. Comments regarding these eight parts are
contained below:
(1) Upper segment intercept altitude - The system must function such tnat this part
can vary to 6000 feet (ft) altitude flight level (AFL) (and even higher is desirable). Also,
it must not be fixed but either climbing or descending.
(2) Lower interact altitude - This part was made to vary from 1500 ft AFL down to
runway threshold height. A practical operational range would be smaller, but it was
felt that its influence on the approach should be tried over this range.
(3) Upper segment angle - This part was made to vary from 4° to 7°, although 8°
and 10° were added to check the validity of previous information about these descent
angles.
(4) Glide slope - This part wa^ expanded from the nominal glide slope range of
2. 5° to 3.0° to 3. 5°. The system was designed so as to provide a bias allowing the
pilot to have guidance to hold the additional angle increment over the standard ILS glide
slope.
(5) Upper capture poiht - This part was considered very important to the pilots
acceptance and passenger comfort. It was sbvdesigned to compensate for varying
closure rates to the upper segment angle.
(6) Lower capture point - This part was also considered important to safety, pilots
acceptance, and passenger comfort. It was designed to compensate for varying closure
rates to the glide slope.
(7) Upper transition - This part, important to passenger comfort, was designed to
allow wide variations that enable the pilot to get to the upper segment without additional
constraints or disturbances to the passengers.
(8) Lower transition - This part was considered the key to pilot acceptance and
was designed so that the pilot could make this transition using a normal instrument
close check and normal flight technique, and not feel that he was performing an unusual
maneuver that would require him to restabilize the aircraft at its completion.
The effects of some of the external variables that the pilots might encounter were
examined in the simulation. A summary of some of these are listed here:
(1) Turbulence - The two-segment approach during simulation was not adversely
affected by turbulence. Any turbulence level flyable on the standard ILS was flyable on
the two-segment approach. In the airplane the two-segment approach required less
effort than the standard ILS when there was significant turbulence.
(2) Icing - With engine and wing anti-icing on and temperatures -7° C or above, the
low pressure turbine rpm is about the minimum of 55 percent. In these conditions a
tail wind of about 15 knots can be offset by using 40° flaps. But if the icing is such that
70 percent Nj is required for anti-icing, or the tail winds are in excess of 15 knots,
then the approach, as constituted, could not be flown. These conditions exist less than
1 percent of the time.
•A-5 3
-------
(3) Winds - Tjail winds iit excess of 30 knots present a problem of airspeed stabili-
zation and throttle position. Less than 30 knots are majheuve liable. Cross wind effect
is the same as the standard llLS. Wind shear effect is very similar also, except that
the upper segment; can be followed easier than the glide slope \yneu troublesome wind
shear is present.
(4) Visibility - No noticeable difference between the two-segment approach and the
standard ILS was detected.
(5) Lighting - The two-segment approach profile permits a better view of the
terminal area under all lighting conditions than does the standard ILS, yet the descent
angle is not so steep as to give the pilot the impression of his descending into a hole at
night.
(6) Airports - The relationship of the two-segment approach and the standard ILS is
very similar at Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Stockton.
(7) Navaid failures - No difference, except that the colocated distance measuring
equipment (DME) adds ih one more system that must be in operation for the two-segment
computer to function.
The two-segment approach that resulted from the simulation evaluation was used in
the engineering flight evaluation. The upper intersect altitude was designed to go as
high as 6000 ft AFL. The altitude was tested and found successful up to 14 000 ft
(mean sea level). The upper and lower capture points occurred as designed and were
very satisfactory. The upper segment angle was selected to be 5.2° to 7. 0°. The lower
value was found to have good noise improvement when associated with low-lower inter-
sect altitudes. It also allowed the Boeing 727 to use full anti-ice capability when 40°
flaps were used.
The upper value was determined to be the greatest angle expected at any time during
any two-segment approach with a Boeing 727. The Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
demonstrations were made at this angle. The glide slope angle will be the same that the
ILS has for the airport concerned. The values 2. 5° to 3. 5° covers all ILS glide slope
angles that would be of concern.
The system is capable of flying high on the glide slope with a fixed bias. This was
flown during the engineering flight evaluation and was found to have merit, but it will not
be used during the on-line flight evaluation.
The lower intersect altitude range was 400 to 800 ft AFL. The nominal value
determined by flight evaluation was about 700 ft. The ground noise measurements './ere
made at the high and low values of this range. The two-segment approach profile,
resulting from the flight evaluation, was used for the off-line pilot's evaluation and is
basically the same as will be used for the on-line pilot's evaluation.
The Stockton, California, profile is shown in figure ni-4. The San Francisco and
Los Angeles profiles are very similar. The angle of the standard ILS is different, and
A-54
-------
QO UPPER SEGMENTWILL NOT CAPTURE WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS BELOW THE GLIDE SLOPE
(§) DISENGAGEMENT IF AIRCRAFT WITHIN ONE-HALF DOT ABOVE GLIDE SLOPE WITH NO
GLIDE SLOPE CAPTURE
© DISENGAGEMENT IF AIRCRAFT WITHIN 2.2N.MI. DME WITH NO GLIDE SLOPE CAPTURE
• MAXIMUM APPROACH ALTITUDE 15 000 FT AFL
• MINIMUM APPROACH ALTITUDE 3100 FT MSL
UPPER SLOPE, 6°
w
6 TdME^ImTi^TS IAS- \® LOWER CAPTURE POINT; 1050 FT MSL, 130 KNOTS IAS
STANDARD DAY CALM WINDS - ^NqSTANDARD DAY CALM WINDS
GLIDE SLOPE, ZV> ON GLIDE SLOPE WITHIN 1/4 DOT 550 FT MSL
»DME COLOCATED WITH fil IDF SIOPF
STOCKTON CALIFORNIA TDZ 29 FT MSL
Figure III-4, - Two-segment approach profile used at Stockton, California, resulting from flight evaluation.
this results in a shift of the lower intersect altitude and the lower capture point. The
shift with the lowest angle glide slope, flown at the lowest airspeed, is about 100 ft
lower. The upper segment can be captured and flown very satisfactory, as high as
15 000 ft AFL. Localizer capture or alignment is not necessary for guidance on the
upper segment.
Safety factors were designed into some areas of the profile to increase the flight
safety margins for the approach. In the event the baro set, the DME, or the airport
elevation panel set malfunctions, the upper segment could be presented prematurely. To
prevent a guided approach that would cause a descent below the standard glide slope,
the upper segment is prevented from capturing when the aircraft is below the glide slope.
If the aircraft is flying the upper segment and gets to within one-half dot deflection above
the glide slope, the auto pilot will disengage and the flight director bars bias out of view.
This prevents the system from providing guidance that would take the aircraft below the
glide slope. If the upper segment is presented late, it would be possible to descend so
that the glide slope would be reached very low or not at all. In that case the system will
disengage if the aircraft reaches 2.2 nautical miles DME and the glide slope is not
captured.
The upper and lower transitions were a key to pilot acceptance. If the pilot can get
into and out of the upper segment without any significant change in his flight technique,
he should accept the two-segment concept as operationally sound.
The upper transition starts at the upper capture point. If the aircraft is approaching
at a high speed or is climbing, the capture point occurs early. If the aircraft is at a low
speed or is descending, the capture occurs late. In either case, the aircraft is pitched
A-55
-------
nose down slowly and smoothly, such that the upper segment is reached in 500 to 800 ft
below the initial altitude at capture.
The lower transition is a smooth, easy pitch change that starts at the lower capture
point. The lower capture point will adjust according to the speed at which the aircraft
is closing on the glide slope. At high speeds the capture occurs earlier and provides a
more gradual pitch change than at low speeds. The result is that the transition seems
similar to both pilot and passengers. Passengers do not detect the lower transition.
The point at which the glide slope is reached does not shift to any great extent.
The upper segment tracking with its transitions was determined to be very satisfac-
tory. It required no additional pilot skills for routine operation of the Boeing 727-200
aircraft.
The off -line evaluation consisted of a two-phase program to thoroughly familiarize
the guest Diloi with the two-segment approach, thereby enabling him to evaluate the
approach in detail. Phase I was the viewing of an audio-visual package followed by a
creiv briefing and a 1-hour and 30-minute simulator flight. The simulator involved a
syllabus of 11 approaches intermixing the standard ILS with the two-segment ILS under
varying weather conditions and operational techniques. Phase II consisted of an air-
craft period during which an eight approach syllabus was flown, which again compared
the standard ILS with the two-segment ILS in a real world environment.
The expected 90- and 95-effective perceived noise decibels (EPNdB) contours for a
Boeing 727-200 aircraft using this two-segment approach procedures are compared in
figures III-5 and IH-6 with the contour^ expected as a result of using a standard instru-
ment landing approach. The 9Q-EPNdB impacted area is reduced during the two-segment
approach by 3. 7 square miles (67 percent reduction). The 95-EPNdB impacted area is
reduced by 1.1 square miles (48 percent reduction).
By increasing the upper intersect altitude, there can be a significant improvement
in ground noise outside the outer marker. Altitude of up to 6000 ft AFL can produce
noise improvement over large areas in approaching the airport- The aircraft safety is
enhanced by staying high in the heavy traffic area, which reduces exposure to many low
flying aircraft. It was noticed that the approach with a 6° upper segment could accom-
modate up to 190 knots (indicated air speed) at 3000 ft AFL to the point of upper siegment
capture. This speed can be increased as altitude increases up to 250 knots at 6000 ft
AFL or higher. The result is lower power setting at higher altitudes and less time at
high poweir settings. This could produce a side benefit of lower fuel consumption of
each approach.
The avionics system being evaluated by United Air Lines retains the coupled flight
director feature useel in the American Airlines program and adds the autopilot coupling
so that thei pilot can make a two-segment landing with all the aids available for standard
approaches.
A-56
-------
/-STANDARD INSTRUMENT LANDING
/ APPROACH, 5. 5 SQ. Ml.
/-TWO SEGMENT APPROACH,
/ i gen
rSTANDARD INSTRUMENT LANDING
/ APPROACH, 2.1 SO. Ml.
.5
r TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH,
/ 1.0 SQ. Ml.
.5
0
0
cz
.5
.5
-10 -8 -6 -4-2 0 2
DISTANCE, N.Ml.
Figure III-5. - 90-EPNdB approach contours for Boeing 727.
-6 -4-2 0 2
DISTANCE, N.Ml.
Figure III-6. - 95-EPNdB approach contours tor
Boeing 727.
United's implementation of the two-segment system stressed adherence to standard
procedures to such an extent that one-switch operation and an airport elevation input
are the only features that distinguish the two-segment procedure from United's standard
ILS procedure.
The special purpose glide slope computer developed by Collins uses a signal from a
DME transmitter colocated with the ILS glide slope and barometric corrected pressure
altitude to position the aircraft on the upper segment and uses the ILS glide slope devia-
tion to position the aircraft on the lower segment. The two-segment computer also
uses altitude rate information from the Central Air Data Computer (CADC) for vertical
path damping and airspeed from the CADC to drive an autothrottle.
DME transmitters, colocated with the ILS glide slope, are not standard equipment
in an instrument landing system. However, the FAA currently plans to add these
facilities at a rate of five in FY 75, 50 in FY 76, 30 in FY 77 and 40 in FY 78. The
necessary colocated facilities are available at the airports being used in the program.
Although it is very difficult to estimate the cost of retrofitting United Air Lines fleet
of Boeing 727's with this system, it is thought that the cost will be approximately
$31 400, for a dual installation. The $31 400 assumes $26 600 for equipment, $4000
for installation, and $800 for flight check. Out-of-service and training costs are not
included. It is assumed that installation could occur when the aircraft are out of service
for other reasons and that training could be incorporated into the normal training and
review curriculum.
For several reasons, the present program is providing a much broader basis for
evaluating the feasibility of the two-segment approach than in previous programs. First,
thfe avionics have been designed, built, and environmentally tested to FAA Technical
Standard Order specifications. The system performs internal selfchecks and, in the
event of a failure, provides the pilot with a warning similar to warnings provided in the
event of a failure during an ILS approach. Second, the procedure and system have
A-57
-------
been tested both in the simulator and in flight under a wide variety of operational condi-
tions. Approaches have been made under instrument flight conditions; in the presence
of tail winds, wind shears, and turbulence; at dusk and at night; and at several airports
including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Third, over 50 pilots have participated in
the off-line pilot evaluation: 15 line pilots representing ALP A and APA, 19 management
pilots from the different airlines, 11 FAA pilots, five engineering test pilots, and one
USAF pilot. Finally, a broader spectrum of line pilot reactions will be obtained as a
result of the in-scheduled service evaluation, which begins in late April 1973 and lasts
through October 1973. This will be the first time a two-segment guided approach sys-
tem has been placed into routine line service. During this period it is expected that
over 96 crews will evaluate the system and that over 500 two-segment approaches will
be made.
STEP B: DEVELOPMENT AND FLIGHT EVALUATION OF TWO-SEGMENT AVIONICS
USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL AREA NAVIGATION FOR GUIDANCE IN A DC-8-61
United Air Lines and the Collins Radio Company initiated work, under contract with
NASA, on this program in December 1972, The program objectives are to determine
the operational feasibility of modifying a three-dimensional area navigation system to
provide the two-segment approach capability and to evaluate the two-segment approach
in a DC-8-61 aircraft in regular scheduled service.
The program contains the same basic phases as the Boeing 727 evaluation covered
in STEP A. However, the avionic concept and aircraft characteristics are substantially
different.
In this step an existing area navigation system will be modified to include the two-
segment capability. An inherent advantage of this concept is that, if the aircraft is
equipped with an area navigation system, a modification to the system represents an
inexpensive way of incorporating the two-segment approach capability. A second
advantage is that the system can be used to make precision approaches to ILS equipped
runways without requiring a colocated DME transmitter facility. The system can also
be used to make nonprecision noise abating approaches into non-ILS equipped runways.
The Boeing 727 aircraft used in STEP A is particularly well suited for the two-
segment approach. It has relatively high drag in the landing configuration and requires
positive thrust component to come down the 6° glide slope at reference velocity. It is
also equipped with relatively new and complete avionic systems so that the two-segment
guidance interface with the autopilot and flight director is straight forward.
On the other hand, the McDonnell-Douglas DC-8 has relatively little dx-ag in the
landing configuration and requires near idle thrust to come down a 6° glide slope at
A-58
-------
reference velocity. In addition to the low drag characteristics, the DC-8 has an auto-
pilot older than the Boeing 727 autopilot. Even though preliminary flight tests indicate
that the DC-8 autopilot can follow the two-segment guidance command) the interface
between the two-segment guidance system and the autopilot may require more extensive
modifications than are required on the Boeing 727. For these reasons, it is the opinion
of the airlines, the FAA, and the pilots that the two-segment evaluation must be con-
ducted in the DC-8 in order to establish the envelope of acceptable two-segment approach
profiles for the fleet of commercial aircraft.
Although the DC-8 is more difficult to adapt to the two-segment approach, the
expected noise benefits are significant. The 90- and 95-EPNdB contours for a DC-8-61
aircraft during a 6°/3° two-segment approach with a 690-ft intercept altitude are com-
pared in figures III-7 and III-8 with noise contours estimated for a standard instrument
landing approach. The 90-EPNdB impacted area is reduced by 6. 3 square miles (54
percent reduction), and the 95-EPNdB impacted area is reduced by 3.3 square miles
(50 percent reduction).
Cost estimates to provide a fleet of aircraft already equipped with area navigation
with the two-segment capability have not yet been worked out in detail. However, the
cost will be substantially less than required to retrofit with the special purpose glide
slope computer system. An estimate of this cost is $ 9000, which includes equipment
and installation charges. Out-of-service costs and training costs are not included. It
is assumed that installation could occur when the aircraft are out of service for other
reasons and that training could be incorporated into the normal training and review
curriculum. If the two-segment capability is provided as a part of the area navigation
package prior to installation, it appears that the added cost could become quite small.
^STANDARD INSTRUMENT LANDING APPROACH, 11.6 SO. Ml.
^ TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH, 5. 3 SQ. Ml.
RUNWAY
.5
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
DISTANCE, N.Ml.
Figure III-7. - 90-EPNdB approach contours for DC-8.
2
A-59
-------
rSTANDARD INSTRUMENT LANDING
! APPROACH, 6.6 SQ. Ml.
f
^TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH,
/ 3. ?8 SQ. Ml.
I l _J _l I I I I
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4-2 0 2
DISTANCE, N.Ml.
Figure III-&. - 95-EPNdB approach contours for DC-8.
STEP C: STUDY TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TWO-SEGMENT
APPROACH TO ADDITIONAL JET TRANSPORTS
The preceding steps are aimed at determining the operational feasibility of the two-
segment approach for only two aircraft types. The purpose of this step is to extrapolate
the results of these flight programs to cover the McDonnell-Douglas DC-9 and DC-10
and the Boeing 707, 737, and 747 jet transports by an analytical and simulation program.
Contracts will be awarded to Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft companies in
FY 73 to make a preliminary determination of the approach profiles that would achieve
maximum noise abatement while maintaining adequate safety margin and pilot acceptance
for their different aircraft. These feasibility studies will not include flight simulations.
Contracts will then be awarded to an airline contractor (or contractors) in FY 74 to
conduct a simulation study wherein the operational feasibility of making two-segment
approaches in these aircraft will be examined in detail. These studies will look at the
effect of extreme wind shear, pilot abuses, and system failures on the safety of the
procedure.
STEP D: STUDY TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL
AREA NAVIGATION TO PROVIDE VERTICAL GUIDANCE
An analytical study will be conducted to determine the requirements on the location
of the ground navigational aids used as inputs to the airborne navigation equipment in
order to provide sufficient accuracy for two-segment guidance. The study will also
define procedures that can be used to flight check the adequacy of existing ground navi-
gational aids for establishing the upper segment guidance at individual airports.
A-60
-------
It is expected that this study will be conducted by the FAA in conjunction with their
existing program aimed at defining area navigation requirements.
STEP E: STUDY TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH
ON ATC
Aircraft making two-segment approaches will have to mix with aircraft making
standard ILS approaches. In addition, it appears that two-segment approaches for dif-
ferent aircraft types will require different upper segment glide slopes. A study will be
conducted to determine the impact on ATC of intermixing different approach profiles in
the terminal area. It is expected that this study will be conducted by the FAA.
OTHER TECHNIQUES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT
FLIGHT TEST OF NOISE ABATEMENT APPROACHES USING A MICROWAVE
LANDING SYSTEM
By the end of the FY 73 considerable expertise and understanding will have developed
with respect to the usefulness of the noise abatement operational procedures when flying
the landing approach pattern using the conventional NAVAIDS, that is, ILS, DME, and
VORTAC. It is hoped that the FY 73 program and the anticipated follow-on programs
for FY 74 will provide sufficient momentum to carry noise abatement procedures using
conventional ground NAVAIDS into practice in the airlines. Beyond 1974, however, the
question arises as to the impact of the microwave landing system, being developed under
FAA contract, on the noise abatement flight procedures. In this respect, no real prob-
lems are anticipated in flying noise abatement procedures using the microwave landing
system. However, it is almost inevitable, based on past flight test experience, that
certain unanticipated problems will surface.
Therefore, a flight test program is planned wherein noise abatement approaches are
flown using a microwave landing system in an attempt to take advantage of the full
capability of this system and to expose problems that could influence the microwave
landing system design. Tests conducted in FY 74 should provide results soon enough
to influence the preliminary design and development of the microwave system.
The basic objectives of this program are to determine how to best use the unique
capabilities of the microwave landing system for noise abatement and to determine if
there are any navigation, guidance, control, and operational problems associated with
this type of system.
A-61
-------
FLIGHT EVALUATION OF CURVED APPROACHES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT
Area navigation potentially provides the capability of flying the aircraft along curved
approach paths in order to avoid noise sensitive areas. A simulation and flight program
is planned, for FY 74 or FY 75, to determine the operational feasibility of using this
technique in conjunction with the two-segment approach. The program will be largely
conducted in-house and will include analysis, simulation, and flight test. A brief des-
cription of the effort planned in these phases follows:
In this phase, the necessary steering signals will be defined and presentation to the
pilot will be evaluated. Pilot workload and ability to fly these approaches will offer the
greatest obstacle. A principal purpose of the simulation will be to determine the amount
of automation required to keep the workload at a level comparable with that required
during a standard instrument approach. The effects of winds, wind shears, and pilot
abuses will be evaluated. Flight tests will be conducted using the NASA research
Boeing 737 aircraft in the Terminal Configured Vehicle and Avionics Program at the
NASA Langley Research Center.
NOISE ABATEMENT USING DECELERATING APPROACHES
Two modifications to the standard approach procedure can be proposed for reducing
the noise. One consists of flying a steeper-than-standard approach path (i.e., two-
segment approach), which increases the aircraft's altitude over the noise sensitive area
and reduces the thrust used in the approach. The other is to make a decelerating
approach on a standard glide slope with the engines at idle power. In this method, the
aircraft begins the approach at relatively high airspeed and then slowly decelerates to
the landing speed, using the kinetic energy as a power source to overcome the drag
forces. A third method is also possible by combining the two.
If we assume that the approach is flown along the standard ILS glide slope, then, in
principle, the decelerating approach can be started at any point on the ILS beam. The
single most important variable in a decelerating approach is the airspeed of the aircraft
at the starting point. This airspeed must be chosen such that the aircraft can fly safely
from the outer marker to a desired point with all engines operating at minimum permis-
sible thrust, with arrival at the specified point with full flaps, and with the desired land-
ing speed. Assuming the aircraft arrives at the starting point with the proper airspeed,
it begins its gliding and decelerating flight along the ILS beam while either the pilot or
an automatic landing system maintains the aircraft's flight along the beam. As the air-
craft is slowly decelerating, the flaps are extended according to a computed schedule.
The novelty of the proposed technique lies in the use of flap angle modulation rather than
A-62
-------
the more commonly encountered thrust modulation as a method of deceleration control.
If the proper airspeed was selected at the starting point and if the flaps are extended at
the proper rate, the landing speed and the full-flap configuration will be reached close
to the interception of the glide path with the runway or at any other point along the glide
path designated at the terminal point of the deceleration. Since this procedure allows
thrust to be maintained at the lowest possible value throughout the approach, engine
noise is kept to a minimum. There are safety questions related to this approach because
of the time required to spool up the engines if a go-around is required.
ANALYSIS
In this phase, the principle objectives are to make a preliminary evaluation of the
profile to be flown; that is, whether the decelerating approach should be flown along the
10 10
standard ILS glide slope or along a two-segment glide slope; perhaps along a 3jj to 4^
glide slope and then about a mile from the runway threshold transition to the normal ILS
glide slope. In this phase, the optimum speed profile, flap extension schedule, transi-
tion point, flight director requirements for aided manual guidance, guidance laws and
interfaces with autopilot and autothrottle for automatic approach, as well as the naviga-
tion requirements must be determined.
Piloted Simulation
Pilot workload and ability to fly these trajectories will offer the greatest obstacle.
Considerable automation will be required to keep workload from increasing beyond that
of standard approaches. A principal purpose of the simulation will be to determine the
minimum level of automation needed to keep the workload reasonable. The simulation
program will also evaluate cockpit displays, check out flight director guidance laws and
automatic guidance, determine missed approach procedures, study the effect of gusts and
wind shears, and define pilot procedures for the manual approach.
Flight Test
It is planned that the flight test program will be conducted using NASA Boeing 737
aircraft in the Terminal-Configured Vehicle and Avionics Program. The main objective
of the flight test phase will be to refine the operation of the "decelerating approach"
system, further develop the operational procedures, and assess system performance in
A-63
-------
the actual flight environment. The final objective of course, is to reduce this experi-
mental approach technique to practice.
AERODYNAMIC NOISE
Recent computations and measurements have suggested that there may be an aero-
dynamic noise floor in the approach and landing configuration of large jets about 10 PNdB
below the FAR Part 36 noise level. Operational procedures such as the two-segment and
curved ground track approaches, which increase the separation of the observer and the
aircraft, are effective at reducing the impact of aerodynamic as well as engine noise.
The aerodynamic noise varies as a high power of the flight speed. Therefore, the de-
celerating approach, which approaches at higher speed, would have a higher aerody-
namic noise floor.
In order to obtain better data on the aerodynamic noise floor and understand the re-
lationship between aerodynamic noise and engine noise and the different types of noise
abatement approaches (the steep glide slope, the two-segment approach, the curved
ground track, and decelerating approach) NASA Ames is planning a flight test program
with the NASA CV-990, four-engine jet aircraft and possibly other aircraft.
REFERENCES
1. Hilton, D. A.; Copeland, W. L.; and Dibble, A. C., Jr.: Measurements of Noise
Produced by a BAC-111-400 Series Turbofan Transport Airplane During Takeoff -
Climbout Operations. LWP No. 211, April 13, 1966.
2. Copeland, W. L.; Hilton, D. A.; Huckel, V.; Dibble, A. C., Jr.; and Maglieri,
D. J.: Noise Measurement Evaluations of Various Takeoff-Clinibout Profiles of
a Four-Engine Turbojet Transport Airplane. NASA TN D-3715, 1966.
3. Copeland, W. L.: Noise Measurements During Takeoff Climbout Operations of Four
Jet Transports. Presented at 74th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
Miami Beach, Florida, November 1967.
4. Copeland, W. L.; and Clark, L. R.: Noise Measurements for a Three-Engine
Turbofan Transport Airplane During Climbout and Landing Approach Operations.
NASA TN D-6137, 1971.
5. Schaefer, W. T., Jr.; and Copeland, W. L.: Noise Abatement Approach Flight
Test Investigation of a Convair 880M Airplane. LWP No. 305, 1966.
A-64
-------
6. Zalovcik, J. A.: Effect of Thryst and Altitude in Steep Approaches on Ground Track
Noise. NASA TN 1^-4241, 1967.
7. Sawyer, R. H.; and Schaefer, W. T.: Operational Limitations in Flying Noise
Abatement Approaches. NASA TN D-5497, 1969.
8. Quigley, H. CJ.; Snyder, C. T.; Fry, E.i G.; Power, L. J.; arid Innis, R. C.:
Flight and Simulation investigation of Methods for Implementing Noise Abatement
Landing Approaches. NASA TN D-5781, 1970.
9. Meyersburg, R. B.; and Williams, C. H.: The Two-Segment Noise Abatement
Approach to Landing. Presented at the International Conference on the Reduction
of Noise and Disturbance Caused by Civil Aircraft, London, England, November
1966.
10. Chubboy, R. A.: An Operational Evaluation of the Two-Segment Approach for Noise
Abatement. FAA Report No. FAA-RD-71-72, April 17, 1972.
11. Denery, D. 0.; Bourquin, K. R.; White, K. C.; and Drinkwater, F. J., Ill:
Flight Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Area Navigation for Jet Transport Noi.ie
Abatement. AIAA Paper No. 72-814, 1972.
A-65
-------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANT) SI 'A OK ADC4J1.n1 X^TRATION
Working Paper No. 283
NOTE ON EFFECT OF THRUST AND ALTITUDE ON NOISE
IN STEEP AiM KGACiil':;'
by John A. Zalovcik.
SUMMARY
A brief .analysis was made of the sound pressure level measured at four
ground stations during 3° approaches of a four-engine medium-range turbojet
transport for several flap deflections. The results of the analysis, when
applied to steeper-than-ndrmal approaches, showed good agreement with sound
pressure levels measured in steep approaches. For the airplane used in the
o -O
analysis, increasing the glide slope from 3 to b reduced the sound pressure
level 11.5 "to 13-5 dB depending on the ground station location. Of this
reduction 7 dB was due to the reduction in thrust and the remainder (4.5 to
6.5 dB) to increase in altitude.
A-66
-------
o
AIM Paper
No. 72-814
d s/^/? 3
|«VC-VV^ fsi &S f\
FLIGHT EVALUATION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL AREA
NAVIGATION FOR JET TRANSPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
by
D. G. DENERY, K. R. BOURQUIN, K. C. WHITE,
and
F.J. DRINK WATER III
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California
MM 4th Aircraft Design,
Flight Test,
and operations Meeting
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA / AUGUST 7-9, 1972
First publication rights reserved by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N. Y. 10019. Abstracts may be published without
permission if credit is given to author and to ASAA. (Price: AIAA Member $1.50. Nonmember$2.00).
Note: This paper available at AIAA New York office for six months;
thereafter, photoprint copies are available at photocopy prices from
Technical Information Service, 750 3rd Ave., New York, N. Y. 10017
A-67
-------
Concluding Remarks
The first phase of research aimed at determing the
operational feasibility of the two-segment approach as a
noise abating technique, has been completed. A total
of twenty-eight pilots representing the airlines, pro-
fessional pilot associations, NASA, and the FAA par-
ticipated. In general, the evaluation pilots considered
the procedures to be operationally feasible. However,
there was concern expressed over the general accep-
tance of the procedure until the equipment can be proven
sufficiently reliable and not prone to inducing pilot
errors.
Although the program was not aimed at passenger
evaluation of the procedure, the on-board observers
who participated did not express any special concern or
discomfort during the two-segment approaches.
The area navigation system used for these tests was
capable of establishing an upper glide slope using the
VOR and DME signals from the Stockton VORTAC. The
effect of other VORTAC locations on the accuracy with
which the upper glide slope can be established was not
considered as a part of these tests.
The flight director and raw data displays provided
the pilot with adequate information for making a smooth
two-segment approach. The upper segment capture was
consistently made with less than a 40 ft overshoot.
Having captured the upper glide slope, the pilots were
able to follow it to within a 75 ft vertical deviation. The
transition to the ILS glide slope was also smooth and
resulted in a maximum undershoot of 8 ft, and, in most
cases, the transition was accomplished without any
undershoot.
The procedure resulted in a noise reduction, using
an ILS approach for comparison, of 18 EPNdB at the
outer site and 8 EPNdB at a site located about 1 n. mi.
from touchdown.
SITE
130
y m 120
ITANOARD ILS APPROACH
u >
U. uj
fh " too
TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH
ag
o z 90
80
DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD, n.mi.
Fig. 10. Comparison of noise measured during
two-segment approach and standard
ILS approach.
A-68
-------
FLIGHT AND SIMULATION INVESTIGATION OF METHODS FOR
IMPLEMENTING NOISE-ABATEMENT LANDING APPROACHES
Hervey C. Quigley, C. Thomas Snyder,
Emmett B. Fry, Leo J. Power,
and Robert C. Innis
Ames Research Center
and
W. Latham Copeland
Langley Research Center
SUMMARY
A flight and simulator investigation has been conducted to determine
methods for implementing steep two-segment and decelerating landing
approaches. For the research jet transport used in the study a reduction in
noise of approximately 11 PNdB (9EPNdB) at a point 1.1 nautical miles from
the runway threshold was achieved with a two-segment approach with an upper
segment of 6° and a lower segment of 2.65° which intercepted at an altitude of
250 feet. The two-segment profiles with an intercept at 400 feet reduced
noise about 10 PNdB at a point 1.5 nautical miles and 13 PNdB (11 EPNdB) at
a point 3.4 nautical miles from the threshold. Decelerating approaches on a
normal approach angle (2.65°) reduced noise only moderately 3 to 4 PNdB, but
combining decelerating with steeper or two-segment approaches reduced noise
11 PNdB (9 EPNdB) at a point 1.1 nautical miles from the runway threshold.
The noise abatement landing approach profiles evaluated in this program
could be flown in a modified jet transport with the same precision as conven-
tional instrument landing approaches without a significant increase in pilot
workload. The pilots preferred two-segment approach profiles with an inter-
cept altitude of 400 feet. The research airplane had improvements over cur-
rent jet transports including a flight director modified for noise abatement
profiles, an autothrottle, and stability augmentation that improved longitu-
dinal and lateral directional handling qualities. The evaluation flights
were flown under simulated instrument conditions in daylight and in near-
ideal weather. Further research is needed to examine the requirements and
operational limitations of two-segment approaches in an environment more
representative of airline operations.
A-69
-------
Tnglewood
* California
STEEP APPROACHES FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT -
A COLLECTION OF RESEARCH STUDIES
JULY 1972
y
A-70
-------
I.
NASA FLIGHT TESTS OF STEEP APPROACHES
NASA flight tested steep approaches at Oakland Airport using a modified
Boeing 367-80 (707 prototype). Noise measurements were made in conjureuion
with the flight tests. The flights were made in ideal weather but ur^ler
simulated instrument conditions (pilot unable to see outside cockpit).
The tests included 6° approaches t;o touchdown and 6°/2.65° two-segment
approaches with intercept altitudes of 250 and 400 feet (see Figure 1). The
noise measurements showed that the 6° approach to touchdown reduced noise by
about 18 PndB throughout the approach (Figure 2). The two-segment approaches
reduced noise by approximately 10 PndB just prior to the intercept point and
by approximately 17 PndB at a point four nautical miles from the runway
threshold (Figure 3).
The NASA test pilots found that under simulated instrument conditions
rates of descent greater than 10Q0 feet per minute were unsatisfactory at
altitudes less than 200 feet above the ground. This would render a single
segirtent 6° approach (with a descent rate of 1600 feet per minute) unsatisfactory
under instrument conditions. However, the report indicated that a noise
reduction of 5 PndB or more is possible by an increase in approach angle to
4° without a large increase in rate of descent.
To avoid the problem of high descent rates near the ground, the two-
segmertt approaches were used. The pilots felt slightly rushed on some
approaches with 250 foot intercept altitudes and therefore preferred the
400 foot intercept altitude.
Under simulated instrument conditions there was a tendency for pilots
to drop below the 2.65° glide slope during transition from the 6° glide slope
if there was no supplementary guidance information provided. When the aircraft
A-71
-------
was modified to include a flight director which provided supplementary
guidance for two-segment approaches as well as an autothrottle and both
longitudinal and directional stability augmentation the two-segment
approaches could be flown with the same precision as normal approaches
(never exceeding 30 feet below the glide slope) as shown in Figure 4.
With such equipment modifications there was no increase in pilot work-
load .
Reference
Fry, Emmett B.;Innis, Robert C.; and Quigley, Hervey C."Flight
Investigation of Methods for Implementing Noise-Abatement Landing
Approaches." Progress of NASA Research Relating to Noise Alleviation
of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft. NASA Ames Research Center for
Langley Research Center Conference, October 8-10, 1968. NASA SP-189,
pp. 377-394.
A-72
-------
TEST PROFILES
Vapp • II5 knots
ALTITUDE,
ft
4000 r
2000
APPROACH
angle,deg
-6
-2.65
0 12 34567
distance from Runway Threshold n.mi.
FIGURE 1
RATE OF DESCENT AND NOISE REDUCTION
WITH APPROACH ANGLES
2000
1600
RATE OF 1200
DESCENT,
ft/min 800
400
0
0
COMPUTED
APNL, -10
PNdB
-20
Yapp* knots
ISO
UNSATISFACTORY
•/////////////////////////////////jst, '////&> 90
CURRENT JET TRANSPORTS
i i 1 1 1
1 1 ST 1 T
V/^pp * 115 knots
h DISTANCE FROM
RUNWAY * 2 n. mi.
I i I I i
-I -2 -3 -4 -5 -6
APPROACH ANGLE, deg
T
~1
FIGURE 2
A-73
-------
COMPUTED NOISE REDUCTION FOR TEST PROFILES
V
APP
115 KNOTS
COMPUTED
APNL,
PNdB
¦10
-20
foot intercept ^
^^^250 foot ipr^f!T?pt
i i i" \ i i
I 2 3 4 5 6
DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD, n.mi.
FIGURE 3
COMPARISON OF TWO-SEGMENT
AND NORMAL APPROACHES
GLIDE-
SLOPE ERROR,
ft 0
2-segment approach
ormal fpproach
DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY THRESHOLD, n.mi.
FIGURE 4
A-74
-------
V.
NATIONAL AIRLINES TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE
National airlines is flying two-segment steep approaches with
Boeing 727 aircraft at Miami International Airport. The procedure requires
no equipment other that what is already in the aircraft. The procedure
is used only when the cloud ceiling is at least 3,000 feet and the
visibility at least 5 miles.
The procedure is depicted in Figure 8. From an altitude of 2,500
feet at 6 nautical miles from the runway, the aircraft descends at
approximately a 5.2° angle until intercepting the glide slope at an
altitude of 700 to 1,000 feet and a distance of 3 nautical miles from
the runway. Power is not applied until approaching an altitude of 300 to
500 feet because a slightly high airspeed is carried during the steep
segment.
A noise reduction of at least 7 EPndB is achieved through the use
of this procedure.
Reference
Cunningham, Gerald, Letter to Miami Airline Operations Committee,
VFR Noise Abatement Approach," Air Transport Association
November 5, 1971 (Typewritten)
A-75
-------
NATIONAL AIRLINES NOISE ABATEMENT SEGMENTED APPROACH
BOEING 111 AIRCRAFT
WEATHER MINIMUMS - 3,000 foot celling and
5 miles visibility
Gear-Down
Flaps - 30
Power - 607.
Airspeed-25 Flaps
Maneuvering
Speed
Glide Slope
Intercept
2500 Feet
Power - as required
Airspeed-Vref
Corrected
700-1000 Feet
I
6.0 DME
300-500|Feet>-
3.0 DME
1.5 DME
FIGURE 8
A-76
-------
VI. PSA TWO-SEGMENT APPROACHES
Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA), a California intrastate carrier,
is flying two-segment steep approaches with Boeing 727 and 737 aircraft
at the airports they serve. The procedure requires no equipment other than
what is already in the aircraft. The procedure is only used when weather
allows the pilot to keep the runway in sight throughout the procedure.
The procedure is depicted in Figure 9. From an altitude of 3,000
feet at 6 nautical miles from the runway, the aircraft descends at
approximately a 5.4° angle to an altitude of 1,000 feet at 2.5 nautical
miles, then gradually transitions until stabilized on the final 3° glide
slope at 1.5 nautical miles.
The City of Inglewood has monitored approach altitudes of PSA and of
other carriers under actual operational conditions since the PSA procedure
was introduced. Considering all 727 and 737 aircraft combined, the following
results were observed:
Distance from PSA All Others PSA Glide All Others Glide
Threshold Altitude Altitude Path Angle Path Angle
A,bove Monitor Above Monitor
1.46 nm 565 Feet 502 Feet 3.6° 3.18°
2.51 nm 972 Feet 823 Feet 3.82° 3.04°
The differences in altitudes between PSA and all others were
statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. Measurements were
attempted at a distance of 3.57 nautical miles from the runway (under the
5.4° segment) but because of dispersion during aircraft turns, insufficient
data were obtained to draw any conclusions.
A-77
-------
During experimental flight tests PSA reported 17 EPndB noise
reduction under the steep segment. Inglewood observed PSA approaches
to be approximately 3 EPndB quieter on the average at distances of 2.5
nautical miles or less (under the shallow portion of the approach).
A-78
-------
PSA NOISE ABATEMENT SEGMENTED APPROACH
VISUAL CONTACT WITH AIRPORT MUST BE ESTABLISHED
PRIOR TO INITIATING APPROACH AND MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT ENTIRE APPROACH
>
JO
8 737 FLAPS 25 *
GEAR DOWN
140 KNOTS
ATC "SPEED CONTROL"
Reduce initial altitude 100 tot tor
each additional 10 knots r«quirad.
Reduce initial altitude 200 feet for
each additional 10 knots required.
BEGIN TRANSITION TO
FINAL SEGMENT
FLAPS 15
GEAR DOWN
150 KNOTS
3000 FT MSL
FLAPS 25
140 KNOTS
B 727
B-727 -
FLAPS 30
VrEF + 15 KNOTS
B 737
2200 FT MSL
1000 FT MSL
4.0 OME
2.5 DM 6
1.5 DME
LANDING FLAPS
Anticipate thrust requirements
and transition to FINAL SEG-
MENT smoothly.
STABILIZED ON
FINAL SEGMENT
6.0 OME
NOTES
' F lap positions shown are
recommended for no-wind
conditions. For other conditions
it will be necessary to vary flap
poiitiont or flap initiation altitudes.
FIGURE 9
A-79
-------
VII.
AIRPORTS WITH GLIDE SLOPE ANGLES STEEPER THAN 3°
There are a number of airports which have electronically established
glide slopes at an angle of greater than 3 . The FAA1s National Aeronautical
o
Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC) has concluded that 3-1/2 glide slopes
O i
are better than 2-1/2 glide slopes,-
The airports known to have steeper glide slopes are:
AIRPORT RUNWAY DESIGNATION GLIDE SLOPE ANGLE TYPE OF APPROACH
2
Dobbins AFB, Georgia ^
San Diego, California
Pope AFB, North Carolina
Whidbey Island NAS,Washi
Alameda NAS, California^
Alameda NAS, California
Tempelhof Airport,
Berlin, Germany^
San Diego, California^
Fullerton, California"
11 3.2° Radar
09 3.22° ILS
04 3.25° Radar
ton2 31 3.25 Radar
13 3.5° Radar
25 3.5° Radar
Unknown 3.5° ILS
27 4.5° VASI
24 6 Microwave ILS
References:
1. NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Minutes of Meeting of NASA
AD HOC Advisory Panel on "Aircraft Noise Abatement by Operational
Flight Procedures." September 23, 1971 (Typewritten).
2. U.S. Air Force. IFR-Supplement United States. Aeronautical Chart
and Information Center, St. Louis, Missouri. DOD Flight Information
Publication (Enroute). 25 May 1972.
3. Jeppesen & Company,"San Diego, California, International - Lindberg
Approach Chart, ILS Rwy 9," Airway Manual, Jeppesen & Company, Derver
Colorado. May 19, 1972. p.11-1.
4. Blumenthal, V.L.; Russell, R.E.; and Streckenbach, J.M. Noise Reduction
Research and Development Summary, The'Boeing Company, November 1971,
D6-60146, Second Printing, January, 1972.
5. Jeppesen & Company, "San Diego, California, International-Lindbergh Field
Airport Diagram" Airway Manual. Jeppesen & Company, Denver, Colorado.
May 19, 1972. p.11-1.
6. Hurlburt, Randall L., "Fullerton Microwave ILS," Memorandum to Steep
Approach File, and Fullerton File. City of Inglewood, California.
December 13, 1972. (Typewritten).
A-80
-------
VIII.
5° APPROACHES AT SAN DIEGO AIRPORT
Because of high terrain in the approach path to Runway 27 at San
Diego International Airport, approaches must be made substantially above
a 3° angle. Until recently, no electronic glide slope was provided,
although this is the primary landing runway.
The standard approach procedure is a back course ILS (no glide slope)
with a minimum altitude of 2085 feet specified at a point 4.7 nautical
miles from touchdown. A constant rate of descent from this point to the
runway would result in a 4.17° glide angle. In April, 1972 the FAA installed
a VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator) for Runway 27 set for an approach
angle of 4.5°.
The City of Inglewood actually monitored aircraft altitude at a point
2.6 nautical miles from touchdown at San Diego. The measurements were made
during visual flight conditions prior to the installation of the 4.5° VASI.
The tests included 2,3, and 4 engine jet transports.
o
The tests showed the average glide path angle to be 5 , compared to an
o
average of 3.1 at Los Angeles: This approach is being made regularly in
spite of the fact that the runway length available for landing at San Diego
is only 7,590 feet compared to 11,395 feet at Los Angeles.
If a 5° approach angle such as was flown at San Diego were introduced
in Los Angeles, aircraft noise would be reduced approximately 12 EPndB, or 567<>.
Reference
Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Comparison of Aircraft Approach Angles
At Los Angeles and San Diego International Airports. City of
Inglewood, California. May 1972.
A-81
-------
IX.
ALTITUDES WHEN GLIDE SLOPE INOPERATIVE AT LAX
The City of Inglewood was monitoring aircraft altitude on approach
when the ILS glide slope signal failed on August 27, 1971. Thirty-three
(33) aircraft were monitored prior to glide slope failure, 21 after glide
slope failure. The average altitude prior to failure was 907 feet above
the monitor. The average altitude with glide slope out was 990 feet
above the monitor. These altitudes translate into angles of 3.24° and
3.54°, respectively. The average altitude difference was statistically
significant at the 907., confidence level.
These results show that aircraft fly at higher altitudes without
a glide slope than with a glide slope if the glide slope angle is less
than 3.5°.
Reference
Hurlburt, Randall L., "Statistical Comparison Study." Memorandum
dated June 6, 1972 to Jack Miller, City of Inglewood, California.
(Typewritten).
A-82
-------
XI.
ALTITUDE DISTRIBUTION AT LOS ANGELES AIRPORT
The City of Inglewood has monitored thousands of overflights approaching
Los Angeles International Airport. In actual practice there is a wide range
of approach angles used.
For example, during the month of November, 1970, Inglewood monitored
the altitude of 294 two-engine aircraft, 497 three-engine aircraft, and
828 four-engine aircraft. The monitoring location was approximately 2.64
nautical miles from touchdown on Runway 25L. At this point the glide slope
altitude is approximately 813 feet above the monitoring camera.
Although most aircraft were within 1" 100 feet of the glide slope
altitude, a substantial number were significantly above it. Ninety (90)
aircraft were above 900 feet (a glide path angle of 3.3°), 9 aircraft were
o
above 1200 feet (a glide path angle of 4.5 ), and 4 aircraft were above
1450 feet (a glide path angle of 5.3°). The altitude distribution for four-
engine aircraft was similar to the overall distribution, indicating that
steeper angles were flown not only by small jets. The highest altitude
measured was a four-engine jet at 1804 feet (a glide path angle of 6.5°).
If all aircraft would fly close to or above a 4.5° glide path angle
instead of holding close to a 3° glide path, the noise reduction would be
approximately 9 EPndB.
Reference
Hurlburt, Randall L.; Owen, David A., Inglewood's Noise Monitoring
Program. Report on Phase I. City of Inglewood, California.
September 30, 1971.
A-83
-------
XIII. GUIDANCE AVAILABLE FOR STEEP APPROACHES
Steep approaches can be conducted with or without electronic guidance.
They can be performed more easily and more precisely if electronic guidance
is available. In approximate order of increasing complexity, the following
guidance could be made available;
ILS. At least one ILS (Instrument Landing System) is usually installed
at most major commercial airports. The glide slope beam is usually
set for a 3° approach angle. Most commercial aircraft have ILS
receivers installed. Although a 3° ILS is obviously better for noise
abatement than a 2-1/2 ILS, any ILS set for an angle less than
3-1/2° or 4° actually contributes to excess noise because most aircraft
would fly at these higher angles if no glide slope were available.
ILS/DME. Two-segment approaches such as those used by National Air
Lines and PSA require Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) in the
aircraft. Most commercial aircraft have DME.
3%° ILS. Slightly steeper (3%°) approaches can be achieved during
all weather conditions by simply adjusting the angle of the ILS
glide slope. No new ground or airborne equipment would be required.
Uk° VASI. Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI's) are installed
at some but not all commercial airports. Where installed, the angle
o
is usually 3 but could easily be adjusted upwards to k\°» At other
locations equipment and installation would cost approximately $60,000
but could then be used by all aircraft during visual weather conditions.
VAMSI. The FAA experimented with a Visual Approach Multi-Slope
1
Indicator (VAMSI) at San Diego International Airport. This
o o
system generated a visual 5 /3.25 two-segment glide path. However,
A-84
-------
the trial was discontinued when the FAA found that aircraft
sometimes followed the 3.25° beam when they should have been on
the 5° beam, thus causing dangerous terrain clearance problems
(San Diego has high terrain surrounding the airport). The concept
may still have merit for noise abatement purposes at other airports.
VAM. A Visual Approach Monitor (VAM) has been developed by
Sundstrand Data Control, Inc. and been tested by Pan American
World Airways. This provides a visual display in the cockpit that
automatically can guide a pilot through a two-segment approach
during visual weather conditions. No ground equipment is required.
The cost is approximately $16,000.
R-NAV. The most versatile equipment available for airborne use is
area navigation (R-NAV) equipment capable of operating in three
dimensions, thus providing vertical navigation (V-NAV). Such
equipment allows the pilot to select any desired combination of
routes, altitudes, glide path angles, or intercept points. The
guidance displays in the cockpit will then cause the pilot to fly
the selected approach. One such system (the one used for the tests
of Chapter II) costs approximately $20,000.
PAR. Precision Approach Radar (PAR) has not been widely used for
noise abatement although some military j-3tallations use glide slope
angles above 3° to provide terrain clearance. In using PAR, the
radar controller constantly tells the pilot what his position is with
A-85
-------
respect to the desired course and glide path. This system has
the capability of being exceptionally versatile if it were
developed properly.
References
1. Jeppesen & Company, "San Diego, California, International-Lindberg
Approach Chart, VAMSI Rwy 27," Airway Manual, Jeppesen & Company,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. Page 10-4, December 3, 1971.
2. Elson, Benjamin M. "Visual Approach Monitor Being Certified,"
Aviation Week, April 3, 1972, pp. 36-39.
A-86
-------
March 2, 1973
SUBMITTAL TO EPA
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY TASK FORCE
TASK GROUP 2, OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
The material submitted is an analysis showing the large reductions in
approach noise levels near airports which can be attained by advanced
operational procedures. The noise reduction potentials are shown for
the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar Transport; however, they are in principle
applicable to any airplane.
It has long been known that large approach noise reductions could be
attained by use of steep, decelerating, and curved approach paths.
Such procedures have in the past been considered impractical and unsafe
because of pilot workload and/or guidance system limitations.
Recent advances in automatic control and guidance technology require re-
evaluation of the traditional position. For example, the Lockheed L-1011
incorporates an advanced Autoland system (FAA certified for Categoiy III A)
which, after the pilot selects ILS capture mode, performs a precision
landing and rollout without any further action or control from the pilot.
Also FAA certified in the L-1011 is the Area Navigation System which, in
conjunction with the automatic control system, can fly the airplane along
any predetermined three-dimensional path. Integration of the Autoland
and Area Navigation System, which is believed feasible, would provide the
capability for precision, minimum noise approaches, separately tailored
for each airport, to be flown automatically and safely.
Realization of the large potential approach noise reductions in routine
operations depends upon conclusive demonstration, that the procedures
involved do not compromise safety and that they are compatible with
the overall air traffic environment.
A-87
-------
1. Two Segment Approach
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the two-segment approach reduces the area exposed
to 90 EPNdB or greater by over 60%.
2. Decelerating Approach
A decelerating approach utilizes the momentum of the airplane to provide part of the
thrust required. The noise reduction is achieved as a result of the lower engine
thrust then required. The reduction in thrust required is directly proportional to
the deceleration. For a one-foot/sec/sec deceleration, 35-5 knots/min., the total
thrust reduction is 11,100 pounds, or 3700 pounds per engine, resulting in_a noise
reduction (Figure l) of about 2.5 FNdB.
A-88
-------
4000
h
ui
UJ
u.
I
>•
<
3000
3
oc
ui 2000
0
m
<
>-
1
o iooo
UI
X
A. FLIGHT PATHS.
B. NOISE UNDER FLIGHT PATHS
100
6°
80
Ui
60
h
UI
UI
C. 90 PNdB CONTOURS
rtf
\ 0.75 SO.
Ml.
3° © 600',
1.33 SO. Ml
- 3°. 3.48 S
Q. Ml.
—* ¦—|
>
p-
12 16 20 24 28
DISTANCE TO THRESHOLD-1000 FEET
32
30
40
FIGURE 2. TWO-SEGMENT NOISE ABATEMENT APPROACH
A-89
-------
I I I I I I
12 16 20 24 28 32
DISTANCE TO THRESHOLD ~ 1000 FEET
111!!!
80 PNdB
FIGURE 3- NOISE'FOOTPRINTS (PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL)
CONVENTIONAL AND TWO-SEGMENT APPROACH
-------
fiLtyi? MSrf
NASA TECHNICAL NASA TM X-62,187
MEMORANDUM
r-
3
x
INITIAL FLIGHT AND SIMULATOR EVALUATION OF A
HEAD UP DISPLAY FOR STANDARD AND
NOISE ABATEMENT VISUAL APPROACHES
Kent Bourquin, Everett Palmer, George Cooper, and Ronald Gerdes
Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, Calif. 94035
February 1 9
A-91
-------
INITIAL FLIGHT AND SIMULATOR EVALUATION OF A HEAD UP DISPLAY
FOR STANDARD AND NOISE ABATEMENT VISUAL APPROACHES
Kent Bourquin, Everett Palmer, George Cooper, and Ronald Gerdes
ABSTRACT
A preliminary assessment was made of the adequacy of a simple Head
Up Display (HUD) for providing vertical guidance for flying noise
abatement and standard visual approaches in a jet transport. The HUD
featured gyro-stabilized approach angle scales which display the angle
of declination to any point on the ground and a horizontal flight path
bar which aids the pilot in his control of the aircraft flight path
angle.
Thirty-three standard and noise abatement approaches were flown in
a Pan American World Airways Boeing 747 aircraft equipped with a
Sundstrand Head Up Display. The HUD was also simulated at Ames Research
Center in a research simulator. The simulator was used to familiarize
the pilots with the display and to determine the most suitable way to
use the HUD for making high capture noise abatement approaches.
Preliminary flight and simulator data are presented and problem
areas that require further investigation are identified.
-------
Noise measurements were obtained on all the approaches (ref. 8) and
certain ones are summarized in figure 14 where smooth curves have been
passed through the average data points. The high capture profile noise
data summarized was obtained from those approaches that the radar
tracking confirmed were nominally profiles 5 and 6. At 18,000 feet from
runway threshold, the average noise during a high' capture approach was
13 EPNdB less than the noise measured during a standard 2.5° ILS glide
slope approach. At 18,000 ft from the runway threshold, a 3* approach
resulted in 5 EPNdB reduction from the -2.5° approach.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The following observations were made on the normal -3° approaches:
1. Simulation data showed a four-fold increase in precision when
the VAM was used on a visual approach.
2. Flight results showed acceptable capture and tracking of the
3° glide slope for normal, low, and high approaches.
3. Some pilots complained of a tendency to "reverse control" in the
delta-gamma mode. Alternate symbology is being Investigated.
The following observations were made on the high capuire noise
abatement approaches:
1. Simulation results suggest that the high capture approaches can
be flown with the VAM with considerably more precision than
non-ILS visual approaches with no VAM.
2. Current HUD hardware symbology is suitable for high capture
noise abatement approaches.
3. The best means or conditions for initiating the approach, VAM
or DME position fix, remains to be determined although either
may be acceptable.
4. The 747 aircraft drag characteristics were low, requiring idle
power on the -6° flight path angle at 25° flaps. Future work
will be done using 30° flaps and a shallower (-5°) flight path
angle if necessary.
5. On those approaches in which the aircraft decelerated during the
6° to 3° transition there was a tendency to undershoot the 3°
glide slope. This appears to be related to display errors, not
piloting errors and is being investigated. This, of course, was
not a problem for standard 3° approaches.
A-93
-------
1200
10,000
ft
20,000 30,000
40,000
1000
800
>
i
CD
4^
to
k
a>
£
a
*
c
«
>
o
J3
O
600
* 400
200
Profile
2
3
4
5
6
Description
2.5® ILS approach
VAM low approach
VAM 3° approach
VAM Pan Am high approach
VAM NASA high approach (Ay mode)
VAM NASA high approach
(Fixed bar mode)
Location of noise measurement
sites
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
&
8
Jb-
12
16
Range from runway aim point, km
Figure 11.- Flight Profiles.
-------
GO
TJ
Z
CL
UJ
UJ
>
LU
140
130
120
I 10
LU
(O
O
2
O
UJ
>
UJ
oc 100
UJ
Q.
UJ
p 90
o
UJ
u_
U-
u 80
0
5
T
10
ft x 10-3
15 20
T
25
30
^ 2.5° G/S PROFILE (STD ILS)
J 3° G/S PROFILE USING VAM
^ HIGH CAPTURE PROFILE 5 I 6
NOTE:
(I ) THE SYMBOLS ARE AVERAGES WITH
EXTREMES DEPICTED.
_L
±
4 8
RANGE FROM THRESHOLD, km
Figure 14.- Summary of Noise Data.
35
-------
Los Angeles Department of Airports
Five-Point Noise Abatement Program
In a move to reduce the noise impact on residents adjacent to Los Angeles
International Airport, the Board of Airport Commissioners today (Dec. 20) adopted
a five-phase program based on Federal Air Regulation (FAR) Part 36, which prescribes
noise standards for certification of transport aircraft.
Presented to the Board by Department General Manager Clifton A. Moore, the
program also is designed to reduce to manageable limits possible liabilities against
the City of Los Angeles in nuisance suits.
Dedicated to encouraging a fleet of quiet aircraft at Los Angeles Inter-
national, such as the new generation DC-10, L-1011, the 747-200 and certain models
of the 727-200, the newly adopted program is as follows:
I) A runway preferential use program which would shift all aircraft traffic
between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. to over-ocean approaches and departures--Proposed to
start on April 29, 1973, this conforms with the date for airline schedule changes.
The over-ocean system has been under evaluation at Los Angeles Inter-
national since September 1972, and the Federal Aviation Administration has promised
installation of an instrument landing system on Runway 6R to be operational by
the program's effective date.
Over-water operations will be possible 90 percent of the time. During the
remaining period when weather and wind conditions do not permit such operations,
aircraft not compLying with FAR 36 will be denied the use of Los Angeles Inter-
national. Under these conditions, only FAR 36 aircraft will be allowed to land
from or takeoff to the east between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
(more)
A-96
-------
• add I"
Instructions will be issued to the FAA designating the north and south inboard
runways as preferential for takeoffs under this night-time system.
Penalty for repeated violation by any carrier of the preferential runway
useage will result in cancellation of its operating permit and the right to use
Los Angeles International Airport.
2) A program of economic incentives to accelerate the use of quiet
aircraft--Labeled "dollars for decibels", the program will be implemented on
July 1, 1973.
It will feature a schedule of incentive landing fees, ranging from the lowest
charge for FAR 36 aircraft to the highest for operators of the noisiest aircraft.
This incentive landing fee program will have a direct tie-in with phase three.
3) A fleet noise rule to establish a 100 percent FAR 36 aircraft fleet at
Los Angeles International by December 31, 1979--This is a long-range gfeogram by
which the noisier aircraft are phased out of the airline fleet.
It will be evaluated on the basis of actual operations at Los Angeles Inter-
national and designed to be 40 percent complete by July 1, 1977, and 100 percent
in compliance with FAR 36 by the end of 1979.
This fleet noise rule will stand at Los Angeles International unless a more
stringent rule is adopted by the federal government.
4) Creation of a noise enforcement division within the Department of
Airports--As a tool to insure compliance, the noise monitoring computer will be
programmed to accurately measure FAR 36 noise parameters.
5) Even though this program is designed to insure quieter aircraft, the
Airport Commission and staff will continue to urge adoption of appropriate legis-
lation to achieve a stronger method for developing compatible land use in the
various communities around Los Angeles International.
(more)
A-97
-------
add 2
The Airport Commission instructed Department management last Augiist 2 to
prepare airport regulations and policies which would diminish liability of the
City of Los Angeles in possible nuisance suits, and also provide the minimum noise
impact on residents in vicinity of Los Angeles International.
This action by the Commissioners followed a report by City Attorney Roger
Arnebergh suggesting closure of Los Angeles International due to implications of
the case of Nestle vs. the City of Santa Monica. Decision by the California Supreme
Court in this case established, for the first time, that nuisance is a basis for
law suits against governmental agencies.
The Department's new five-phase program was formulated after giving careful
consideration to pending legal actions, namely the Air Transport Association's
recent suit attacking the California Noise Standards and the forthcoming review of
the Burbank curfew decision by the U. S. Supreme Court.
# # #
JEF/kr
12-20-72
A-98
-------
December 1, 1972
JOINT' POLICY STATEMENT ON AIRPORT NOISE
Prepared by elected representatives of the communities of:
F,1 Seeundo. Tnelewood, Lennox, Plava Del Rev, Westchester
Noise from Los Angeles International Airport has reached intolerable propor-
tions in the communities of El Segundo, Inglewood, Lennox, Playa Del Rey, and
Westchester. Efforts to reduce noise have so far resulted in unsatisfactory
improvement.
To arrest and abate the noise problem, the communities around LAX are
convinced that unified action is necessary. They have therefore met together •
and hereby submit the following joint proposals to the Los Angeles Department of
Airports. The Department of Airports is invited to meet with representatives of
the surrounding communities on a regular basis to seek implementation of these or
any other measures to reduce noise. The proposals are:
1. Night Curfews: The airport should be closed to all jet operations
during the sleeping hours from 11 PM to 7 AM.
2. Noise Barriers: A wall or earth berm should be constructed along
the north and/or south funways wherever it would reduce noise.
Runup Restrictions; Maintenance runups of jet eng'ines on or off
aircraft should be prohibited unless conducted in a noise suppressor
which will reduce noise to 65 dBA or less at any residential property
line.
4. Reduced Takeoff Power: Except where inconsistent with safety,
reduced engine power should be used for all takeoffs from the
start of takeoff roll.
-*• Rolling Start Takeoffs; To reduce the excessive time duration of
noise near the start of the takeoff roll, all takeoffs should be
begun from a rolling, not standing, start with gradual addition
of power.
6. Flat Takeoff Profile: To reduce sideline noise, takeoffs should
be planned to lift off as far down the runway as possible and climb
out initially at as low an altitude as is consistent with safety
of flight.
7. Takeoff Runway Restrictions: To reduce sideline noise, takeoffs
should be permitted only from the inner runways (24L-6R, 25R-7L).
Steep Approaches: To reduce' noise produced by landings from the
east, the ILS glide slope angle should be raised from 3 to 3%
degrees, and 4^ degree Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI's)
should be installed.
A-99
-------
9. No Thrupt Rrversprsr Kxcept where inconsistent with safety,
the use of thrust reversers on landing should be prohibited.
10. Retrofit: No aircraft, including SST's, should be permitted to
land or take off from LAX after January 1, 1976 which have not
been originally manufactured or subsequently retrofitted to meet
the noise level standards of FAR Part 36.
11. Noise Abatement Plan: The airport should adopt a noise abate-
ment plan which will achieve compatibility between the airport
and surrounding communities.
12. Noise Abatement Committee: Airport officials should meet regularly
with official representatives of the surrounding communities to
develop jointly acceptable noise abatement plans.
These proposals are not necessarily the total answer to die noise problem at
LAX, nor are they the only areas of agreement among the communities near the airport.
They represent reasonable steps which may be tajken to reduce noise for all, Data
to support these proposals is available on request.
Signed:
Mqtigbll
of Inglewood
Kenneth llahn
E. L. Ba Inter
Mayor, City of El Segundo
f Kenneth llahn
Supervisor, County of Los Angeles
Pat Russell
Councilman, City of Los Angeles
A-100
-------
ftUSQW.
SI A'JSON
SCALE •«
-------
L Figure 8. NEF 30 Contour: Existing Conditions
h 15 O
-------
SCAl t IN MILES
¦iliUSDi.
IFLO^iNCE
[RESENT
inglewood;
[MANCHESTER^
-WESTCHESTER
VA'.CHLSUK^
KELSO
trcKESTEa-
/COMSf-)
5 COVtLLt
7(77r]
SPBuCl
BuCKThQBI
PJJCt
CENTURY
wO«'-l
MuaspgiM
NEF 30 Contour: Night Curfew; Steep
Approaches; Noise Barrier; Rolling Start,
Reduced Power, Delayed Liftoff Takeoffs on
Inner Runways; No Thrust Reversers; Retrofit
H011T
xisn
-------
FAA-RD-71-83
TCr a - & 9
^ 3fit/72
MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF NOISE
FROM FOUR AIRCRAFT IN LEVEL FLIGHT
(727, KC-135, 707-320B AND DC-9)
Carole S. Tanner
&EB&B
HYDROSPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION
1360 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92106
4Mrfs o»
U.S. International TrantporhiHon Expedition
Ovlta International Airport
Woihlngton, O.C.
May 27-Jum 4, 1972
SEPTEMBER 1971
FINAL REPORT
Availability is unlimited. Document may be released to the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, for sale to the public.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Systems Research and Development Service
Washington, D.C. 20591
A-104
-------
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to obtain information regarding the effective perceived noise
levels (EPNL) of various aircraft flybys, a test program at National Aviation
Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC)was performed as a follow-on to work
reported in Reference 1.
The broad program objectives were 1) to determine curves of EPNL ver-
sus slant range at the closest point of approach (CPA) as a function of three
power settings, 2) obtain information as to the effects of changes in EPNL as
a function of the angle of elevation betweenthe ground and the slant range, and
3) acquire data that may be useful in providing further information as to the
magnitude of sound absorption in the atmosphere for the higher frequencies.
This report presents the noise and appropriate tracking data for the 727,
KC-135, 707-320B, and DC-9 aircraft. Plots of EPNL as a function of slant
range at CPA, power setting, and angle of elevation are included for three
ranges of power settings.
CONCLUSIONS
During the course of the data processing and data evaluation, several
factors have arisen that are noteworthy of comment. First, the considerable
variation and speed of the winds encountered during testing and the resultant
effects on the aircraft performance and acoustics may warrant further
investigation.
Considerable problems were encountered in obtaining useful data from the
7000-foot microphone. These problems included excessive backgrpund noise
from nearby vehicular traffic and high ambient wind noise levels. Therefore,
a large portion of this data was disregarded.
Comparisons of the test data with current state-of-the-art noise predic-
tions indicates reasonable agreement (±5 EPNdB) for the 100 percent and
minimum EPR conditions where /3 > 15°. The test data does indicate that the
reference noise levels are a bit on the high or conversative side. The de-
crease in level due to angle of elevation effects is most noticeable on the 721
and KC-135 data at 100 percent and power cutback EPR.
Comparisons of level flyby data contained in this report can be made with
flyover data from Reference 1 to provide a body of information suitable for
noise predictions.
A-105
-------
L_J
CIVIC CENTER
105 EAST QUEEN STREET / INGLEWOOD. CALIFORNIA 90301
July, 1972
REPORT SUMMARY
A SURVEY OF AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS AND
MONITORING SYSTEMS AT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS
By Wolfgang A. Boettger
In an effort to improve understanding of airport noise monitoring procedures
worldwide, the City of Inglewood surveyed all airport authorities known to
have monitoring systems. The results show that the United States lags behind
other nations in the effort to reduce airport noise.
This report is primarily based on the answers to written requests for infor-
mation which were sent out in February, 1971. Those airports known to have
noise monitoring systems are:
United States
New York (Kennedy) Airport, New York
New York (La Guardia) Airport, New York
New York (Newark) Airport, New Jersey
Santa Ana (Orange County) Airport, California
Los Angeles International Airport, California
Worldwide
London (Heathrow) Airport, England
Gatwick Airport, England
Zurich (Kloten) Airport, Switzerland
Stuttgart Airport, Germany
Frankfurt (Rhein-Main) Airport, Germany
Munich Airport, Germany
Paris (Orly) Airport, France
Osaka International Airport, Japan
Tokyo International Airport, Japan
A-106
Environmental Standards Division
Department of Planning & Development
Telephone: (213) 674-7111, Ext. 396
-------
This report briefly describes the noise monitoring system at each airport.
It also describes the procedures, standards, and penalties in effect at each
airport.
In general the report shows that there are more airports with monitoring
systems in other parts of the world than in the United States, Except for
the New York airports, other countries had noise monitoring systems 5-10
years earlier than the United States (the monitoring system at Los Angeles,
although reported, is still not operational). All airports except Tokyo and
Los Angeles reported a noise standard of some kind. Five of the airports in
other countries have nighttime curfews or nighttime restrictions on flight
operations; only Santa Ana Airport in the U.S. has a nighttime curfew. The
only airport which invokes penalties for violation of their noise standards
is Frankfurt Airport, Germany. A more detailed summary is contained in the
attached table.
Although the United States has more advanced technology, builds more air-
craft, and exposes more people to aircraft noise than any other nation, it
is last in attacking the noise problem. The State of California is now
attempting to take the lead by establishing statewide airport noise standards
to become effective December 1, 1972.
RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation of this report is that the United States Government
require that noise standards be established at all commercial jet airports
based on the most advanced technology available including engine retrofit,
steep approaches and scheduling control. These standards should be enforced
using advanced monitoring systems and penalties for violators.
A-107
-------
/r p
¦"POTIONS
rVPE OF I MONITORING
AIRCRAF7 | SYSTEM
N.-t •;
S~7-NDA"DS
' L'. 1 'H
PROCEDL'RKS 1 RESThlCTIONS
r.NF0RCP«m
PENALTIES
LONDON
(HEATHROW)
270,360
i
707,727,737,
747,DC-8,DC-3,
liAC- 111, VC- 10 ,
Trident
13 fixed monitors.
Installed 1960.
110 PNdB(7a.m.-llp.n>.)
102 PNdB(11p.m.-7a.m.)
Approach: Hadar ! No general aviation
monitoring i Jets fron> 11 P'm-
j 7 a.m. Quota of 3500
| commercial jets in
| sunnier«
i
No penalties.
Airline notified.
ZURICH
130,470
707,727,7^7
747,DC-8,DC-9
BAC-111,11^62,
VC-10, Comet,
TU- 104
9 fixed monitors.
Several mobile
units. AutOT-atic
central processor.
Installed 1964
99 dBA (6a.m.-10p.m.)
95 dBA (10p.m.-6a.m.)
Approach: at or
above 3® Prefer-
ential runway*
Departure: Thrust
reduction.
Maximum c limb
10 p.m. - 6 a.m.: no
thrust reverser. No
run-ups
No penalties.
Airline notified.
Pilot reprimanded,
violations
published monthly.
STUTTGART
117,630
707,727,737,
DC-8,DC-9,
Caravelle,
Trident,BAC-111
7 fixed monitors.
Automatic central
processor.
96 dB(A) (Monitor 6)
90 dB(A) (Monitor 1)
Departure:
Kouting
10p.m.-6a.m.:no thrust
reversers. No jet
take-offs except
10 p.m.-11:30 p.m.
and airmail service
No penalties.
FRANKFURT
200,000
707,727,737,747,
DC-8, DC-9,
BAC-111,Trident,
Caravelle
13 fixed monitors.
An*o
40?,c00
(1V6 i )
707,727,737
747,DC-8,DC-9,
DC- 10, VC-10,
-------
~Tt- X-K V I pofx^J^
1 "raANSPor'TA'
n !! T^'v «,"% 3*» *?p "' /r\ ~'9 .
-------
INTRODUCTION
This edition presents Hie volume of revenue passenger, freight,
express, and mail traffic handled by the Nut ion's certificated
route air carriers at each airport served by these airlines dur-
ing the 12 months ended June :i0, 1971. In addition, a presen-
tation of aircraft departures is shown including detail by
aircraft type for total departures performed in scheduled,
nonscheduled, and all services.
Certificated route air carriers include the domestic trunk,
local service, helicopter, intra-Alaska. iiitra-IIawaii. all-cargo,
international and territorial, and oilier route carriers holding
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the
CAB authorizing the performance of scheduled air transpor-
tation over specitied routes. Data for supplemental, commuter,
intra-state, and foreign-flag air carriers are not included in
this publication.
SOURCE OF DATA
The data in this publication are compiled from information
reported quarterly to the CAM by the certificated route air
carriers on Schedule T-3(a) (1)1 (c). Airport Activity Statistics
of CAM Form 41. Heport of Financial and Operating Statistics
For Certificated Air Carriers.
PRESENTATION OF DATA
The data in this publication are presented in seven tables.
The first two tables contain summary data by ty]ie of opera-
tion and type of service for carrier groups and individual
air carriers and summary figures by area, State, and Country.
Tables 3, 4, and ¦> show activity in air carrier .-vstem opera-
tions at large, medium, and small air tt-atli.- hubs. The last
two tables in the publication pre-ent detailed statistics bv
community and airport. In addition, the last table has a
presentation of total aircraft departures performed by specific
aircraft type. In this table, an asterisk printed to the left of the
lircraft designation denotes that the statistics shown relate
to all-cargo service.
In Tables (i and 7, each community is listed under the State
in which it is located without regard to the location of the
airport. Cincinnati. Ohio, fur example, is shown under Ohio
although the Creater Cincinnati Airport is located at Covington,
Kentucky. An exception to this policy occurs in those cases
where a hyphenated point shown in a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity is served by a single airport and a
State line separates the communities named. In those cases
the data are listed under the State in which the airport serv-
ing the communities is located. Km e.vunple, Qtiincy. Illinois,'
Hannibal, Missouri, is a hyphenated point. Since the airport
is located in Qiiincy. Illinois, the data for both communities
are shown under that city and State. In this publication, some
community groupings have been made in 'accordance with the
Federal Aviation Administration's concept of the air traffic
hub structure. In i It is regard, single certificated points or
hyphenated points that are in Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA) are li-ted under the SMSA regardless of the
way the CAH Certificate is written or of the location of the
airport. (See AIK TRAFFIC IHT.S).
To facilitate the location of hyphenated and combined points,
there is a list at the end of this section (page vii) which cross-
references the cities so certificated.
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION OF DATA
Data are included for only those online, airports reported on
Schedule T-3 at which aircraft departures were performed in
scheduled service. Data for airports that are offline for the
reporting carrier are excluded. These criteria of inclusion or
exclusion are applied individually to each of the four quarterly
reports comprising the source of these data.
AIR TRAFFIC HUBS
The air traffic hub structure was developed by the Federal
Aviation Administration and is used to measure the concen-
tration of all civil air tralli.?. The hub structure is FAA's
principal operations control and the fundamental control for
most of the FAA's economic and operations research proce-
dures. Within this one medium are consolidated the social
and economic factors that influence a community's ability to
generate air carrier or general aviation traffic.
Air traffic hubs are not airports: they are the cities and
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas requiring aviation
services. A SMSA is a county that contains at least one city
of 50,000 imputation, or twin cities with a combined imputation
of at least .r>0,<>( 10, plus any contiguous counties that are metro-
politan in character and have similar economic and social re-
lationships. These metropolitan areas constitute a primary
focal point for the transportation research program of the
FAA, and the analyses of individual cities within an area are
treated in relationship to the entire area. In those instances
where two or more individually certificated communities are
located in a SMSA, those communities are grouped under the
SMSA definition in Table t> and in the air traflic hub tables
(3. 4. and 5).
Individual communities fall into four hub classsifications as
determined by each community's percentage of the total en-
planed revenue passengers in all services and all operations
of U.S. certificated route air carriers within the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and other I'.S. areas designated by the
Federal Aviation Administration. Table t! contains the type
of luib for each .community: "L" (large), "M" (medium).
"S" (small), and "X" (nouhub). Classifications in this issue
are based on 1 (><">,'>0:5,1 s-J total enplaned revenue passengers.
The percentage and number of enplaned passengers in the
hub classifications for fiscal vear 1071 a re:
Huh
cta**iflv«tion
Large (L)
Medium (M)
Small (S)
N'onhnb (N)
Percent of total .
cnphinrtl
1.00 or more
to 0,00
0.0.-) to 0.24
less than 0.0.">
.Vumb/r of
enphtned pa**.
The hub tables show that for the 12-month period ended
June .",0, 1071, there were 1.11 air tralli.' hubs. These hubs
represented 10 percent of the 70S certificated points in the r>0
States, the' District of Columbia, and other I'.S. areas re-
ceiving air carrier service during the period. The dominance
of the hubs in the air trallic patterns is brought out by the fact
that of the lfiit,ii(l.'1.is-j passenger enplanements during the
period, 0(!.3 percent (1 4,1s">,m;:>) were recorded at rlie 1.11 hubs,
while the nonhubs accounted for only 3.7 percent (5,$77,310).
Of the or.,:1, percent of the passenger enplanements recorded at
the hubs, the -1 targe hubs accounted for 70.3 percent, the 37
medium hubs accounted for 10 percent, and the small hubs 10.7
percent.
A-110
-------
MftU 3.
AJtOtAFT OVAiTUKES, ENPLANED REVENUE J/.5SCNGMS, AND fNKANSD WVINUE TONS OF CAMO AND MA& M TOTAL
OPERATIONS. All SERVICES AT lAAGf Alt TKAFPIC HUM
12 MONTHS MtO JUNE JO, 1971
Comirwmw
(Airport Nidw)
ftrctet of SaplAMftweta
iirenft
Tviftl
porformod
iMM |
completed 1
EnpUood m«aiM low
Wtigbt
Ciprw
Priority
Koapriomy
AllANlA. 9S0MIA
4MIU1AN • HAATSMELD IMTHI
9.23
ig)tgt, WSSJtHUSHK
|Lg(U INTl AIUfORTJ
CBIC440. IU.IMJIS
I
9*30
(Mires pieioi
0*00
ifl'HAM INllltMTiflNAU
*.24
COMMUNITY 101 At
I.M
ClfVElANO. OHIO
(HOPKINS INTERNATI0NAL AFT I
1.47
tMMt LAfcEFftONT AlMQMt
0.00
COMMUNITY TOTAt
1.47
DMLAStFT. WOATH. TEXAS
(GftEAtift SOUTHWEST JNH.J
0.00
IkOVfi P1EL01
3.M
COMMUNITY TOTAL
DENVER. COtOMOO
ISIAPLETON INI (ANATI0NALJ
I.M
OEfAOITIANN AfttOft. MICHIGAN
(OETAOIT CITY AlAPORfl
0.00
(OETAOIT METROPOLITAN WAYNE ClYI
2.14
iNlLLOM NUN AIRPORT!
0.00
community total
HONOLULU* OAMUt HAWAII
(HICHAM AM)
0.00
(HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL)
1.64
COMMUNITY TOTAL
1.4*
HOUSTON* TEXAS
I HOUSTON INTERCOMINENTALI
I.IT
M1LLIAN P H099Y!
0.07
COMMUNITY TOTAL
1.44
KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI
IIMIERNATI ON At AIWOKTI
0.00
(KANSAS CITY NUNit
1.21
CONNUNITT TOTAL
1.2)
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA
INC CARAAN INK!
1.14
LOS AN6ELfS/9UR9Nft/LN0.9CMvCAL
IHOLLVHOO0~9UR0*kK AIRPOAO
0.05
ILONG ftEACH AIAPOATI
0*02
<*
i,l#
Mi
hi)
CONHUNITV TOTAL
»,0«
MIANI/Ff LAU0«A0ALI»PL(MS0A
If 7. LAUOlAOALfHOiLVIfOOO INTLI
0*f4
MAUI INTERNATIONAL!
I 2*14
tONNUMfv IOIAL
l.U
"l"*tAPau9/97» PAUL«NINNESOTA
'<»l*»t*P0Lfft-9f PAUL ««,!
l.U
174*77
2)419
1991
242290
299720
1244*2
124**3
l&SJ)
*04*7
22J
104
4*712
*4195
2*19
229
9542*
9SII7
* J§49
121*
L97200
2*49
1
144921
21*90
99217
117075
ITS*02
2 JO 7 4
1119
2*7*41
291/32
9*J)1
10*
129499
*44 57
10*
*01*2
2*1
*0*91
104
*112*
*9209
2*44
•*14*
4*
ML 94
J#20
U*3
199494
27M
1*9**7
21*79
TMI
119*01
91*99
171077
22191
1094
2*0962
2*4247
122551
122551
*J97*
7*490
112
104
1979*
*2129
2*2*
92*42
91**9
40174
14*9
1179
1924**
2272
21299
91914
•3771**
49*495
1329
1)200771
13*97999
239929*
279
5192*29
9192429
374*921
292
3425952
3*37
2*92*4*
2202977
119147
2*9*
19T950*
*4207
37*72
TM22T7
10949*
2*
*109*74
*7*314
*9*9721
*2241.17
1934.55
250245.31
2521*1.2*
41197.42
41197.42
5*90*.55
5*901.55
359*2.05
.03
*5039.43
14U.24
4*455.70
201.02
91229.40
217*4.19
991.02
3.70
20224.01
443.49
77.91
I944U.44
209.24
1999.49
•4103.92
*4099.21
33.9*
22145.54
22179.52
403*.*2
403f.*2
5191.*3
5191.43
2* 3*.03
7175.1*
42.49
2**29
2*«25
1579.32
9*. 79
1*7*. 11
1.90
3123.3*
3124.**
124.71
.42
.24
5779.00
1.77
97*1.33
322.9*
2099.**
22*2.*4
3907.9*
390.5*
5/056.24
57444.92
4377.«2
1909*.**
1909*.*«
7592.99
107.24
1001*.14
9757.32
134.01
*.24
**7*.22
***2.4*
391.73
• If
.09
21224.1}
• 14
2*22**71
274*29
*04*.7*
9321.03
7929.39
4172.94
39341.*7
43514.21
7192.01
71*2*01
1*277.0*
1*277.0*
4995.*4
10174.91
1.79
• 17
199*2.39
4*95.44
1*0.79
4*9*»19
2.2*
*720.71
*722.97
**!.*»
•04
.02
29143.92
29143.9*
999.29
*113.0*
*972.31
A-lll
-------
TABU 9.
AIRCRAFT DEPARTURES. INRIANEO REVENUE PASSENGERS AND INWANEO REVENUE TONS Of CAROO AND MAIt IN TOTAL
OPERATIONS, AU SERVICES AT LACGE AIR TRAFFIC HUBS
12 KCNlHS E.40EO JUNE 30, 1971
CocbiBuail?
(Airport Nvn«)
Pareaol of £npli
Aircrtft M
, Fr*i|fbt
Exprcaa
Priority
Nonpriority
6 »
01
M
TO
71
n
M
74
73
n
w
9$
n
•o
•i
oa
ts
M
u
oo
»
00
09
90
tt
n
i)
M
«
M
ft
m
oo
100
SOS
104
M
101
tor
101
101
110
111
ISO
REMARK• MEM JERSEY
IhEaARA AIRPORTI
1.92
NEW OJUEANS* LOUiSiAMA
(MEM ORLEANS INTL/M01SANI FLO/I
1.46
NEW YORK* MEM Y0RR
liJOHM * KENNEDY INTL!
4.U
I LA 6UM0UI
I.M
I MALL STREET HELIPORT!
0*00
tCRNUNlTY TOTAL
I.U
PhlLAC*lPMlA,PA/CAMOEN,NJ
(JftTERMATJONAL AIRPORT!
l.M
P|T?SRUR0M.MNMSYLVANIA
|( ALLEGHENY COUNTY APT.)
0.00
(GREATER PIHSOURGMl
1.45
127047
131944
500
2*6501
I
05309
i2S4ts
137441
*RR
264144
1206 n
505
255021
lORMMJTV TOTAL
1*05
"si* LOUISt MISSOURI
ilLAMREM-ST LOU IS MUNll
1*91
fSAM FRANCISCG/OAKLAftO* CAL.
ilSERRELEV MUNICIPAL HELIPORT!
| 0.00
k MARIN COUMTV HELIPORI I
, 0.01
:1OAKLAND MfTA0POLIT AM JNTL3
0.17
!| SAM FRANCISCO INTL )
3*20
tCMMUNIlV TOTAL
KH
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
iPUERTO RICO INTERNATIONAL!
1.06
SEATTLE/fACOHR* MASHIN6T0N
IOOEIN6 PICLO INTL*!
0.00
I SEATTLE—TACONA INTERNATIONAL!
I .45
ITACONA INDUSTRIAL!
0.00
COMMUNITY TOTAL
!•»
MAShINOTCN* out. or col*
(0ULLES IMTERNATIQNAL I
0.5*
IMASNINOTON NATIONAL!
2.9S
COMMUNITY TOTAL
5.51
OVCR-ALL TOTAL,
LAROI HUtS
67,50
5557
557*7
1*252
11*793
142959
4202
6631R
4R2
510*2
20022
105401
2443650
R6177
16177
06520
351*
3410
16000
I2059S
143*96
42 51
45470
520
50645
20179
106160
04566
04566
04151
3557
3577
15537
116434
134905
4117
44574
401
49176
20145
101509
6703319
6321565
1957
1 >026*61
2961102
2961102
4057391
12425
162R0
279570
5251530
5565429
137302
2332273
147
2469002
9009 70
4 750006
268915./6
19260.71
• 19
200176.6ft
22 TC9.97
22709.97
27200.20
.43
3.47
0R9.5R
169792.30
179645.64
691.75
45954.03
•51
44440.29
9054.00
10537*05
1731500.34
7403*24
2250.15
9453.39
4330.30
433R.3R
39*3.92
2.95
29.56
605.13
3655.55
4094.47
04.10
965.40
320.07
4749.02
104502.33
46739.04
4502.66
4039.13
4539.03
•030.01
112.24
R.49
137.41
32453*27
32911*43
224.05
13552*40
13774.53
4355*13
9999.54
41037,45
7547.57
4702*40
4702.40
9542.44
249.29
51054*27
73*47
14973*44
17047*13
52 07.02
1004J.99
344244*94
A-112
-------
TAJBli 4
AilOtAFT DEPAITUftiS, ENPLANED «EV?NUI PASSENGERS, AND EN^lANEO REVENUE T©N5 OF CARGO AND MAJl IN TOTAL
OPERATIONS, AU SERVICES AT MiOIUM AIR TRAFFIC HUBS
12 MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30. 1971
1
iirrrifl dtnirtuM
EspUn«d m«nu« torn
u
Corn inanity
Pr.r'
US.
M*U
n
(Airport Nunc)
P«rc«nt ol EnplineottaU
Tot mi
P«r(fiRT.Ki
$rbe4uled
ichfdu'i'ii
Freight
Eipraa*
Farcin
at «iT
e
completed
Priority
Nonpnority
No.
1
3
3
4
6
6
7
•
10
>
I
ALBANY* NEW Y0AK
(ALUANY COUNTY!
0.26
131*1
13j49
12944
416646
1310.82
501.95
725.56
903.04
;
6
7
AL8UttU£AOu£. Nt» MEXICO
lALBUtiUfctUUS SUNPkf/ft (RTLND AF81
0.-37
22216
22J97
21628
593463
2140.21
328.66
934.84
1126.35
1
9
10
tl
13
13
14
15
16
17
It
19
30
21
22
33
34
as
36
37
31
39
30
31
31
33
34
3$
36
37
35
39
40
41
43
43
44
43
46
47
41
49
SALT IMGREt MARYLAND
( FRIENDSHIP INTERNATIONAL)
0*97
47686
46063
46965
1555662
17355.54
1304.08
5500.91
7103.37
1*66
BIRMINGHAM* ALAbAHA
1 BIRMINGHAM MUNU
0.30
20026
20057
19697
492745
2559.91
257.14
1376.57
1609*60
ditff ALC4N1 AC AAA FALLS.NEW YORK
(GREAfER BUFFALti 1NTERNAT10NAL3
0*64
27656
27720
27086
1034176
12571.29
1869.57
2171.98
346S.66
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA
(OOUGLAS MUNI)
• 0*52
30316
30*31
299 65
638630
19C41.15
696.10
2968.92
3332.97
CINCINNATI. OHIO
(GHtAItA LINCINNATIJ
0.76
45612
,46240
45034
1221556
17171.2c*
2066.27
3465.05
2760.52
CCLUM6US. OHIO
(PORT CULUMBUS INTERNATlUNAL1
0«Si
29602
29967
29193
651043
5140.22
1537.13
2637.61
2353.66
OAVY0N* OtilQ
(JAMES M COX OAYTON NiJNf)
0.42
26205
26i90
27626
679456
12095*27
1342.01
1650 . 36
2173.12
DCS MCJNES* I0UA
(CIS MCINES NUNi)
0*25
13356
13*91
13161
403413
2420.95
3 74.24
717.65
1667*19
EL PASO, IEJAS
(El PASO INftRNAIIQNALI
0.29
16519
165 61
16361
473726
3063*45
159.60
739.39
*13.96
UA6ENS0CRO/HIGH Pf/WlNSTN,N.C.
I toREENSiWRO-HlwH PT-MINSIN REG.I
0.24
<&MI1M—REYNOLDS AIRPORT!
0.02
15965
5546
16156
54 75
15522
5067
369420
. 45682
4468.34
325.92
481*72
19.25
1044.45
54.15
925*69
6*74
31
33
S3
34
93
56
SI
it
59
60
61
63
63
64
63
66
67
61
69
70
71
73
73
74
73
76
77
78
79
M
11
13
13
14
S3
16
•7
U
69
COMMllNllV TOTAL
0.26
21511
2U31
20609
435102
4614.26
500.97
1098.60
932.63
H ARTFCRO/ SPRNGFLO/WtSIFLJ*CUNN
IBRAOlEV INlLl
0.54
26125
28*24
27*05
670365
17232.13
1054.75
3177.75
2694*91
H1L0 * HAwAI1, HA»AI1
(GENERAL LYMAN fIElO)
0* 26
9269
•934
6412
<*60597
•777.»4
.22
255.19
422*45
I NOIANAPIJL IS* INDIANA
1 1N0UNAPCLIS HUNl/»EIR-COOK/J
0.63
37790
3*191
37061
10135 70
16217.22
2259.10
3083.93
4217.27
JACKSONVILLE* FICRICA
1 JACKSONVILLE INTt&NAT 10NAL1
0.42
20066
20366
19755
6773S2
2643.16
487.05
2572.86
,1708*41
ftAHULUIf MAUI, NA«A|1
(KAhULUi1
0*36
16046
15324
14402
576464
1668.85
113.25
422*49
LlHUEt KAUAI t HAWAII
ILIMUEI
0.33
• 562
75 59
7297
537503
601.33
90*76
262.00
LCUISVULE, KENTUCKY
(STANUJFORO f(EL01
0.55
32210
324 02
31590
486V92
6156.67
1321.55
1779.24
2337.41
"EMPHIS. TENNESSEE
(HeMPHlS INTERNA!IUNALI
o.vo
51442
51991
50481
1441571
19885.53
22 56*33
4665.72
3952.07
MILWAUKEE* KliCONSIN
(GENERAL MlTCMELL FIEL01
0.55
3
34349
3W 86
33299
•95470
10802.67
1674.89
1568.14
2961.14
90
91
93
93
SAShv(LLC( TENNESSEE
-------
TAftie 4.
AIRCRAFT DEPARTURES, ENPLANED RFVFNUf PASSENGERS. ANO ENPLANED REVENUE TONS OP CARGO AND MAIL IN TOTAL
OPERATIONS,. ALL SERVICES AT MEDIUM AIR TRAFFIC HUU
11 MuNfHi £¦»()£0 JJSt JO, 19/1
Community
(Airport N*nt«)
P«R4Bl of P.Bptan«B«DM
100
101
102
101
104
101
lot
107
101
109
no
111
lit
PORTLAND, OREGON
(PORUANO (NT ERNAT IGNAl J
O.?*
AALEIGH/OURHAM* NORTH CAROLINA
IRALfclfiH-OURHAHJ
0*31
RCChE $1£R» NEM VORX
ikOLHkStt*-*OH*Qi COUNTVI
0.%0
SALT LAKE CITt, UTAH
I SALT LAKE CilT INTO
0.6*
>AN AKTCNIO* TEXAS
I SAN ANTCN10 INIERNATI0NAL)
0.52
SAN DIEGO* CALIFORNIA
(SAN 01 ECO INTNL-LINObtRGH FLO)
O.bO
SYRACUSE* NCH YORK
4 CLARENCE E HANCOCK)
Q.40
TANPA(ST.PISBC/CLmTRCLKLNO*FIA
I IAMPA INTERNATIONAL!
0.9S
TUCSON* ARIZONA
«TUCSON INTL)
lULSA, OKLAHOMA
IIUL*A INTL)
OVER-ALL TOTAL.
MEDIUM HUflS
lias
Aircraft (iepkrt am
Toul
performed
Sftttiulfci
completed
ErpUi.rd
pMr«r
-------
TAIU S.
AJtOUFT OffWmJWS. ENPLANE I^TV'f PASHNGm. ANC SWPIA^SD B?VfNUf TONS OF CARGO AND MAO. M TOTAL
QfiftAllONS. AU SEIVICES AT SMAU. Alt TIAFPfC HUSS
12 MONTHS ErtDEQ JUNE 30* 1971
L
iiwrilt ^Mirtum
•
EnpUntd rnwui too*
Conn unity
l&npiiMd
n
(Airport N«ai«)
P«rc«a« ot EapUcuntata
Toul
SebtdoUd
Scb«dul«d
PUHB(M
Pnigtkl
Exprm
US. MRU
FbraifS
•
performed
MnapUud
Priority
Koopriorily
fi&ui
No.
t
a
3
4
S
•
7
•
9
10
)
3
3
4
1KR0N/CANTON* 0*110
1 AKRON-CANTON \/
0.10
7219
7A01
71SB
1*92 47
13*9.42
485.J*
772.41
0.10
5
*
7
•
4lLf MCWN/6CTHI. EHEM/EASTON • PA
I ALLfcMCWN—8ETHL£HfcP4-E ASTwNJ
o.oa
+ 1*3
WW
4141
1357*9
299.11
91.25
190.17
31.52
9
10
12
13
APARILIO* TEXAS
(AMARIU.0 AIR U£MlNAL>
0.10
6474
/029
«r«*
1606*7
396.41
*•.72
217.70
214.0*
1}
14
13
16
17
15
19
30
31
ANCHORAGE* AtASXA
I ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL)
0.24
(EIMENOORF AFB1
0.00
12*48
2
10712
10192
30V3 73
15970.iO
2*.2*
0144.00
2700.75
.1 ft
0.24
12450
10/U
10192
349373
15970.30
2**2*
•144.06
27>0*75
.10
33
33
34
35
ASHEVILLE* NORTH CAROLINA
lASMtVULf MUNI*
0.07
7725
1037
7*71
120610
154.Ji
101.1*
230.50
133.70
36
37
31
39
t&HLANO* RV./HUWTINGTCN. *.VA.
( TRI-STATE /«ALfcER-LONG FiELi)/)
0*05
*127
*>22
*0ii
•0936
312.20
99.79
115.43
71*15
30
31
13
33
AUGUSTA? GEURG1A
(BUSH FIELOJ
O.U
10201
lOilO
100 72
1947)5
*41.20
*7.07
207.18
330.10
34
33
36
47
U&riN« TEXAS
IRCBkHT MUELLER MUNI I
0.16
U115
111 55
101 fJ
26*233
752.37
U5.§t
099.91
J 74.74
*Oi
31
39
40
4!
B*NGGft« MAINE
IbANGUR IhTERNATIQfcALft
0.05
2*7*
2*92
2*0*
•599)
337.4*
191.01
109.39
212*96
43
43
44
43
• ATCN ROUGE* LOUISIANA
(*VA*»
0.07
•657
0*94
• 5*4
11950*
520.09
50*17
20*.10
33.2*
46
47
41
49
BILLINGS* MONTANA
(LOGAN HtLOl
0.20
«74A
•444
•47}
172*53
545.34
92.70
309.01
40*.70
30
51
33
S3
MCISC* IDAHO
IdOlSfc AIM TERMINAL /OOmkh FLO/1
9.49
90 J*
94T5
24964*
574.72
90.94
277.**
*01.**
34
S3
34
37
ORISTCL/KNGSPRt/JMNSN UY.TfcNN
lilt CIIVI
0.10
140*0
11220
10745
162023
997.0*
202.22
233.37
130.09
31
39
«0
•1
CCC*a kAPlCS/10*A cm* lOtfA
ICfcCAM KAPIDS MUNI)
o.w
*731
*790
6649
15 70**
1*32.1*
231.77
330.03
50.29
U
13
*4
«3
ChARPAIGN/UROAKA* ILLINOIS
3
7}
C*AALESTGN/OUN#AA. M. VIRGINIA
IKANAMHA3
0*13
10*7*
IW10
IQ*U
201321
*41.*9
14*«05
242.4*
337*51
74
73
7ft
77
CNARLCtTC AMALI E* VlRtilN li.US
1NAKNV S.TRUMAN)
0.43
*400
*414
*177
21752*
713.14
103.03
0.29
7»
79
•6
•1
CNAffANOOfiA* TCMNfSSIS
UGVElL FIELOI
0.u
100*1
101 13
9930
190093
13*3.0*
249.35
*02.*0
520*51
•3
13
«4
•3
CM1SIUNST£0,ST.CROU,V.I.,OS
lALfXAftOE* HMUICNi
o.o?
*971
4-442
4112
11*520
3*2.97
40.30
• 31
•03
•ft
07
II
Of
CCLCRACO SPRINGS* COLORADO
(PEUttSON FIELD)
0.11
Mil
~175
9421
210432
163.74
129.07
244.23
22*.41
90
91
•3
93
CCLUMB|A« SOUTH CAROLINA
(COLUMdIA METR0PQL1TAN)
0.10
12909
12V1I
12641
29490B
4143.34
157.04
*23.00
*17.40
H
93
91
97
COLUMBUS. GEORGIA
« COLUMOU> MfcTROPOUTAN)
0*09
9304
9431
9100
155525
727*62
00.94
27A.22
241.61
91
99
wo
101
CORPUS CHRISM, rHAS
ICURPUS CHMUTI INTERNAT1UNAL )
0.10
*154
*401
*09S
1*1941
443.9*
49.*1
920.00
09.51
.10
103
101
104
to*
OAVlOM OEACM* FLCMOA
(OAVTCNA BEACH REGIONAL 1
0.0*
4*94
471*
4*00
137**7
390.23
44.05
70.01
1.0*
101
107
too
109
110
111
119
OUiurK* *f*M./$UPCRJ0ft| MIS.
IOULUTH INTEKNATIUNALI
0.0*
*197
*229
60 «S
100400
*30.52
113.90
133.73
177.39
ERIE, PEMNSVLVANIA
ttMtt l*Ili
0.0*
#a»9
7064
••4<»
111073
10*3.43
2 35.0*
209.09
132.59
A-115
-------
TAJllf 5
ArtCfAFT OfPA«TU«S, ENPLANED fffVfNUC FASSCWGfS* ANO tKHANtO KCVfNUE TONS OF CARGO AND MAH fN TOTAl
OflfcATlONS, AU UHV1CIS At SNVAU AW MAffSZ HUftS
12 MQnIh^ EjOEO Jsit* 30. 1971
t,
Airrr.fi droftnurni
Enpifciind r«««Du» tuu
CoiRAue'i.r
US
M»i)
n
lAirpori Namri
Prrrcbl of Knpitncnirnu
"TV i»l
Frfipbl
EUprm
Fm'ia
mw
*
perlornt{*i
r&ir.pivicd
Priority
No.
1
2
3
4
a
4
7
t
9
10
1
3
3
EUGENE. OREGON
(NAHLCN S»EET FIELD)
0.05
40*7
41 77
397B
91457
4*0.31
45.*4
93.47
102.41
4
5
6
7
EVAHSVIl.lt* 1N0IANA
1 E"VANS V ILL E OtUSS MfclifCNAL*
r 0.10
ijzi
5/71
&69S
161900
1145.65
310.25
191.40
2*.*5
0
9
10
11
13
7)
FAIRBANKS. ALASKA
ItlELSLN AfB)
0.00
1 FAIRBANKS INTERNATIONAL!
0*09
i
74»9
*'•9
*351
i»a>*3
16564.59
2317.55
1410.6*
0.34
14
15
16
CCMMUN If V I0TA4.
0.09
744a
*9«9
*i51
. 1SMS63
t2564*59
5.12
2)17.55
1410.06
6.34
lj
19
PAHCOrN,D,/«OORMfAD, MINNESOTA
1HfcCTOA FIELO)
0.05
1617
340*
iJ62
42401
213.4*
79.44
104.03
350.90
31
33
13
FAYtTTEVtLlt. NORTH CAROLINA
(fAy*m*UU *uM/GAAM»lS FWOI
0.07
79*0
•1U
76*4
120376
679.30
35.71
26*.79
13.4*
95
36
27
31
FCRT MVCASr FLORIDA
1PA&I fltLOJ
0*05
»99
3)1)
3341
62901
54T,»6
21.50
09*01
-74
JO
»
FCKT WAVhE• INDIANA
I fO»r *ATSE HJM/bAt* FLO/I
Q.C9
SU5
U4I
5042
1)1181
1912»*4
532.39
3*2.20
5.05
14 ifAISNO. CALIFORNIA
3i UMSnC At A TERMINAL!
36 | 0.11
*412
tali
6J«0
220071
lOJl.i1
72.15
149.94
17.5)
i| LiAAND JV*C7|ON. COt OA it DO
«o i VALUER 0IHOI
40 | o.os
*250
4i72
4011
901*4
164.A9
32.14
50.*7
4 .00
42 tOMAKD FAPICS* NJCHIQAN
4» itthl CQUSlV)
44 | 0-1*
iU«»
i 1414
11657
22 7114
1*51.02
*9*.90
434.06
60.41
wfttAI FALLS. HuNlANA
47 'IfaXtAf FALL* IMfcwNAJlQNAU
4| 1 0.C7
•11*
M SJ
5VOO
12*0# 1
4*9.14
59.22
13*.19
253.17
49
>0
51
>3
„*llh tAY/CWNlOKVlltt* ritS.
iAUSI iN-StfUUDEL F1U0I
0.1*
10649
10> 39
1C1»9
2WJ*9
1076*47
280.21
260.IC
172.05
»3
54
>3
wKEIkvlLLE&SPARTASBvKO* 4.C.
< i. A C fc W u L e~ A l> A rf T A» eu HI* 1
0.10
7i r*
71*2
70*9
171180
501.06
174.li
626.4*
124.17
37
6V*f ISIAHL
(AtAhA)
0.C7
1447
3*11
3754
12 2«7*
2044.32
•04.52
545.24
1.*)
61
6J ,HA«U l»Eu«G/*(,**• PA.
A« '
%2Vl
5*35
4076
711.50
2.14
760.14
51.17
86
•7
M
69
KAUUA* KG* A, HAWAII
4 *£-AKGt£ A|MPJrT|
o.u
~691
4»2T
4311
11*4)3
545.4V
109.41
90
91
93
93
94
**
H4LAHAZC0-8AJ TLE CAEEftt HIGH.
4KALAPA2C0 HUNII
0.04
In K KlLlOGb REGIONAL AMFtfclQ)
0.01
JB4J
3*42
3900
279*
*572*
2>*D
341.17
56.20
235.3)
11.43
196.*i
291.11
.01
96
97
9>
COMMUNITY TOTAL
O.OS
*436
6401
*594
913)9
199.37
24*. r*
449.72
•01
99
100
105
103
103
104
toi
106
107
106
109
no
in
ua
KHOXVlUi* ItNHtiitt
CMC UHIE IVSONI
0.21
LANSIMm MICHIGAN
iCAPJf41 Cllft
0.07
LlIlhCICN/fKANKFURT, fttNTUCKV
IM.Uk MASS!
0,09
17209
*496
79 J 7
17211
*>19
7*94
14899
*342
•
7542
341754
113224
140*¥9
2145.40
2tf«.«2
#63,04
316.05
207.02
145.40
507.34
221.3*
564.)*
**0.94
1*«02
3.07
A-116
-------
tuu 1
AIRCRAFT DEPARTURES, ENPLANED REVENUE FASSENCCRS, AhO ENPLANED REVENUE TONS OF CARGO AND MAR. IN TOTAL
OPERATIONS, AU SIRV1CIS AT SMAU All TRAFFIC HUBS
12 MONTHS E*0EU JUNE 30r 1971
Aircrift diiDutuni
Ecp)*nad re?«nu« u>n>
Community
Enplaned
pMM«ngtr»
Mai)
(Airport N'mit)
Ptrerat of Eopl»n«Ba&la
TotAj
Scb*dui«d
Scheduled
Fr.ighi
Exprm
u 5
Fortifn
catu
ptrfontM)
conptntd
Priority
Noopriorit;
1>
3
1
5
«
7
8
10
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
IUNCCLN HUHII
0.06
4866
4975
4769
14113*
569.70
111.51
99.13
92.86
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
JA0A*$ Fl£lD)
0* 19
13875
LW29
13732
307257
1943.91
237.63
47.3.08
910.64
LUBBOCK * 5 t&RS
(1U68CCK REGIONAL 1
o.u
10550
1062 3
1041b
180519
374*46
99.60
211.55
45.90
MAOISflN. WISCONSIN
ITRUAJt FIELD)
0*12
10001
10000
9751
193442
1417.5*
T17.19
487.17
198.46
MELBOURNE t FLORIDA
1 CAFE KENNEDY REGIONAL!
0.06
4490
4>19
4451
LOT! 18
405.46
20. IT
199.05
226.61
MjOLAMC/OCESSAf JIXAS
0,14
8838
8465
*485
232370
573.62
21.23
11.99
19*27
P ENSACCL A • FlOrtlOA
(PINSACOLA MOHl/KASLE*/*
0. 10
54 79
*o07
5457
1*8225
667.44
55.il
470.05
483.05
F£QRI A« ILLINOIS
1 6R EATEft PtCKlAl
0.C8
8749
8419
•593
1*0195
8 7J**8
174.93
366.54
43.00
PCRUANCi MAINE .
IPOHTLANO INIIRNATIUNAl JETPQRrj
0.G6
3914
3980
3890
210510
580.53
131.41
256.11
63.18
PRQVIQENCC• RKOQE ISLANO
1iHtDOOHt FMANC1S fcnfeiN STAffl
C.24
1444 8
14© 79
14309
390021
2745.70
417.92
12 50.28
708.94
RAPID CIIYi SOUTH OAKtilA
(AAFio cirr RtOiOMLI
0.0%
SS99
51*4
5419
94511
229.95
32.71
110.40
105.27
RENO* NfcVACA
(R£NO 1NFLI
0 .23
9936
9884
9550
375395
8 50.33
116.6R
294.36
240.24
BICMGMO* ViR&INIA
1 RICHARD t 0TRO FLUNG fIELD)
0.4!/
140e9
16313
13943
H 3686
16 76.00
285*20
• 71.90
948.70
KCANOKC. VlRCINU
-------
TAftlf s.
AtftCftAFT OEPAITUPFS. ENPLANED 8£V£NUt PAf
I 3?
| 3*
I 39
40
H '
•9
; »
Ai
S3
53
54
55
jSAVAKNAH, CCUAUiA
(4SAVA^AH HUM*
|
:iCR AMC\/t.UKE5-BA-thEf PfcNNA.
;4«UfctS-bA«kt-iCPOKANE JNIfcRVW luNAL)
0.ii
SFHIKCFlfLC, MISSOURI
t SPHhwFUlC mjNW
| 0,05
It ALLAhASS£L« HQ" (OA
!| UIUhA^M HUM J
C.09
j
I 'TUttX* LH| 0
' i< lOltUG flK*£SS>
1 | 0.13
¦ 'j<*uncc» iqma
' .1 MAUALUO HuN 11
90
91
99
93
M
93
94
97
95
99
too
101
101
iOJ
104
105
10*
107
toe
IQ9
110
111
tia
'(•till PAL* eeAC'4/PAlH f?EAC«.FLA
ii PAL" bUCH iMCtfSAJItNAH
j 0.*A
• JCHITA, KANSAS
'UltNlf* flUUl)
I 0.11
frtufcGSTCk** OHIO
IVCbftAWO** PUNI)
O.C*
U V E A- A L L TOTAL.
SMALL HUBS
Airr.rftft drftviures
Enpltnxi
Tc«l
pcrtnmr'l
16H2
%8/0
fe*l9
S^lduM compi.Lxl |
Kreigh t
3
io^a
+ *Qb
t-3 22
lt> J9 ! 26b73
4B0& i uos*s
I
!
6>»2; 172JI3
I
6328j 18C312
• 186074
Kf.plimed rn«i;-f (ona
US. Mai!
Eiprow
j Priori tj
Konjiriomy
<¦-98
4*. I?
41.0*
6*.7©
26* 96! 120.35
A-118
-------
Appendix B
POSITION ANNEX
Throughout the development of this report, and especially
during the review of the two published drafts, the chairman and
staff continually solicited two types of information from the task
group membership. First, written comments and critiques, as
well as additional data, were requested of all and submitted by
most active participants. This information has been helpful in
the refinement of this final report. All of the submissions,
comments, and critiques are contained in the list of references
and a copy of each is preserved and maintained, available to the
public, in the task group master file. Second, position papers in
which the members, representing their various interests, would
state their position relative to the issues, independent of the con-
clusions and recommendations stated in draft reports, were
solicited. For the most part, these position papers are in the
form of a response to a "Position Questionnaire" distributed by
the chairman at meeting number 3. The Position Questionnaire
and the various Position Papers are included in this appendix.
B-l
-------
Position Annex
Contents 1 a^C
A. Position Questionnaire, Task Group 2, 3/19/73 B-3
B. Positions Of:
1. Air California B-5
2. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association B-13
3. Air Line Pilots Association B-14
4. The Boeing Company (2 documents) B-18
5. Roger Flynn (3 documents) B-29
6. City of Inglewood, California B-48
7. Lockheed - California Company B-49
8. Los Angeles Department of Airports B-52
9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration B-56
10. National Business Aircraft Association B-69
11. National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(2 documents) B-72
12. North American Rockwell B-81
13. City of New York, Bob Bennin B-83
14. Orange County Airport, California B-89
15. San Jose Municipal Airport, California B-94
B-2
-------
POSITION QUESTIONAIRRE
Task Group 2
3/19/73
Please answer the following questions giving the reasons
for your answers, modifications you would suggest, or
alternative rules you would like to see proposed.
TAKEOFF
1. Should there be an operating rule establishing specific
flight procedures for takeoff?
2. What do you think the appropriate takeoff procedure
should be?
LANDING
3. Should there be a rule establishing minimum maneuvering
altitudes prior t6 the commencement of approach? What should
these altitudes be?
4. Should there be a rule raising ILS glide slopes immediately
to 3.5 degrees?
5. Should operators be required to install instrumentation
which would provide guidance during a two-segment approach?
6. Should there be an operating rule requiring pilots to
fly two-segment approaches? What intercept altitude should
be specified? What should be the angle of the upper segment?
Should the rule initially be VFR only? When should VFR and
IFR rules be effective?
7. Should there be a rule prohibiting the use of thrust
reversers on dry runways unless required by Air Traffic
Control or unless runway length or atmospheric conditions
require their use in the interest of safety?
GENERAL-
8. To what aircraft should any of the rules considered
above apply?
B-3
-------
position questionnaire
page 2
AIRPORTS
9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
10. Should airport operators be required to assure that
no area is exposed to hazardOaa noise as defined by Task
Group 3? By when?
11. Should airport operators be authorized to specify
maximum single event noise levels for aircraft or procedures
to be used by pilots?
12. Should airport operators be authorized to designate
preferential runways, establish curfew hours on designated
runways, limit ground maintenance runups, establish airport
use fees based on noise, restrict the number of operations
at the airport, restrict use of the airport to aircraft of
specified type, weight, trip length, etc., or otherwise
conduct the operation of the airport in such a manner as to
assure that no area is exposed to hazardous noise?
13. If local conditions require, should airport operators
be authorized to specify a lower level of noise as hazardous
and adjust their airport operations accordingly?
14• Should noise monitoring be required for single event
noise? for cumulative noise? How often and at how many
locations should monitoring be conducted?
15. To what airports should any of the above considerations
apply?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
16. Are there any other rules which should be considered?
17. Are there any safety or technology considerations
other than those which you have already mentioned in
conjunction with the above questions?
B-4
-------
ni^
-------
TAKE-OFF
Ql. Should there be operating rules to establish take-off and departure
procedures? (Reworded)
Answer: It is very unlikely that an operating rule could be developed to
establish a specific take-off or departure procedure because of
differences between airplane types and the airport locations relative
to noise senstive communities. However, certain basic concepts
might be introduced in rule-form which would require a measure of
standardization in the different take-off segments . Subsequent tailor-
ing of the basic procedure would then consider the particular airport
and /or other variables.
Q2. What do you think the appropriate take-off procedure should be?
Answer: Appropriate take-off procedure rules should consider the aircraft
and flight crew capability in a standard format. 1 would envision
such rules to include the following:
*a. Preferential runway program
b. Definition of take-off power
*c. A reference initial climb speed commensurate with
safety for a particular aircraft,, i. e. B-737 = V2 + 15
knots.
d. The body angle should not be limited provided there is
adequate stall protection and maneuvering margin.
e. Bank sngle not to exceed 15 degrees belotf 1000 ft.
*f. A reduction of thrust to occur at a specified, altitude
to provide optimum noise reduction over the desired
area.
g. The amount of thrust reduction not to exceed that re-
quired to produce engine-out climb performance should
an engine be lost.
*h. Acceleration and flap retraction schedule must be con-
sistant with good operation practices.
*i. Preferential ground track compatable with standard
instrument departures.
"•Tailored to airport or aircraft.
B-6
-------
Take-Off Continued
NOTE: The basic procedure and airport variable could be
published in a format similar to Jeppesen approach
plates. It should be noted that instrument approaches
are not standardized (airport for airport), and there-
fore I see no reason why tailoring a flight procedure
could not be as effective. The community benefits are
obvious.
LANDING
Q3. Should there be a rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes
prior to the commencement of approach? What should these alti-
tutdes be?
Answer: This concept, has been standard procedure.at San Jose Municipal
Airport, California since mid-December 1972. There is undoubt-
edly merit in the "keep em high" program from a noise viewpoint,
however, numerous delays have been imposed upon the airlines
operating in this area as a result of traffic sequencing difficulties,
incompatable operating speeds between aircraft, and inability of
some aircraft to cope with steep descent angles associated with
tail-wind components. These delays are "inflight" and do expose
the communities under the approach course to noise over a longer
period of time. Should such a rule be adopted, the minimum alti-
tude must depend upon the selection of the type of approach used,
the aircraft capability and the requirement for ATC to review and
revise their standard procedures now being used at lower approach
altitudes.
Q4. Should there be a rule raising ILS glide slopes immediately to 3. 5
degrees?
Answer: In my opinion, a change to 3. 5 degrees would be beneficial'in the
reduction of approach noise, and could be flown in complete safety,
however it would not be acceptable to the industry if it derogated
the present approach minimums for any airport. A careful study
of this aspect should be undertaken to determine what, if any, changes
in landing minimums would result by an increase in glide slope angle,
also what effect would a 3.5 degree glideslope have on the proposed
two segment final intercept or would it impose a new safety
consideration for other future developments? Perhaps a more logical
approach would be to "bias" the flight director as an airport variable
when required.
B-7
-------
Landing Continued
Q5. Should operators be required to install instrumentation which
would provide guidance during a two-segment approach?
Answer: I am not too sure that a two-segment approach is the ultimate
answer to all airports and/or operators. Obviously whatever
type of approach is finally decided upon, the operator would be
required to install instrumentation suitable for the condition.
Economics, of necessity, must be interjected at this point since
the costs of such installation would be very high. Anti-noise
procedures have been studied and developed through tremendous
efforts in research and engineering and huge sums of money
expended in modifications, retrofit kits, and new instrumentation.
All of this effort has been made to improve the environment for
the public and it is unreasonable to presume that either the airlines
or airport operators can absorb these costs, individually
or collectively. It therefore behoves the Environmental Protection
Agency to pursue cost studies and make recommendations as to
the eventual responsibility of the public in assuming the cost burdens.
Q6. Should there be operating rules requiring pilots to fly noise abatement
approaches? What intercept altitude should be specified? What should
be the angle of the upper segment? Should the rule initially be VFR
only? When should VFR and IFR rules be effective? (Rewdrded)
Answer: Yes, there should be regulatory means which require a pilot to
fly noise abatement approaches over noise sensitive areas. If it
is determined that a two segment approach is the desired proce-
dure, the initial intercept altitude of 5000' to 6000' AGL should
be specified. This will produce adequate noise relief and also
provide good flexibility of performance. The upper segment
angle should be limited to 6 degrees for the same reasons. I
see no reason to establish a VFR rule in the initial phase
once the procedure is determined and airborne installations made,
the flight crews would be trained in an. "instrument conditions"
environment. It is doubtful that a "trial VFR" period of any
extent would be necessary since standardized approach techniques
should be used for all approaches irrespective of VFR vs. IFR
conditions.
B-8
-------
Landing Continued
Q7. Should there be a rule prohibiting the use of thrust reversers on
dry runways unless required by Air Traffic Control or unless
runway length or atmospheric conditions require their use in the
interests of safety?
Answer: There should be no rule which raises the question of legality
in the operation of a safety device such as thrust reversers.
Such a rule would "force" the pilot to make a determination,
and thereafter justify his action, on each landing made.
Irrespective of the safety and justification aspect, the thrust
reverser is a valuable tool in shortening runway occupancy
time, thus permitting faster acceptance of aircraft on approach,
etc. In view of the above, I positively reject the proposed thrust
reverser rule.
GENERAL
Q8. To what aircraft should any of the rules considered above
apply?
Answer: Noise Abatement rules should apply to all airplanes over 12,500
lbs. maximum gross take-off weight and additionally to all turbo-
jet airplanes, when it is determined that a noise problem, in fact
does exist.
AIRPORTS
Q9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
Answer: No, the question of noise certification of airports would best
be handled elsewhere than in special regulations. It is pre-
sumed the Federal Air Regulations would spell-out operating
rules for pilots, while other parameters would be covered by
appropriate agencies. It would therefore seem that airport
certification would be a duplication of effort and would increase
the work-load and responsibilities of the airports.
•B-9
-------
Airport Continued
Q10.
Answer:
Qll.
Answer:
Q12.
Should airport operators be required to assure that no area
is exposed to unacceptable noise as defined by task group 3?
By when?
No, the airport operators should not be expected t(3 assume
the burden of assuring that no area is exposed to unacceptable
noise there is a lack of positive standards at the present
time which would make such a task impossible and the existing
technology could not insure the reduction of unacceptable noise
levels to that point which would preclude the "shut-down" of
numerous airport operations.
Should airport operators be authorized to specify maximum single
event noise levels for aircraft or procedures to be used by pilots?
No, in the case of noise levels, the. State of California has
established SENEL limits which have already been challenged
in Federal District Court. I would prefer to rely upon the
recommendations of task groups 1 and 3 in response to this
part of the question. In regards to airport operators being
authorized to specify procedures to be used by pilots, I cannot
justify any reason to concur with this proposition. Such an
authorization would be in direct opposition to the airline industry's
operational "know how" and the resultant procedures derived from
this task group 2 study.
Should airport operators be authorized to designate preferential
runways, establish curfew hours on designated runways, limit
ground maintenance runups, establish airport use fees based on
noise, restrict the number of operations at the airport, restrict
use of the airport to aircraft of specified type, weight, trip
length, etc,, or otherw ise conduct the operation of the airport
in such a manner as to assure that no area is exposed to hazard-
ous noise?
Answer: 1. Preferential runways: Yes, the airport operator should be author-
ized to establish a preferential runway use program. I believe
they have this authority at the present time.
2. Curfew hours: No, such a drastic measure would not be in keep-
ing with the national welfare, trade and commerce. The long
term effects of such a ruling should be studied very closely before
arriving at a decision.
B-10
-------
Airport Continued
3. Ground maintenance run-ups: Yes, limitations could be established
(particularly for night time run-ups) with the cooperation of the
airlines assured.
4. Use fees: An airport use fee, based upon aircraft noise, is qualita-
tively consistent with the Los Angeles plans for a noise-related
landing fee. The legal status of any type of such monetary induce-
ment for noise reduction must, of course, be determined by legal
counsel. Presuming however, that other regulatory measures
assure compliance with established standards, a performance bond
or use fee would not be necessary, and indeed might not be prudent.
5. Operations restrictions: No, those restrictions designed to minimize
the number of flights, limit gross weights and trip lengths, all tend
to require an increased frequency of operations which in turn will
increase the noise impact somewhere. Airline schedules are
basically predicated upon public demand and "prime time" utilization,
therefore should not be unduly restrictive.
Q13. If local conditions require, should airport operators be authorized
to specify a lower level of noise as unacceptable and adjust their
airport operations accordingly? (Reworded)
Answer: No, the appropriate Federal agency should have a responsibility to
establish standards and set limits that airport operators can "live
with". Each airport will discover a "local condition" and will apply
for a variance accordingly at that time, we have lost the concept
of standardization in a maze of individual restrictions.
Q14. Should noise monitoring be required for single event noise? For
cumulative noise? How often and at how many locations should
monitoring be conducted?
Answer: The availability of a noise monitoring system at any airport provides
an important tool which can be used to confirm predicted data, parti-
cularly when new concepts are in the development stages. It is also a
great political tool, but one which should be chosen with great care.
Any system required should be simple in design and inexpensive
in operation. The type of monitoring system chosen must fit the require-
ments of the community as well as the eventual regulations. Aircraft
manufacturers do now have certification standards applicable to new
aircraft and new rules concerning retrofit, etc. will be forthcoming.
The required implementation of these rules will negate the requirements
for noise monitoring at airports.
B-ll
-------
Airport Continued
Q15. To what airports should any of the above considerations apply?
Answer: The proposed regulations should Include, as a minimum, any
airport which has the capability of accepting aircraft in excess
of 12, 500 lbs. gross take-off weight and turbojet aircraft. Other
airports, at which a noise problem is. known to exist, should also
be considered.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
Q16.
Answer:
Q17.
Are there any other rules which should be considered?
Serious consideration should be given to the manner in which
noise abatement procedures are presented to the airlines and
pilots who have a need to know. Rule making, as such, cannot
provide the answers in developing techniques for compliance with
the regulations, nor exemplify approved modifications applicable
under a given set of circumstances. With this thought in mind, I
would suggest a D. O. T. /F. A. A. Advisory Circular be published,
presenting approved guidelines for the alleviation of aircraft noise
in the flight operations area. A similar Advisory Circular might
approach the problem from the airport operators viewpoint. In this
manner, valuable information can be documented and made available.
In fact, such a document might void the necessity of developing cer-
tain regulations which could otherwise be handled in an instructional
format.
Are there any safety or technology considerations other than those
which you have already mentioned in conjunction with the above
questions?
Answer: None.
B-12
-------
FROM: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association -pjfpsV)r^r
POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE
TASK GROUP 2
TAKEOFF
1. It is AOPA's opinion that an operating rule requiring specific flight
procedures should not be established.
2. Appropriate takeoff procedure: Keep aircraft as steep as possible with-
in the airport boundary if flight is over or near a noise sensitive area.
LANDING
3. There should be no rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes
prior to commencement of approach.
A. ILS glide slopes should not l?e raised to 3-5 degrees. Large impact on
auto couplers and lower minimum approaches make this operationally un-
acceptable. Also, it would violate ICAO standards.
5. Operators should not* be required to install instrumentation which would
provide guidance during a two-segment approach.
6. The two-segment approach should not be required of pilots.
7. Thrust reversers should not be prohibited.
GENERAL
8. No comrrjent.
9. airports should not be certificated for noise. It is the vehicles using
the airport that cause the noise and control and abatement should start
with them.
10 and 11. No comment.
12. Restrictions on operations at an airport should be kept at a minimum.
Curfew hours on designated runway opposed. Also opposed are: restricting
the number of operations; restricting use of airport by certain types of
aircraft, based on type, weight, trip length, etc., and establishing
airport use fees based on noise.
13. Noise should be reduced as much as possible on a voluntary basis.
Noise monitoring at an airport should not be required.
B-13
-------
AIR LINE PILOTS ASS CXI AT ION
STATEMENTS OF POLICY OR POSITION ON
NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
Noise Abatement Policy
The Association maintains the position that aircraft noise should be reduced by engineering
and design and not by marginally safe flyihg techniques.
ALPA shall refuse to endorse or accept noise abatement procedures which reqyire:
1. Clearances or communication designed to change heading^ at low
altitudes for noise abatement purposes.
2. Turns below 600 fee.t for noise abatement purposes.
3. Reduction of power, earlier or to a greater extent than good operating
practice would dictate.
4. Climbs at air speeds less than maneuvering speeds for the existing flap
configuration.
5. Procedures when weather is below 1000'-3 miles.
6. Preferential runway for noise abatement purposes when:
a. Runways are wet.
b. A wfnd of greater than 10 kts. velocity or a wind angle which
exceeds 8y degrees from the runway heading exists.
c. A tailwinu greater than 5 kts. for takeoff or landing.
7. Requirement that approaches be conducted above glide slope for noise
abatement purposes.
8. Communication other than those required for standard traffic separation
during takeoff and approach. Pilot judgement will remain as the over-
riding factor in determining whether or not noise abatement policy will
be followed based upon flight conditions incurred. (Board August 1966)
Noise Certificate Tests Policy
The Air Line Pilots Association insists that line pilots be included in the noise certification
tests of all air line transport aircraft to aid in determining the acceptability of the pro-
cedures used and, further, that the takeoff/climb profile shall conform to the proposed
FAA Draft Advisory^ircular dated May 1968, entitled "Criteria for Implementation of
Jet Noise Abatement Takeoff Profile. " (Board 1968)
B-14
-------
-2-
Noise Abatement Procedures Policy
The Association and its members shall refuse to accept or comply with noise abatement
procedures which in the judgement of the pilot adversely affect safety and the Central
Safety Chairman shall be notified immediately of instances where unacceptable pro-
cedures have been offered. Through his MEC the Central Safety Chairman shall take
prompt effective action to remove unacceptable noise abatement procedures from
company directives and manuals. (Board 1960)
Statements of Position
Takeoff
While we do not believe in the proliferation of regulations, if any operating rule for
takeoff must be established, it should be established by the FAA. This rule should
specify a standardized takeoff procedure for each aircraft type. Any attempts to tailor
takeoff procedures to individual airports can only result in a degradation of safety. The
benefits of standardization in aviation safety cannot be ignored.
We believe any standardized takeoff procedure must provide adequate margin above the
stall speeds for each aircraft configuration. In this respect we would like to see adopted
the takeoff procedure outlined in the FAA Draft Advisory Circular entitled, "Criteria
For Implementation of Jet Noise Abatement Takeoff Profile" dated March 28, 1968.
This procedure involves an accelerated climb schedule during which flaps are retracted.
Speeds during this climb should be the maneuvering speeds for each particular flap
configuration employed. Maneuvering speeds provide the maximum capability for
collision avoidance and for following ATC clearances. At 1500' with the aircraft in
a clean configuration, power can be reduced to that which would provide the appro-
priate certificated enroute climb gradients should the loss of an engine occur.
While meeting all the safety constraints which we feel are necessary, this type of
procedure would put the aircraft in an optimum performance configuration. Climb
gradients associated with clean configured aircraft are substantially higher than those
in a takeoff configuration. The result of this is that a thrust reduction of a greater
magnitude can be accomplished while maintaining an appreciable rate of climb.
While this type of procedure will produce slightly more noise close to the airport, it
will result in less noise at distances further from the runway. This and other operational
procedures have been extensively investigated by NASA and your attention is drawn to
the following NASA Technical Notes:
1. TN D-5182 "Technique For Calculating Optimum
Takepff And Ciimbout Trajectories
For Noise Abatemc.nr11
B-15
-------
-3-
2. TN D-6137 "Noise Measurements For a Three-Engine
Turbofan Transport Airplane During
Climbout And Landing Approach Operations"
While the accelerated climb profile can be effective in reducing noise of second genera-
tion jet aircraft, i.e., B-727, DC-9, BAC 1-11, other type aircraft may require a
different procedure. In any event, adequate margins must be preserved in any procedure
particularly speed margins. We can see no rationale for requiring a minimum margin
above stall of 30% for approaches yet something less than this for prolonged climbout.
Minimum Approach Altitude
We do not believe there should be a specific rule for establishing minimum maneuvering
altitudes prior to the commencement of an approach. These altitudes may have to vary
operationally for a number of reasons such as terrain, weather, etc. The "Keep Them
High" program deals fairly adequately with initial approach altitudes.
Normal Glide Slope Angles
Approximately one year ago the FAA Advisory Circular on Categor^>|l criteria stated
that the "optimum glide slope angle is 2 1/2°.11 Since t!i&n-thir"A3visory Circular has
been revised and the FAA has a program to raise all glide slope angles to 3°. While we
have concurred with this increase in glide slope angles, we believe it would be irres-
ponsible to propose raising ILS glide slope angles further without a scientific studv of
the effects this would have on low visibility approaches. We would be strongly opposed
to any arbitrary raising of glide skoe angles beyond 3°.
Use of Reverse Thrust
The suggestion that a rule be proposed prohibiting the use of reverse thrust is so prepos-
terous as to not require a response. Nevertheless, we would oppose any attempts to
restrict the use of thrust reversers during aircraft landings. There may be and certainly
are times and conditions when a pilot could and does vary the amount of reverse thrust
used during a landing roll, but this use of a pilot's judgement cannot be preselected
based on runway conditions, etc. That judgement can only be made at the time of
touchdown and during the subsequent rollout.
Two-Segment Approaches
It is our position that with the present aircraft equipment and instrumentation, two-
segment approaches are not feasible for day-in and day-out line operations. When and
if such equipment and instrumentation is available, we would certainly review our
position on this subject.
B-16
-------
-4-
Currently, some ALPA pilots are evaluating the UAL/NASA two-segment approach
procedures on the Boeing 727. It should be noted that this evaluation has not been
completed and any attempts at this time to specify criteria for two-segment approaches
is premature.
Aircraft Noise Monitoring
If takeoff and landing procedures are safe and easy to follow, we see no need for noise
monitoring systems, unless the data from these monitors is used on a statistical basis. The
use of single event noise levels has questionable value in determining whether or not a
noise abatement procedure has been followed. Past noise abatement procedure test in
which the same pilot flew the same procedure on the same day on the same aircraft under
the same conditions produces a range of noise values over the same point on the ground.
If under controlled conditions this variability exists, it should be expected that under
line conditions some greater variability will also exist. As an example, refer to the
following reference:
Measurement and Analysis of Noise From Four Aircraft During Approach and
Departure Operations, FAA RD-71-83 and FAA RD-71-84, September 1971
In response to the question regarding the authority of the airport operators to establish
procedures to be used by pilots, we wish to state that airport operators are not competent
by training or experience to establish procedures for pilots.
Reduced Thrust Takeoff Procedures
The use of reduced thrust procedures for takeoff has been greeted with mixed emotions
by members of the Association. While these procedures were instituted for the purpose
of increasing engine life, their use under certain conditions could significantly reduce
the safety margins available in the takeoff regime. The concern of the ALPA Airworthi-
ness and Performance Committee over the use of these procedures resulted in the following
ALPA Policy:
"The Airworthiness and Performance Committee is concerned over the use of
reduced thrust takeoff procedures, and the Association urges all pilots to use
the utmost discretion in such use of reduced thrust takeoff procedures. Further,
the Association will use all available resources in support of any pilot who is
coerced, harassed, or disciplined for exercising his best judgment in not using
reduced thrust procedures for a takeoff. " (Board - 1971)
Further, it is felt that the small reduction in sideline noise that is achieved by the use of
reduced thrust on takeoff Is far outweighed by the resultant increase in the noise footprint
caused by the increase in the distance covered during climb.
B-17
-------
T& V?
d H 1^17 3
./??>'*? tisr/rs**
W ,: *h>' iL'W d./ .%' V-" i-KW
COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP P.O. BOX 3707 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124
March 30, 1973
I \ R \. f i. "< •- » £ i£ r\ T C
6-7270-I-36O
Mr. R. L. Hurlburt, Chairman Task Group 2
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20U60
Subject: Boeing Comments for EPA Task Group 2
Dear Sir:
Attached please find some general comments pertaining to Task Group 2 activities,
and our answers to the specific questions asked at the last meeting.
In general, ve find it difficult to be as constructive and definitive as we vould
like to be. The main reason is the early state of development of data and infor-
mation in the subject area under study by Task 2. Ve have attached general comments
in an attempt to point out the technical problems that must be solved before imple-
mentation of modified procedures can be started, and to attempt to point out the
depth of work required and the timing involved. We do not consider this a complete
report on the subject, but offer the material to advise caution regarding the
complexity of the task.
We have also attempted to provide answers to the specific questions asked at the
last meeting. It became clear as we attempted to answer these questions, that the
"rule" philosophy expressed was in many cases impossible to endorse. The complexity
of the situation in many cases made a hard and fast "rule" approach seem unworkable.
You will therefore see reference to establishing "guidelines" that can better be
adopted to the local situation on an airport by airport basis, taking into consideration
the operational situation at each airport.
We would like to make the following general recommendations for Task Group 2
activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1, Task Group 2 should provide a specific time schedule in support of any
recommended system implementation. This should include a schedule of
development, certification, and implementation by system and for each
aircraft type.
2. The Task Group should in addition provide a detailed buildup of total
system cost for each system recommendation made.
B-18
-------
the &£7£rSJir£Z CO.VPANV
Mr. R. L. Hurlburfc
- 2
6-7270-1-360
3. The Task Group should provide specific estimates of noise reduction, for
both suppressed and unsuppressed airplane types, to quantify the benefits
expected for each system recommended.
It seems incumbent upon Task Group 2 to provide the above, in close coordination
with the output of other Task Groups in order to establish a valid cost, benefit
and schedule basis for rule recommendations.
Very truly ycurs,
BOEING COWMERCIAJ AIRPLANE COMPANY
V. L. Blumenthal
Director, Noise and Emission
Abatement Programs
Attachment
B-19
-------
GENERAL COMMENTS FOR TASK GROUP 2
Achieving additional noise reduction through, operational procedures will require
coordinated actions by Government and industry. In the case of aircraft related
noise the "industry" involved is the aircraft, engine, and avionics systems
manufacturer and the operator. Noise abatement procedures are not confined to
actions "by the operator. They also involve the manufacturer and the Government
through the changes to the airplane and its systems that require FAA certification.
Boeing has actively carried out many programs aimed at reducing the noise gener-
ated by aircraft. The effort devoted to analyzing the effects of aircraft operation
includes both Government sponsored and Boeing in-house research.
Included in the material which has been entered on the record of the "Aircraft/
Airport Operations Analysis Task Group" (Task 2) is the 1971 paper presented by
M. C. Gregoire and J. Streckenbach, "Effects of Aircraft Operation on Community
Noise." Data and conclusions from the paper were also quoted several times
during the meetings of the Task 2 Group, The Boeing Company believes that the
general trends, conclusions and recommendations presented in that paper are still
valid. In fact, in the intervening period, some of the recommended procedures
have been implemented and the noise advantages have been observed. However, it
should be realized that specific details such as the minimum altitudes for estab-
lishing the fined, configuration/glide slope require further study and flight test
verification.
The Gregoire/Streckenbach paper based its discussion on the basic untreated
engine installation on the Boeing 727• Nacelle treatment changes the noise
characteristics so that, in some cases, the incremental noise reduction realized
through operational procedures is less for airplanes equipped with noise treated
nacelles. Although there is still a noise reduction and the recommended procedures
may still be appropriate for the quieter airplanes, additional work is required
to establish the optimum combination of nacelle suppression and modified procedures.
The benefits of higher glide slope intercept altitudes discussed in the paper
should be re-emphasized. Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) charts and FAA
approved instrument approach procedures should be modified wherever possible to
increase the altitude for intercepting the glide slope. Air Traffic Control (ATC)
should be encouraged to develop a policy of keeping incoming traffic as high as
practicable to relieve the community of noise generated by approaching aircraft.
Some of the operational procedures being considered require new or modified
systems for guidance and/or control. One example is the two-segment approach
system currently under development by the NASA Ames Research Center with
United Air Lines and Collins Radio Company. This work has-provided estimates
of the cost of the airborne equipment required. The coat of associated ground
equipment has not yet been reported. It is most important to recognize total
system costs in any of the concepts being considered. The system being eval-
uated on the Boeing 727-200 requires a DME transmitter that is colocated with
the ILS glide slope. At present there are relatively few (leas than ten) airports
so equipped. Plans to adopt this system widely must include the time and cost
involved in installing the required DME equipment.
B-20
-------
-2-
Another system being evaluated uses 3D area navigation. For this concept,
additional ground equipment or its modification has not been defined. Moreover,
the cost of the airborne equipment is substantially more than that required for
the 727 system mentioned above and relatively few airJ inesr have selected area
navigation system as standard items for their fleets.
A recommendation to implement widespread use of a two-segment approach must
recognize the various options available and their state of development. The
large number of airplane types, airlines and airports involved may preclude a
singular equipment solution. Sufficient time must be allowed to design, develop
and test production hardware compatible .with its intended use. Depending on
the particular system involved, this can require one to two years of development
tine including FAA certification for each combination of airframe and-avioni.es.
For Boeing this could represent on the order of 12 to 15 development programs
to cover our airframe/avionics combinations.
The system being evaluated on the 727-200 is planned by the HASA 1 o provide a
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) in FY71*. If this STC is made available to
all airlines, only the 727-200 could be so equipped. The timing end rate of
implementation would be established by the airlines (availability for installation
and the manufacturer (production rate and installation time required). Application
of similar equipment on other airplane types will require additional time for
adaptation to that model and obtaining the required FAA certification.
Plans to implement more sophisticated systems are obviously more remote in time.
Experience to date indicates how long it can take to achieve operational statue
on relatively simple systems based on current technology. The initial Boeing
720 work by MuA with American Airlines began in 1971 and the current program
with the 727-200 is planned to be complete late this year or in th<» first half
of I97h> It is significant that these systems are only a modification of
accepted and proven procedures. Development of new procedures based on more
advanced technology systems, both airborne and ground based, such as curved
approach paths using Microwave Lauding Systems guidance will require extensive
development before they can be implemented on a widespread basis.
The work of Task Group 2 should be coordinated closely with Task Group U
(Source Noise Abatement Technology and Costs) to assure that the procedure
concepts considered are consistent with available technology. Further, real-
istic schedules for implementing particular procedures should be a fundamental
consideration for Task Group 5 (Regulatory Actions by the FAA).
B-21
-------
-3-
POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE
Task Croup 2
3/19/73
NOTE: "no comment" means ve believe ve are not qualified to answer, or we
"believe others such as the airlines, port authority, etc, should respond.
TAKEOFF
1. Should there be an operating rule establishing specific flight procedures for
takeoff?
2. What do you think the appropriate takeoff procedure should be?
(l and 2.) The purpose of establishing, and requiring the use of, a takeoff
operating procedure is to reduce noise over the nearby communities. However,
all such communities do not have the same location relative to the airport.
Nor is the airplane performance constant for all takeoff weights, airport
temperatures, altitudes, and winds. It is thus apparent, that to truly min
imize conoiunity noise, the takeoff procedure should be tailored to the particular
airport and its surrounding communities and Recognize the operational variables
of the aircraft. On the other hand, a considerable degree of procedural stand-
ardization is desired for a cafe and practical operation. A suitable "middle
ground" vhich largely satisfies both objectives would be to adopt, and use for
all tokeoffs, a minimum speed, steep climb procedure of the general type ATA
and others have proposed. There should be, however, one important degree of
flexibility and that is the altitude at which initial thrust reduction, or
cutback, is accomplished. Through appropriate selection of the thrust reduc-
tion altitude, near-optimum noise reduction can be achieved around the airport
with minimal increase in piloting complexity. The pilots now fly according to
a set of operating speeds selected for the particular takeoff condition. To
that set of variables would be added the particular altitude for thrust reduc-
tion. Just- as training routines now t«ach takeoff as a standard procedure
with certain variable inputs, so the noise abatement takeoff can be taught
as a standard procedure with but one additional input variable. The operational
experience of the airlines and the FAA should have a strong influence on the
takeoff procedure formulation.
LANDING
3. Should there be a rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes prior to the
commencement of approach? What should these altitudes be?
It is recognized that to minimize the noise annoyance of aircraft nearing
the airport, it is important to "keep them high and keep them clean. It
must also be recognized that while maneuvering in level, or near-level
flight, there is no procedure other than "keep them clean to reduce air-
plane thrust requirements. Thus, if noise on the ground is to be held
to low levels, proposed guidelines should probably be established to to
maintain a reasonably high altitude, such as 5000 feet where feasible,
during terminal area maneuvers. The specific application of these guidelines
must be coordinated with FAA Air Traffic Control on an individual airport
basis. B—22
-------
it. Should there be a rule raising ILS glide slopes immediately to 3.5 degrees?
Increasing all glide slopes to approximately 3 degrees is an appropriate
action that would yield a benefit in reducing approach noise. Boiae ILS
installations are already set at this angle but the majority are set at
a lesser one. Raising the glide slope an additional one-half degree
requires further investigation and test. Aircraft that operate at an
approach speed of 150 knots would have c. stabilized sink rate of 930
ft/min at 3.5 degrees compared to 796 ft/min on & 3 degree flight path.
Such an increment in sink rate must be examined for its effect on landing
flare. It is possible that some aircraft could not operate safely at
3.5 degrees resulting in 3 degrees being a reasonable upper limit for
the near term.
5. Should operators "be required to install instrumentation vhich would provide
guidance during a tvo-segment approach?
On-board guidance will be required to perform tvo-segment approaches under
all operating conditions. The benefit of a two-segment approach system
should be compared to its cost. It is known that the noise reduction
resulting from the two-segment approach is related to the noise suppression
at the source. It would be unwise to require operators to install a two-
segment approach system without knowing the full benefit or evaluating
alternatives.
Before such a system can be made available to the operator, several steps
are required. The system concept must be developed to the point that it
is safe, acceptable to the flight crew, and compatible for terminal airport
operations by ATC. As an example, the DKE concept requires nationwide
installation of DME ground equipment before the system could become opera-
tional. Further, the system selected must be compatible with the aircraft
on which it is installed. Production hardware for each airplane model
must be designed, developed, tested, certified by the FAA and made available
for installation before promulgating such a rule.
6, Should there be an operating rule requiring pilots to fly two-segment approaches?
Yfoat intercept altitude should be specified? What should be the angle of the
upper segment? Should the rule initially be VFR only? When should VFR and IFR
rules be effective?
Operating rules for pilots depend totally on the results from question. 5.
Regarding the tvo-segment approach, the noise benefit will increase with
increasing upper segment intercept altitude. The altitude at which the
steep and shallow glide slopes intersect also has a strong infulence on
approach noise. The specific altitudes selected will depend upon the type
of guidance and how well it blends in with other approach procedures being
used at a particular airport and other nearby airports. The angle of the
upper segment, must be matched with the flight path performance capability
of each particular aircraft. Any implementation of a two-segment approach
should be for both VFR and IFR. When it can be effective is a matter
that concerns the airlines and the JfAA.
B-23
-------
7. Should there "be a rule prohibiting the use of thrust reversers on dry runways
unless required by Air Traffic Control or unless runway length or atmospheric
conditions require their use in the interest of safety?
No. Reverse thrust should be a pilot option.
GENERAL
8. To what aircraft should any of the rules considered above apply?
If noise abatement procedures for aircraft are to be legislated, it is
logical that they be applied to any and all aircraft contributing to the
noiEe annoyance.
AIRPORTS
9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
Guidelines and principles of operation for aircraft should be established,
to minimize noise exposure from an airport to the surround!ig community.
These guidelines should minimize noise exposure by prescribing arrival and
departure routes, vector and approach altitudes, departure procedx\res
including noise abatement thrust reduction, and preferential runways.
These guidelines should exclude curfcvs. Although such noise abatement
techniques have been implemented at some airports, it is believed that
significant improvements can be accomplished at many additional noise-
sensitive airports. Verification that each airport operation is in com-
pliance with ther,« KPA guidelines would require joint airport-operatcr-
FAA-airline coordination, and could probably be accomplished by the FAA..
10. Should airport operators be required to assure that no area is exposed to
unacceptable noise as defined by Task Group 3? By when?
Ho. It is not clear that Task Group 3 can technically establish such a
level. Even if such a level could be established and verified with
subjective data, requiring airport operators to "assure that no area is
exposed" could curtail or shut down airport operations in many cases.
Technology does not exist to reduce noise levels to the extent implied in
this question. In addition, the airport operator does not have the direct
authority to modify operating procedures, or to purchase land.
11. Should airport operators be authorized to specify maximum single event noise
levels for aircraft or procedures to be used by pilots?
Ho. Even though port operators appear to currently have authority to
regulate single event noise levels, the potential impact on interstate
and international air commerce of such unilateral and uncoordinated
efforts would cripple the air transportation industry. Flight pro-
cedures as indicated in response to question 9 should be coordinated
by the airport operators, FAA, and operating airlines.
B-24
-------
-6-
12. Should airport operators be authorized to:
Designate preferential runways?
Yes, with approval of the PAA.
Establish curfev hours on designated runways?
Yes, so long as the end result is not to close the airport during curfew hours.
Limit ground maintenance runups?
No comment.
Establish airport use fees based on noise?
No comment.
Restrict the number of operations at the airport?
No, especially considering that halving the number of operations has been
judged as worth perhaps 3 dB reduction in noise exposure and a reduction of
this magnitude would not be perceived by many consnunity residents. It is
apparent that restricting the number of operations to effectively contribute
to noise reduction would amount to closing the airport.
Restrict the use of the airport to aircraft of specified type, weight, trip length
etc?
Even though it appears they currently have such authority, it is not recommended
for the same reasons as given in response to question number 11.
Or otherwise conduct the operation of the airport in such a manner as to assure
that no area is exposed to unacceptable noise?
Even though it appears they currently have such authority, it is not
recommended for the same reasons as given in response to question number 11.
13. If local conditions require, should airport operators be authorized to specify a
lower level of noise as acceptable and adjust their airport operations accordingly?
Even though it appears they currently have such authority, it is not
recommended for the same reasons as given in response to question number 11.
1*». Should noise monitoring be required for single event noise?
No; it is not clear what noise monitoring would accomplish* Noise certification
has already been established as the mechanism to ensure the application of
noise reduction technology that is reasonable and practicable for a new type
design. Retrofit or FNL type rules, if and when enacted, will do the same
for the existing fleet. Noise monitoring would only confirm the wide dis-
tribution .of- noiselevel from an airport fleet, and would confirm once again
the vagaries of acoustic measurements from day to day, and under various
weather conditions* In accordance with question 9» implementing minimum
noise procedures at each airport, and monitoring and enforcing such pro-
cedures* would negate the need for noise monitoring. Noise monitoring
would seem to be an unwarranted expense for little return.
-------
lit. (continued)
For cumulative noise:
No, same as above.
15. To what airports should any of the above considerations apply?
No comment.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
16. Are there any other rules vhich should be considered?
Compatible land use planning and conversion should bo thoroughly analyzed
and assessed at the Federal and local level, to establish vhat can be done,
for existing noise sensitive airports, new airports and airports that do
not currently have a problem. Such a study should be directed by the
Federal Government, and should culminate in a written report- on the subject.
EPA in conjunction with other Federal agencies such or, HUD> KDV\ etc, could
then establish guidelines and rules to minimize ex J. sting problems, and to
eliminate the growth of future community noise problems.
17. Are there any safety or technology considerations other than those which you
have already Kentioned in conjunction with the above questions?
The air transport industry haii compiled an excellent safety record. The
noise abatement procedures being discussed voulti modify sorris of the present
procedures, At this time it cannot be raid that- the s\vtf,e steel. procedures
are specifically unsafe. Yet rir.ee airplr.t;cs vi.ll, r.c.;:;c cl;.-
procedures, regulerly fly clor.er to airworthiness IJj.dts then tha/ now
do in normal practice and be exposed for .longer periodo to per-
formance leveln, it in probable there it, f safety consideration. t-cc.'tuse
the safety implications are not precisely knovn, operational fcnalyscs
and probability utudics should be condxicted to dlMermioimlize the safety
impact and assure that noise abatement procedures do not cause an.
unfavorable shift in future safety statistics.
The impact of modified flight procedures on aircraft emissions and energy
eonsunipti on should also be understood before such procedures are implemented.
B-26
-------
COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE COMPANY
P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 98124
June 29, 1973
6-7270-1-44^
Mr. R. L. Hurlburt
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Subject: Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Position on Task Group 2,
"Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement,
Safety, and Costs"
References: 1) Boeing Letter 6-7270-1-443, V. L. Blumenthal to
H. E. von Gierke.
2) Boeing Letter 6-7270-1-444, V. L. Blumenthal to
W. C. Sperry.
3) Boeing Letter 6-7270-1-445, V. L. Blumenthal to
W. C. Sperry.
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
The following are comments relative to the Task Group 2 report on "Operations
Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety and Costs. "
In some of the Task Group Draft Reports it clearly states that the conclusions and
recommendations are the responsibility of the chairman. We endorse this position
and agree with it completely as being the only reasonable and fair manner in which
such reports could be written. Because of the variety of opinions espoused in the
Group discussions, and because generally no formal attempt was made to obtain
consensus, we would suggest that any inference of unanimity of opinion be
expurgated.
The position stated in previous correspondence (Letter 6-7270-1-360 dated March 30,
1973, V. L. Blumenthal to R. L. Hurlburt) is still valid and should be included with
this correspondence in the Final Report.
B-27
A DIVISION OF THE BOEING COMPANY
-------
- 2 -
Mr. R. L. Hurlburt
6-7270-1-442
In the section titled "Airport Noise Controls" the figure presenting U. S. Air
Carrier Fleet - Approach Noise Levels shows the 747-100 airplane at its pre-
December 1971 levels. The correct 747-100 approach noise levels for airplanes
currently being delivered should be plotted as 107/105 EPNdB.
In the section titled "Nationwide Benefit Cost Analysis, " the "Normal Effort
Schedule" shows no action on several items that are scheduled on the "Accelerated
Effort Schedule. " It should be noted that the "Normal Effort" does not include
some actions that are already being taken. This results in a greater difference
in the relative social benefit resulting from the "normal" and "accelerated" cases
and could influence the conclusions. It is recommended that the "Normal Effort
Schedule" be revised.
We commend you for your efforts in this important work and appreciate the
opportunity to participate.
Very truly yours
BOEING COMMERCIAL
AIRPLANE COMPANY
V. L. Blumenthal
Director, Noise and Emission
Abatement Programs
B-28
-------
it >¦ £>
'•fret* V 5/7 3
The recommended steps for noise abatement approach for
use at all airports with all types of approaches (ILS, VOR,
Visual, etc.), both IFR and VFR are as follows:
1. Approach the airport area at as high an altitude
as possible (at airport with control towers,
"Keep-em-high" assists here);
2. Remain in a clean configuration for as long as
possible;
3. Proceed in-bound from the final approach fix, or
a similar distance for a visual approach, with flaps
set at one "notch" less than final landing flaps
planned for the particular landing?
4. Extend final landing flaps at a point on final
approach at which the aircraft is 800 to 1000
feet above field elevation;
5. Use the lowest allowable landing flap setting which
is permissible for the particular landing, e.g.,
on B-727 use 30 degrees flap setting for landing,
whenever the specific runway and runway conditions
will allow.
To maximize noise abatement benefits, it is further
recommended that initiation of each successive flap extension
be made at a speed near the minimum speed for that particular
configiAration rather than at the maximum speed allowable for
the particular configuration.
Assistance from ATC will be useful in implementation of
Steps 1 and 2 of the procedure.
Step 4 contemplates final approach stabilization at
not less than 500 feet above field elevation.
Some airlines are working with the manufacturer to
accomplish certification of a lesser landing flap setting for
the B-707-300 series airplanes, i. e., reducing the presently
certificated B-707-300 series landing flap setting from 50
degrees to 40 degrees.
B-29
-------
I.
First Segment - Takeoff of 1500 Feet
1. Takeoff power
2. v2 + 10 (+)
3. Takeoff flaps
Second Segment - at 1500 Feet to 3000 Feet
1. V2 + 10 (+)
2. Optimum flap setting speed permitting*
3. Reduce to not less than climb power
* Retract or retain flap setting as required
Third Segment - at 3000 Feet
1. Retract flaps on schedule
2. Normal en route climb
It was recognized that under certain conditions, departure
from the normal procedure would be required, for example,
where specific ATC instructions are not compatible with the
procedure. It was also recognized that each airline will
expand the above procedure in its manuals with company
directives to pilots covering operational techniques, etc.,
within the confines of the broad standard.
Specific comments on the above procedures that may assist
in its understanding and imOlementation are as follows:
1• First Segment
Referral to use of takeoff power and flap means
that takeoff power and flap setting required
for the load and the runway being used. It was
recognized that some aircraft may have difficulty
in maintaining Vo + 10 without too steep a body
angle. The speed recommended should be maintained
as far as possible but without exceeding the
aircraft body angle limitation. To cater to
this difference, however, the symbol "(+)" has
been used in the procedure to allow speed
acceleration beyond V2 + 10 if body angle limited.
II. It was recognized that it may be necessary to increase
speed to achieve the optimum flap setting required
in entering the second segment at 1500 feet. Thus,
II.
III.
B-30
-------
again the symbol " (+)" is used for the airspeed
at 1500 feet to 3000 feet to allow speed accelera-
tion when required to enable a lesser flap setting.
It is not to be interpreted to permit unlimited
airspeed. Strict speed discipline is required
to make the procedure beneficial and in order that
departure separation established by ATC not be
jeopardized. The asterisk after the instructions
for optimum flap setting in this segment refers
to the case where takeoff flaps for a particular
operation were desired to be maintained to 3000
feet, i.e., leave flaps at takeoff setting or
commence a partial setting if airspeed will
otherwise allow. Reduction of power at 1500 feet
would achieve the best noise reduction for the
greatest number of people in the area under or
near the takeoff path. The single "climb power"
desired would approximate a 1000 foot per minute
c1imb.
III. Third Segment
Self explanatory - but reapplication of power should
be gradual to avoid excessive peak noise buildup.
B-31
-------
Approach Procedures
On March 6, 1973, I submitted the ATA/FAA Approach
Procedure currently in use. Essentially, this procedure calls for
keeping the aircraft clean and high for as long as possible prior to
descent to the airport. When committed to approach, gear is not
lowered until the outer marker and one notch less flap is used through-
out to minimize drag and use of excess thrust.
The visual flight rule (VFR) two segment approach now used
some of the time by PSA, was first evaluated by National Airlines.
Because the procedure could only be used under VFR conditions,
interstate carriers operating into weather conditions more severe
than those encountered in California require for safety's sake the
development of a two-segment approach that could be used under all
conditions, visual or instrument throughout the airline system.
Under the auspices of NASA both American and United have
been flying aircraft with instrumentation to provide guidance on a
6°/3° approach. The United aircraft on this project is about to com-
mence evaluations on West Coast routes that will permit pilots from
other airlines to fly the aircraft on two segment approaches.
Currently, such approaches are limited to ILS (Instrument
Landing System) approaches to airports equipped with''DME (distance
measuring equipment). In the future it is believed that aircraft equipped
* with Area Naviation equipment will be able to make two segment
approaches to any runway, independent of ILS/DME.
B-32
-------
- 2 -
Departure Procedures
On March 6, 1973, I submitted the ATA/FAA Departure
Procedure currently in use by the scheduled airlines.
This procedure was carefully developed, tested, monitored
and compared to other procedures in use and proposed, in-
cluding the Soderlind/Northwest procedure, and found to be
quieter. In fact Captain Soderlind participated in its
development. It incorporates adequate margins of safety,
reducing the noise footprint from a point about three
miles from brake release to ten miles out.
B-33
-------
- 3 -
Thrust Reversal
While some advocate discontinuance of the use of thrust
reversal, it is a fact that use of this equipment is required
for safety, shortens runway occupancy time and the landing/taxi
cycle, thereby reducing pollution.
B-34
-------
- 4 -
Preferential Runways
Use of preferential runways have always been advocated when
it is possible to avoid built-up areas. They are used worldwide within
the operating capability of the aircraft as defined in FAA Order 7110.13.
This Order defines runway selection within the following limits:
"Use noise abatement runways when acceptable to the pilot for
all airplanes over 12, 500 pounds and all turbojet airplanes,
provided the following conditions are met:
(1) Runways are clear and dry: i.e. , there is no ice, slush,
etc. , which might make use of a noise abatement runway
undesirable.
(2) Wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots.
(3) Any crosswind does not exceed 80 degrees from either
side of the centerline of the runway in the direction of
use.
"When it is determined that turboprop airplanes of less
than 12, 500 pounds create a noise problem such airplanes
shall be subject to the formal runway use program established
for that airport. "
B-35
-------
- 5 -
Preferential Flight Paths
Preferential flight paths are often employed to take advantage
of parkland, waterways or other uninhabited areas. They are tailored,
of course, to the particular airport/air traffic control situation. The
San Jose example is a good one. There are numerous airports at which
these types of routings are used.
B-36
-------
- 6 -
Curfews
Curfews as a method of noise alleviation would be detrimental
to the national welfare, commerce, trade and national defense. The
full effects of a national curfew on interstate and foreign commerce
would take at least a two year study and therefore is beyond the
capability and time restraints now on EPA. While some communities
may advocate such drastic measures, they presently have as much
knowledge of the effects as a man who turns off the city generator to
shut off his bathroom light.
B-37
-------
- 7 -
Weight Limitations
There are some who advocate weight limitations on aircraft
to permit the aircraft to climb higher, faster or to use less thrust
on approach. Such advocacy loses sight of the fact that the cargo or
passengers left behind must use another aircraft. Thus, two air-
craft are required to do the work of one. It is well known that
frequency of operations is a source of noise annoyance. Also, if
less fuel is carried, this may dictate a stop at an intermediate
airport, thus increasing noise exposure at the intermediate fuel
stop.
B-38
-------
- 8 -
Runup Restrictions
At a very few airports in the U. S. where overnight aircraft
maintenance is performed, complaints have been received from air-
port neighbors about engine runup noise. Where this has been a problem,
airport management has prohibited maintenance engine runups during
night hours and/or have selected runup areas remote from the com-
munity for such operations. Aircraft operators have cooperated and
adhered to these restrictions.
B-39
-------
- 9 -
Noise Monitoring
Airport noise monitoring is in its infancy. While point source
monitoring has been practiced at places like Kennedy and London for
some time, aircraft can adjust thrust to avoid triggering these monitors
but when thrust is reapplied communities beyond the monitors suffer.
No one if fooled by this dodge. The airport operator knows it. The
aircraft operator knows and the public beyond the monitor suffers.
As I understand it, two types of monitoring systems are
proposed in one state. One would attempt to monitor at prescribed
points on takeoff and landing paths, while the other would perform
area monitoring to describe neighborhood noise values.
Some airport operators have asserted that the first system
would be used to measure variations from FAR 36 levels to form a
basis for penalties against the aircraft operator. This is totally
unrealistic, as FAR 36 is like the bench test of a rifle on a one-time
basis under carefully prescribed range conditions by trained test
pilots. While useful in comparing the noise characteristics of one air-
craft against another, duplication of this noise footprint in line operations
with differing wind directions and velocities, temperature, humidity,
pressure, terrain, cloud cover, etc.. is impossible to achieve. Some
other scheme for singling out an operation that is not using the best
available procedures must be invented.
B-40
-------
- 10 -
Neighborhood noise monitoring under a variety of weather
conditions and in different time periods might be useful in developing
a data base other than the theoretical NEFs, etc. It would be useful,
too, in assessing progress as flight procedures or equipment improve
and change.
B-41
-------
-11 -
Operations Monitoring
Operations monitoring by skilled personnel with appropriate
tools can develop the data for any scattering in aircraft operations.
It should be noted that takeoff flight profiles will vary between the
same aircraft types as a function of gross weight. Nevertheless,
operations that ignore prudent noise abatement techniques should be
sorted out by monitoring methods, reported and corrected if all other
methods fail. Compliance requires communications with pilots at
frequent intervals since the pilot population at any airport changes
and secondly, all humans require reminders from time to time.
The most effective operational monitors are the public.
Given a place to call and a receptive, respectful, interested
organization that can quickly check and investigate with an open
mind, good results are achieved. Several major airports operate
"noise complaint" offices. As a result of the public input, adjust-
ments have been made to operational procedures that have been
beneficial.
B-42
-------
Answers of
Roger G. Flynn
to
POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE
Task Group 2
3/19/73
TAKEOFF
1. Should there be an operating rule establishing specific
flight procedures for takeoff?
Ans. 1. Yes.
2. What do you think the appropriate takeoff procedure should be?
Ans. 2. See ATA procedures previously submitted.
LANDING
3. Should there be a rule establishing minimum maneuvering
altitudes prior to the commencement of approach? What should
these altitudes be?
Ans. 3. Minimum maneuvering altitudes for each airport
hc.ve already been established. These altitudes are directly
related to the traffic control procedures and obstruction
clearances. In addition to these, the "Keep 'em High"
or orra: i is the best possible solution. This FAA program
directs all tower facilities to keep the aircraft as high
as rossible before committing the aircraft for approach.
Rule r.akinq is not indicated.
4. Should there be a rule raising ILS glide slopes immediately
to 3.5 degrees?
Ans. 4. No. Airline operations executives have reviewed
the glide slope angle question time and again. They have
concluded that with today's aircraft, flying in all weather
conditions, with all flight crews, that for the sake of
safety 3° degrees is the maximum glide slope for effective
use of the airspace and to serve the public. It goes with-
out saying that this question is directed to the heart of
aircraft design, certification and pilot proficiency and
safety. It must apply to the least and the best. Some
descent figures in feet per minute are provided together
with normal approach speeds ranging from small to large
jets. You will note that descent rates that exceed 600 fpm
exceed the design certification goal.
)ri C *>¦¦¦/'? /'
rt/i-
B-43
-------
_ 2 -
GLIDE SLOPE ANGLES AND RATES OF DESCENT
1 2 3 4 5
GS Angle 130 knots 140 knots 150 knots 16 0 knots
3° 689 fpm 742 fpm 795 fpm 848 fpm
3.5° 804 fpm 866 fpm 927 fpm 989 fpm
4° 918 fpm 989 fpm 1060 fpm 1130 fpm
5. Should operators be required to install instrumentation
which would provide guidance during a two-segment approach?
Ans. 5. No, not until the equipment has been evaluated
and proven completely safe. It should be noted that the
present experiments are being conducted only at airports
with ILSs and co-located DME. It is our understanding
that there are only about 350 ILS runways at U.S. air carrier
airports. If satisfactory guidance can be developed, some
method will have to be devised that goes beyond the present
350 ILS runways. Note: There are about 2400 air carrier
runways in the U.S.
6. Should there be an operating rule requiring pilots to
fly two-segment approaches? What intercept altitude should
be specified? What should be the angle of the upper segment?
Should the rule initially be VFR only? When should VFR and
IFR rules be effective?
Ans. 6. No, not until the evaluation is completed and the
equipment accepted. We recommend an intercept altitude
to the 3° glide slope at 1000 feet above the runway thresh-
hold altitude. We do not believe that two-segment approaches
should be flowri VFR only initially. If the assessments of
the equipment are satisfactory, the equipment and techniques
should provide for VFR and IFR approaches under all weather
conditions down to CAT III minimums for maximum noise
benefits.
7. Should there be a rule prohibiting the use of thrust
reversers on dry runways unless required by Air Traffic Control
or unless runway length or atmospheric conditions require
their use in the interest of safety?
Ans. 7. No. See "remarks" on this subject in my previous
paper.
GENERAL
8. To what aircraft should any of the rules considered above
apply?
Ans. 8. I don't know. When your conclusions are drawn,
perhaps some answers will be possible.
B-44
-------
- 3 -
AIRPORTS
9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
Ans. 9. It is likely that attempts to certificate airports
for noise will result in stultifying efforts to constantly
reduce noise. The California effort to describe noise
around the airport and to set noise goal limits by legis-
lative fiat has two edges. Technology might readily
achieve the design noise goal and stop, thus preventing
further reduction. On the other hand, if the design goal
is unachievable in a reasonable time frame, the airport
neighbors will be frustrated by the so-called legislative
promise.
It is more reasonable to foster and support noise reduction
technology. Such technology, if practicable, readily finds
its way into the market place. As examples, the high by-
pass engines and acoustical nacelles on the 747( L-1011 and
DC-10 come to mind. It can be reasonably stated that air-
craft noise is on the down turn, thanks to airline demands,
aircraft and engine manufacturers continuing work, and
improvement in the state of the art as the result of on-going
research.
10. Should airport operators be required to assure that no
area is exposed to hazardous noise as defined by Task Group 3?
By when?
Ans. 10. I don't know what hazardous noise is. It is
undefined. Much depends on the definition of the term.
11. Should airport operators be authorized to specify
maximum single event noise levels for aircraft or procedures
to be used by pilots?
Ans. 11. No. This needs to be done on a national basis if
we are to continue to provide a national air transportation
system for the public.
12. Should airport operators be authorized to designate preferential
runways, establish curfew hours on designated runways, limit
ground maintenance runups, establish airport use fees based on
noise, restrict the number of operations at the airport, restrict
use of the airport to aircraft of specified type, weight, trip
length, etc., or otherwise conduct the operation of the airport
in such a manner as to assure that no area is exposed to hazardous
noise?
Ans. 12. Breaking question 12 down into its components,
the answers are as follows:
Q. Should airport operators be authorized to designate
B-45
-------
- 4 -
preferential runways?
A. Preferential runways should continue to be established
through the cooperative efforts of FAA, aircraft operators
on the airport and the airport operator. No difficulties
have been encountered and therefore this should be non-
controversial.
Q. Should airport operators establish curfews on designated
runways?
A. No.
Q. Should airport operators be authorized to limit ground
maintenance runups?
A. There is no objection if they do so in a reasonable
even-handed manner. This item is also non-controversial
and cooperation has been good.
Q. Should airport operators establish airport use fees
based on noise?
A. No. Such fees do not strike at the heart of reducing
noise.
Q. Should airport operators be authorized to restrict the
number of operations at the airport?
A. No. Applying this restriction to the air transport
system willy-nilly would fragment any semblance of a unified
air transport system.
Q. Should airport operators be authorized to restrict use
of the airport to aircraft of a specified type?
A. No. This suggestion is frivolous and does not take
into account the long lead times and capital outlays by
carriers to provide equipment that can serve the public
convenience and necessity within that airline's system.
Q. Should airport operators be authorized to restrict
weight of aircraft or trip length?
A. No. Use of either of these proposed restrictions might
purchase a small gain at that airport but would require
the carrier to make additional intermediate landings for
fuel, thus increasing the noise burden on other airports.
The last part of question 12 refers back to question 10 and
so far Task Group 3 has not provided Task Group 2 with any
definition of hazardous noise.
B-46
-------
- 5 -
13. If local conditions require, should airport operators be
authorized to specify a lower level of noise as hazardous and
adjust their airport operations accordingly?
Ans. 13. Same as 11.
14. Should noise monitoring be required for single event noise?
for cumulative noise? How often and at how many locations
should monitoring be conducted?
Ans. 14. No. Noise monitoring should not be required
though its use, on an airport by airport basis, would
be of value so long as it is not used as an enforcement
tool. Too many variables in aircraft operating weights and
weather to use it as an enforcement tool. We do not see how
it can be used for enforcement purposes for either single
or cumulative noise purposes.
15. To what airports should any of the above considerations
apply?
Ans. 15. Impossible to determine at this time.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
16. Are there any other rules which should be considered?
Ans. 16. a) It would be appropriate to advocate an
approach procedure rule as a corollary to question 1.
b) As stated in question 2, although addressed
to approach procedures, I would recommend the
ATA procedure at this time.
17. Are there any safety or technology considerations other
than those which you have already mentioned in conjunction with
the above questions?
Ans. 17. I don't know. I have tried to identify those
most obvious ones.
B-47
-------
C2
CIVIC CENTER
105 EAST QUEEN STREET / INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301
March 26, 1973
T7- 3-73
V ?« /? 1
|—tVWvl
Mr. John Schettino, Director
Regulation and Standards Development Staff
Office of Noise Abatement and C|ontrol
Environmental Protection Agency
1835 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr, Schettino:
The City of Inglewood welcomes the opportunity of submitting to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency pertinent information, data and experiences relating
to aircraft noise. Inglewood will support the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Task Force in the effort to formulate meaningful aircraft noise standards as
mandated by the Noise Control Act of 1972.
We feel that the following steps should be taken without delay in order to
improve the compatibility between airports and neighboring communities:
1. Implement steep approaches under visual flight rules
immediately.
2« Implement steep approaches for instrument flight rule
conditions as soon as special navigational aids are
introduced to ensure a safe performance of the procedure.
3. Require jet engine retrofit for aircraft not meeting
FAR Part 36 standards.
4. Lower FAR Part 36 noise levels in time intervals to
provide for continued reduction of future jet noise levels.
5. Consider lowering of the present community noi§e equivalent
level (CNEL) criterion of 65 dBA as acceptable limit value
for residential areas. This criterion should not be
applied uniformly to all residential areas around airports.
Sincerely,
Mayor
MM;WAB:lm
B-48
OPFICE OF THE MAYOR
MKML.B MERGELL.
TELEPHONES: 213/674-7111
LOSAMGEUES: 213/678-7221
-------
March 28, 1973
T C- 3l - % *3
^ ^ ^A/73
SUBMITTAL TO EPA ^'c/
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY TASK FORCE
TASK GROUP 2, OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
In Submittal to EPA dated March 2, 1973» an analysis was provided indicating
the large noise reduction potential for the L-1011 TriStar. The key position
taken in this analysis was that the ability to achieve the large noise reduc-
tions shown during Approach is greatly facilitated, and perhaps dependent,
on the type of automated equipment such as is incorporated in the L-1011
certificated for Category IIIA or IIIB type landings, as well as an Area
Navigation System which permits the airplane to fly along any predetermined
three-dimensional path. Conceivably, with such equipment, preferential take-
off paths would also be greatly facilitated and be more compatible with
consistent use of prescribed operating procedures.
The use of the word "Rule" throughout the questionnaire needs clarification.
There has been general agreement that all operating procedures must be subject
to judgment of the pilot for its implementation during any particular landing
or takeoff operation. This dependence on pilot-' a judgment would not reduce
the effectiveness of such recommended procedures as long as they are demon-
strated to be safe procedures for use other than unusual weather or traffic
conditions. Since the word "Rule" implies use of the particular requirement
at all times, it is suggested that a different word be selected to be asso-
ciated with all the proposals in this Task Group.
TAKEOFF
In Takeoff, the concept of effecting thrust cutback should be re-evaluated to
detexmine whether, on a footprint basis, the procedure does indeed provide a
noise improvement for the community. The concept of preferential runways
also would appear to be a valid concept for minimizing noise during takeoff.
B-49
-------
Because of the different characteristics of two, three, and four engine
aircraft, both of the existing type and the new widebody Jets, it will not
"be possible to establish a single takeoff procedure. It will probably be
necessary to recommend a specific procedure for each type aircraft that
does result in lowest noise for the community as a whole.
LANDING
The information provided by Mr. Meyersburg indicated that an apprdach slope
of 3f0 could be implemented immediately. If this information is valid, then
implementation of such a change does offer noise reduction for both single
and two-segment approach. The effect of such a change in the operation of
all existing transport aircraft should be conducted and, if there is no
Impact on safety, then it should be implemented immediately. Testing on
two-segment approach presently accomplished or in progress by American and
United Airlines, as well as studies conducted by the airframe manufacturers
including Lockheed, highly recommend the implementation of this type of
approach as soon as possible. Aircraft containing the type of sophisticated
electronics such as available and certificated on the L-1011 will facilitate
and hasten the acceptance on a safety basis by the airline pilots. Since it
is by far the most effective method developed to date for reducing noise
during landing, every effort-should be made to encourage its use at all
airports and under all weather conditions where it is feasible. The use of
thrust reversers after landing has not been demonstrated to be a community
noige problem except in certain small percentage of airports. Further, there
is little data available on noise caused by thrust reversers. Until such
Information is gathered and the magnitude of the problem determined, there
does not appear to be any valid reason for prohibiting its use under either
normal or hazardous conditions.
AIRPORTS
The detail problems and requirements that airport operators must resolve are
best known to the operators themselves. The airframe manufacturers and air-
line operators have said repeatedly during the last five to six years that an
answer to the community noise problem cannot be resolved completely by noise
B-50
-------
reduction at the source and operational procedures. In fact, it will require
the maximum application of rational land use techniques. To date this last
noise reduction technique has received little or no attention. The airport
operators must be the leaders in activating government agencies to implement
this most important -weapon in resolving the community noise problem.
Initiation of this noise reduction method will then temper the restrictions
which the airport operator might be forced to designate on aircraft using
the airport. The airport operators' authority to establish such restrictions
is best answered by legal experts rather than Task Group No. 2.
GENERAL
All of the recommended practices discussed above should be applicable to
all the aircraft serving a particular airport. This, however, must take
into account earlier statements indicating that all aircraft cannot comply
with given operating procedures, but rather should comply with those which
result in the greatest noise reduction "for them.
B-51
-------
VAN NUYS
.IlftafflP
re- v
Ll vV VV/7 '!
L A INTERNATIONAL
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORT©
' 1 WORLD WAY • LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 900O9
TELEPHONE (213) 646-5252 ¦ TELEX 65-3413
March 22, 1973
LA A
CLIFTON A. MOORE
GENERAL MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Randall L. Hurlburt
Chairman, Task Group 2
FROM: Bert J. Lockwood
Assistant General Manager
Operations
SUBJECT: Task Group 2 -- Position Report
The following comments are submitted in accordance with your request
at the March 19, .1973, meeting of Task Group 2. As you will note, I
am submitting my comments in two forms. The first is concerned with
general comments on the items discussed at the March 19 meeting
followed by a narrative on the numbered questions that were submitted
as a position questionnaire with the agenda.
My comments are submitted on the basis that air safety has an overriding
priority over all other considerations. I also feel that technological
feasibility and the ability of the air transportation system to operate with
a high degree of efficiency to reasonable operating weather minimums
and to reasonable volumes of traffic must also have high priority.
In discussing takeoff procedures, I feel that a minimum of two procedures
must be established that considers the location of the noise problem areas
around an airport. It is rather obvious that some airports Jiave a sideline
problem while other airports have a problem under the departure flight
path. Procedures must recognize this difference. Present FAA sound
abatement departures that specify a high initial climb rate followed by a
power reduction to maintain a minimum climb profile reduce the levels
under the departure flight path. Departure procedures for lighter weight
aircraft that use a lower engine EPR for takeoff obviously are aimed at
B-52
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMKSIONIRS
Stephen C. Btlhelmer, PRESIDENT . Robert M. Brunson, VICE PRESIDENT • C. Ltmolne Bkmchard • Melrin J, Erickson . William F. Quinn. M.D.
Sam Yorty, Mayor
-------
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
-2-
March 22, 1973
the runway sideline problem. These types of procedures or combinations
of them must be tailored to the requirements of specific airports. No
procedures, however, should be required without a complete flight test
validation by the appropriate authorities of FAA concerned with flight
engineering and flight safety.
Landing procedures should be specified after complete validation as to
flight safety and the ability to land under very low visibility conditions.
I feel that the two-segment approach procedure combined with various
flap management procedures should be adopted after adequate on-board
guidance is developed and certificated for passenger operations. As a
follow on procedure with the complete certification of microwave ILS,
multi path approaches should also be utilized where it can be demonstrated
that the overall impact can be reduced. This, of course, must recognize
airspace requirements of all users and be compatible with the airway
system.
Monitoring can be considered a valuable working tool to assess the results
of the various procedures that are tailored to each individual airport. The
monitoring system, however, should utilize the simplest of single event
and impact methodologies. If this is not done, the entire procedure
becomes to sophisticated or complicated for handling by local authority
and understanding by the local populous and their political representatives.
It should also be done in the simplest way possible to reduce the overall
cost of the process.
I would like to make it very clear that any change recommended in flight
procedures must remain within the existing state of the art and not impose
an unreasonable financial penalty.
The following are comments on the numbered questions in the position
questionnaire:
1. Operating rules should establish specific flight procedures for takeoff
for each type and model of aircraft. I feel a minimum of two procedures
should be developed recognizing the location of the problem areas as
sideline or under the departure path.
2. Same as No. 1.
3. Minimum\maneuvering altitudes prior to the commencement of approach
have very well been-established already by the FAA. For most airports
at this time this is between 3,000 and 4, 000 feet above runway elevation.
Minimum altitudes must recognize the airspace requirements of all
users in the area and must be at such all altitude to permit proper
-+ure of the glide slope.
B-53
-------
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt -3- March 22, 1973
4. In looking at glide slope angles we must recognize that their most
important function is to provide proper descent guidance under low
visitdlity conditions. The steepness of the angle must recognize that
there is a definite limit to vertical descent rates in the critical landing
phase of each operation. Glide slopes should not be increased in any
location where the angle would derogate the safety of the flight. I
would, therefore, oppose increasing the angle to 3-1/2 degrees for
IFE operations unless it can be demonstrated by extensive flight tests
that the operation would be completely safe. It should also be pointed
out that increasing tlie angle 1/2 degree produces only minimal reduc-
tions in sound level.
5. For sake of standardization and safety, the installation of navigational
approach aids must remain an FAA Federal Government responsibility.
Operators have no business or expertise in these areas and should not
become involved.
6. Two-s$|fment approaches should become standard operating procedure
for air transport category aircraft after all equipment has been com-
pletely certificated and the whole range of procedures approved as
to safety. Studies at the present time with present technology aircraft
would indicate that the upper segment should not exceed 6 degrees
because of difficulty in stabilizing the aircraft on a steeper approach
For safeties sake, in the first phase of a two-segment operation it
perhaps should be limited to VFR until all potential problems with
the system are solved.
7. Whether or not thrust reversal is used must remain within the judgment
of the pilot in command. It should be pointed out here that if thrust
reversal was not used most aircraft would roll out the full length of
the runways, which would then place a larger number of airplanes on
the ground with idling engines. This would then be trading off a slight
thrust reversal sound level for a greater increase in air pollution due
to idling engines.
8. The rules we are considering here should apply to the transport category
aircraft and to the noisier types of business or general aviation types
that are jet powered.
9. Certifying airports for noise would serve no useful purpose. The noise
control would be handled through operational procedures and the certi-
fication of the aircraft.
B-54
-------
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
-4-
March 22, 1973
10. This question makes no sense at this time, as we have no indication
of the results of Task Group 3 work.
11. Airport operators have no expertise when it comes to considering
flight procedures used by the pilots. This is something that can
only be handled at a Federal level for standardization purposes by
experts in the field of aircraft flight.
12. Airport operators at this time have authority to regulate the use of
their facilities. The use of the words "hazardous noise" makes no
sense in this question, as no agency has been able to develop a
definition in regard to this.
13. In order to maintain a viable national air transportation system, the
standards for airports should be set at Federal level ^tld the Federal
Government should completely preempt the areas of noise and flight
regulation.
These are my comments.
Very truly yotirs
L-^Bert J. Lockwood
Assistant General Manager
Operations
BJLrsm
B-55
-------
VI*S(V
i Tc- a -
ia/?3
^jas A
TAKE-OFF
1. Should there be an operating rule establishing
specific flight procedures for take-off?
Comment: Operating procedures can be used effectively
for noise control in both landing approach and the take-off-
climbout phases of the mission. Optimum conditions for
noise reduction during take-off-climbout depend on the
configuration details (particularly, type of engine) and
operating conditions of the aircraft and thus will probably
be different for each new aircraft.
2. What do you think the appropriate take-off
procedure should be?
Comment: Thrust reductions will reduce aircraft noise
at the source but at the same time also reduce climb gradient.
Hence, evaluating noise reduction departures requires that
one balance noise reduction at the source against the loss
of climb gradient. Thus, one must also evaluate the effec-
tiveness of noise abatement departures within the context
of particular aircraft/airport scenarios, i.e., aircraft
type and performance and the location of the area where
noise reduction is required. Reduced power climbout may
or may not reduce noise, depending upon the location of the
noiS/6 sensitive area. For example, use of reduced power
B-56
-------
2
climb contracts the width of the noise footprints while
expanding the length down the flight track. Hence, side-
line observers along the flight track are benefitted but
additional observers will be exposed down the flight track.
Thus# a reduced power climb after take-off will shift the
incidence of the noise by trading sideline effects against
longitudinal effects. This can be considered effective if
the trade-off shifts the noise from sensitive areas to non-
sensitive areas. Thus# a take-off procedure for one runway
may not be the optimum one for another runway. Optimum
take-off procedures may have to be tailored to each runway.
On the other hand, different operating procedures for each
airport into which a pilot is required to operate pose
additional burdens upon the pilot in maintaining familiarity
with the differences and perhaps safety of operation. It is
recommended that segmented take-off profiles adaptable to
each airplane type be established, specifics of the profiles
should be worked out cooperatively by the airlines, the
manufacturers and the FAA.
3. Should there be a rule establishing^ minimum
maneuvering altitudes prior to the commencement of approach?
What should these altitudes be?
B-57
-------
3
Comment: The ground noise outside the outer marker can
be significantly reduced by maintaining a higher maneuvering
altitude. Altitude of up to 6000' can produce noise improve-
ment over large areas in the approach path to an airport.
During flight evaluation of two-segment avionics in the
B-727 it was noticed that the approach with a 6° upper
segment could accommodate up to 190 kts IAS at 3000' to
the point of upper segment capture. This speed can be
increased as altitude increases up to 250 lets at 6000' or
higher. The result is lower power setting at high altitude
and less time at high power settings, 3000" feet is con-
sidered a minimum and higher is desirable. Where holding
and maneuverihg altitudes can be raised/ definite reductions
in community noise can be realized.
4. Should there be a rule raising the ILS glide
slope immediately to 3.5 degrees?
Comment t Three degree glide slopes are generally
accepted today and are standard at many airports. All
new installations are planned for a 3° glide slope wherever
siting conditions permit. However# about 1/3 of present
glide slopes are as low as 2.5°. Noise reduction ori the
B-58
-------
4
order of 2 to 3 dB can be had for a degree increase in
glide slope. No problems are foreseen as far as the aircraft
and airborne equipment are concerned in flying 3.5 degree
glide slopes.
5. Should operators be required to install instrumen-
tation which would provide guidance during a two-segment
approach?
Comment; A key feature of the two-segment approach
which would permit approaches in both VFR and IFR conditions
is provision of a continuous vertical steering command on
the flight director. This is required to insure that
transitions from level flight to the upper segment can be
made without overshoots and those from the upper to lower
segment can be made without going below the normal ILS. In
addition to the safety features, the additional power
needed to correct for going below the ILS is particularly
objectionable because it creates higher perceived noise on
the ground in the region of the transition.
6. Should there be an operating rule requiring pilots
to fly two-segment approaches? What intercept altitude should
be specified? What should be the angle of the upper segment?
B-59
-------
5
Should the rule initially be VFR only? When should VFR and
IFR rules be (effective?
Comment: The basic concept of the two-segment approach
has been well established. Recent effort has been to make
the concept into a practical operational reality. The basic
profile of the two-segment has been studied using both a
B-720 and a B-727 and the effect of the two-segment variables
are discussed below:
Upper Segment Intersect Altitude Effects - The ground
noise outside the outer marker can be reduced significantly
by increased altitude. A minimum altitude of 3000 feet is
recommended. Altitude of up to 6000 feet can produce noise
improvement over large areas in the approach path to an
airport. Aircraft safety is enhanced by staying high in
the heavy traffic area reducing exposure to many low
flying aircraft.
Lower Segment Intersect Altitude - The ground noise
inside the outer marker is greatly influenced by the
lower intersect altitude. The noise improvement of a 6
degree upper segment transitioning from 3000 feet to a 2.5
degree glide slope is about 6 EPNdB for a B-727 for each
340 feet of change in the lower intersect altitude. The
B-60
-------
6
transition height from the 6° to the 3° glide slope has a
significant effect on the centerline noise level below the
aircraft. There is very little effect/ however, on foot-
print area for transition heights from 400 to 800 feet.
Low altitudes raise the question of flight safety with
respect to higher rate of descent at lower altitudes and
the accumulative altitude errors in any system. An
additional consideration to pilot acceptance is the feeling
of being stabilized in the approach. The pilots were not
comfortable even when the aircraft had unchanging airspeed
and zero deviation from the computed path if they didn't
have about a minute to get set# following the lower transi-
tion. It is thought that experience would change this
situation, as when pilots have flown many two-segment
approaches# they appear to need less "set time."
Upper Segment Angle: The effect of the upper segment
angle is to place the aircraft at a higher altitude and at
the same time, require a lower power setting to maintain
the desired airspeed. Angles above 6.5 degrees provide
good sound improvements, but the transitions become more
difficult and the aircraft will not stabilize with tail
winds•
B-61
-------
7
External Variables: The two-segment approach was not
adversely affected by turbulence. For the B-727 aircraft,
with engine and wing anti-icing on and temperatures -7°C
or above, the N, rpm is about the minimum of 55%. In
these conditions a tail wind of about 15 kts can be offset
by using 40 degrees flaps. But if the icing is such that
70% N, is required for anti-icing, or the tail winds are
in excess of 15 kts, then the approach, as constituted,
could not be flown. These conditions exist less than 1%
of the time. Tail winds in excess of 30 kts present a
problem of airspeed stabilization and throttle position.
Less than 30 kts are maneuverable. Cross wind effect is
the same as the standard ILS. There is no noticeable
difference in visibility between the two-segment approach
and the standard ILS. The two-segment approach permits
a better view of the terminal area under all lighting
conditions than does the standard ILS, yet the descent angle
is not so steep as to give the pilot the impression of his
descending into a hole at night.
General Consensus: A summary of the reactions of
guests pilots who participated in the off-line evaluation
of two-segment approaches in the B-720 and the B-727 to
B-62
-------
8
the question, "Do you feel the two-segment approach you
have flown can be flown in normal line operation?" is
given below:
1. The two-segment approach is practical and
acceptable and easier to fly than anticipated.
2. Safety is not compromised
3. There is considerable similarity to the standard
ILS.
4. Workload increase is slight
5. Stabilization on the glide slope occurs
sufficiently above the TDZ.
6. Positive guidance is provided throughout
7. Annunciation and instrumentation are satisfactory,
8. Transition to upper segment and glide slope are
smooth.
9. Operational techniques involved are basically
similar to the standard ILS.
10. Utilize conservative weather minimum for intro-
duction into line service with a gradual reduction as
experience is gained and system reliability demonstrated.
As noted eibove, the operational feasibility of the
two-segment approach as presently constituted has been
B-63
-------
2-3ZS2S2T PESFILE
553
-------
9
determined for only two aircraft types. Steps are now
underway to provide a similar evaluation in the DC-8. Also
the results will be extrapolated to the DC-9, DC-10, B-737,
B-707 and B-747 jet transports by an analytical and
simulation program. These efforts will be completed prior
to the end of FY 74.
Before implementation of a two-segment approach, there
should be a study to determine the impact on ATC of inter-
mixing different approach profiles in the terminal area
especially during a transition period. An analytical
study should be conducted to determine therequirements on
the availability and location of the ground navigational
aids used as inputs to the airborne navigation equipment
used in generating the upper glide slope.
It is considered very desirable for the same profile
and procedures to be used in both VFR and IFR conditions.
As far as availability of ground and airborne avionics
are concerned, start of implementation of two-segment
approaches could commence within one year from the time
action is taken requiring implementation. It is estimated
that it would require from three to four years to equip
B-65
-------
10
all aircraft and equip approximately fifty runways where
noise is a severe problem and where two-segment approaches
could provide some relief.
7. Should there be a rule prohibiting the use of
thrust reversers on dry runways unless required by ATC
or unless runway length or atmospheric conditions require
their use in the interest of safety?
Comment: Use of thrust reversers have many beneficial
effects including safety, shortening runway occupancy time,
pollution reduction because of less taxi time, and less
maintenance cost to the airlines for brakes and tires.
AIRPORTS
9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
Comment: There should be several levels of certifica-
tion, and an airport should be certified at a level which
would depend on a number of factors such as location in the
urban complex, type of aircraft which will use the airport#
hours during which it will permit operations, etc.
12. Should airport operators be authorized to designate
preferential runways, establish curfew hours on designated
runways, limit ground maintenance runups, establish airport
B-66
-------
11
use fees based on noise, restrict the number of operations
at the airport, restrict use of the airport to aircraft
of specified type, weight, trip length, etc., or otherwise
conduct the operation of the airport in such a manner as
to assure that no area is exposed to unacceptable noise?
Comment: The air transportation system is a national
system of airports, aircraft and airways. Restrictions
imposed locally may have far reaching implications. The
complexity of scheduling and operation, and the limited
availability of some of the essential aspects of the air
transportation system such as airports, aircraft, traffic
routes, and aircraft maintenance facilities all seem to
indicate that there should be national uniformity of regula-
tions wherever possible so that air transportation may be
conducted with maximum safety and efficient use of the
National Aviation System.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
16. Are there any other rules which should be
considered?
Comment; While many laws and rules relative to aircraft
are or have been proposed and enacted by various regulatory
bodies, very few laws are in effect regarding proper land
B-67
-------
12
use in the vicinity of airports. New residential communities,
apartments, schools, etc. are continually being constructed
under the approach and departure paths to over present
airports. Thus, some remedies of the noise problem should
be sought through rezoning sound proofing of present
structures, relocation, and prevention of residential use
of land in the vicinity of airports. A primary cause of
environmental incompatibility between the surrounding
neighborhood and the airport operations is the result of
uncontrolled urban encroachment upon the airports after
they have been developed.
B-68
-------
f
NATIONAL ASSOCIATI ON,Inc.
' ' ' L^Acy^ 'r w
jittW
May 14, 1973
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman of the Board
JOHN B. BEAN
International Multifoods Corporation
Vice Chairman of the Board
NORMAN L. MITCHELL
Minneapolis Star and
Tribune Company
Treasurer
WILLIAM F. GILBERT
Weyerhaeuser Company
EARLE W. BAUER.
Marathon Oil Company
MORTON J. BROWN
AMP Incorporated
RANDALL H. CARPENTER
Time, Inc.
E. E. DUNSWORTH
Trunkline Gas Company
P. RAY GRIMES
American Republic Insurance
Company
RONALD J. GUERRA
Kaiser Industries Corporation
RICHARD I. HORNBECK
General Electric Company
CHARLES E. MORRIS
Mobil Oil Corporation
OTTO C. POBANZ
Federated Department Stores, Inc.
MILTON H. PUGSLEY
Chrysler Corporation
THOMAS P. ROCHE
Deere & Company
ARTHUR E. WEINER
Burlington Industries, Inc.
Associate Member Advisors
WAYNE A. ROSENKRANS
Jeppesen Sc Co.
PARKER V. WARD
Van Dusen Aviation
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
JOHN H. WINANT
President and Secretary
The following are the NBAA responses to your questionnaire dated
March 19, 1973:
1. Optimized takeoff procedures should be developed for each
airplane type to reduce noise pollution. These procedures should
be incorporated in the FAA-approved airplane flight manual and/or
Part 91 of the Federal Air Regulations for each particular airplane.
The two procedures, one for a standard takeoff and one to be used
when a noise-sensitive area is in the proximity of the departure end
of the runway, should be developed and widely publicized for the
education of and adherence by all pilots operating each airplane
type. It is quite possible that some airplane types, which amply
meet the requirements of FAR Part 36, would only require a single
takeoff procedure. This could be determined by proper analysis of
FAR 36 certification data.
2. Appropriate takeoff procedures should be determined by the
FAA and the aircraft manufacturer after a thorough and concise analy-
sis of all performance data.
3. A rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes prior to
the commencement of an approach appears unnecessary. However, the
United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
which prescribes standardized methods for use in designing instru-
ment flight procedures, should be amended to specifically require
the use of higher minimum maneuvering altitudes consistent with
safety and acceptable airspace/air traffic management.
4. The FAA is currently pursuing a program to raise all ILS
glide slopes to approximately three degrees. Increasing the glide
B-69
ADVANCING BUSINESS AVIATION SINCE 1947
-------
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
Page #2
May 14, 1973
slope angle to 3.5 degrees may reduce the margin of safety, increase the
Category I weather minimums, and increase the aircraft landing or rollout
distance. We encourage further study of this subject.
5. & 6. NBAA has, for many years, supported the use of the two segment
(6 and 3 degree) approach under VFR conditions. Likewise, NBAA has and will
continue to encourage further development of instrumentation and procedures
which will permit use of the two segment approach under all weather conditions.
Our final position on the two segment approach will await the results of the
current on-going program.
7. NBAA would oppose a rule prohibiting the use of thrust reversers on
dry runways. The definition of dry runway is not present in the aviation dic-
tionary and the non-use of thrust reversers can effectively reduce runway ca-
pacity.
8. Noise reduction operating techniques should apply to all turbojet and
heavy aircraft.
9. Airports should not be certificated for noise. Aircraft noise re-
duction can be achieved through (1) improved operational/procedural techniques,
(2) quieter aircraft engines, (3) selection of quieter engines for aircraft not
meeting the requirements of FAR Part 36, (4) retrofitting existing engines if
technologically proven and economically reasonable, (5) retiring the noisier
aircrart types, (6) prohibiting the continued production of non-FAR Part 36 air-
craft, (7) wise land use planning, and (8) reclaming certain land areas around
the most noise sensitive airports.
10. No comments. Hazardous noise has not been defined.
11. Noise levels for aircraft and procedures to be used by pilots must be
established and approved at the national level if we are to maintain a viable
national air transportation system. The Noise Control Act of 1972 must not be
interpreted as a nullification of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Rather
this legislation (Public Law 92-574) portrays increasing Congressional interest
in this nation's airport system and that system's contribution to the continued
growth of intrastate, interstate, and international air commerce.
12. through 15. The FAA is charged with ensuring the safe and efficient use
of the nation's airspace, and with fostering civil aeronautics and air commerce.
The FAA is the sole authority for designating preferential runways. Appropriate
procedures, which provide for consideration and analysis of the needs of airport
management and near-airport neighbors, are contained in FAA Order 7110.13, FAR
Part 91, and the Terminal Air Traffic Control Handbook, 7ll0.8. Experience shows
B-70
-------
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
Page #3
May 14, 1973
that preferential runways have and are being designated at those airports having
an aircraft noise problem. At a few airports (for instance, the Latrobe Airport
near Pittsburgh, Pa.) preferential runway use program has been wisely implemented
before the noise problem surfaced.
The dividing line where the FAA's authority ceases and the airport operator's
authority begins is a classic legal question, certain aspects of which are now
being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, aircraft
owners and operators, who successfully meet the Federal requirements for owning
and operating private aircraft and pay registration, tire & tube, and fuel taxes
to the Federal, state and/or local governments, rightfully demand unrestricted
access to the nation's airport and airway system. These same owners and opera-
tors fully support all reasonable attempts to reduce aircraft noise pollution
through quieter engines certificated by the Federal government, optimized opera-
tional procedures prescribed by the FAA, and wise land use planning and recla-
mation around the nation'is airports. They are willing to curtail ground main-
tenance runups during the normal sleeping hours and they accept this requirement
as a part of a landlord/tenant contract.
16. No comment.
17. The owners/operators of a few turbine powered and heavy aircraft have
equipped their aircraft with 3D RNAV equipment. A very small number have, with
the cooperation of the FAA, obtained approval for 3D approaches at a few low
density airports. As more lower cost 3D RNAV equipment becomes available, it
can be safely assumed that more business aircraft operators will equip their
aircraft with this equipment. The FAA, in the published FAA/Industry RNAV task
force report dated February 23, 1973, has stated that it will continue to de-
velop 2D/3D approaches for all airports to the extent practicable, consistent
with IFR requirements. It is at these airports that business aircraft need such
a capability which, while providing non-precision approach miniimims, will also
provide for steeper and/or varied approach slopes and reduce noise pollution.
LPB/te
Manager, Airports Services
B-73
-------
25 KNOB HILL ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033
203 - 633-2835
c^National Organization to Insure a ^Sound-controlled Environment
r Cr a- 9 if
April 2, 1973 d V/^/?3
TO: Randall L. Hurlburt, Chairman
Task Group 2
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
FROM: Lloyd Hinton
SUBJECT: Response to Position Questionnaire dated 3/19/73
N.O.I.S.E. believes that the earliest and greatest
reductions in aircraft noise can be achieved through the
urgent implementation of optimized operating procedures.
The FAA and the airlines, through the ATA, have done little
more than "talk" about the availability of procedural changes
since they were officially recommended in the Report of the
President's Airport Commission, "The Airport and Its Neighbors,"
submitted to President Truman in May of 1952. Finally, in
August 1973, the ATA member airlines "voluntarily" adopted a
noise abatement departure procedure which the FAA subsequently
last November incorporated it in toto in a "Project Report"
which acknowledges the need for noise abatement operating
procedures.
While the ATA/FAA takeoff procedure is hardly optimized
for either reduced noise or operating efficiency (unaccountably),
it does represent at least recognition such procedures are
necessary, do not necessarily derogate safety and must be
B-72
-------
implemented on a systemwide basis.
The increased interest in operating procedures on the
part of the ATA/FAA undoubtedly is a result of the growing
pressure for acoustic retrofit. This writer believes noise
reductions comparable to those obtainable with full nacelle
treatment are available through procedural innovations.
On approach, such changes will require new instrumentation
and control equipment which is readily available. In addition
to reduced noise, the use of noise procedures with associated
equipment will result in improved safety, operating economies,
and all weather capability.
It is appropriate to note that the NWA takeoff procedure
developed by Captain Soderlind has a far better effect in
close-in severe noise impacted areas than does the ATA/FAA
procedure. Furthermore, while I have not corroborated the
point with Captain Soderlind, I feel certain he would not
agree-'-as claimed by Captain Treece and Roger Flynn of ATA—
that the ATA/FAA procedure results in greater noise reduction,
improved safety, or any other benefit other than operator
convenience and the opportunity to claim again that "everything"
humanly possible is being done.
The following are my comments on your questions:
Takeoff
1. Yes—"voluntary" regulation does not work as
evidenced by the poor compliance since last August with the
ATA procedure. B-73
-------
2. Essentially the NWA procedure with one important
difference. The need for standardization so fully met in the
NWA procedure should be made flexible to the extent that two
related techniques be employed as follows:
a) Designate each runway served by turbine engine
aircraft as Noise Control A or Noise Control B. "A" would
be designed to best serve the situation where the problem area
is greatest upwind of the runway. "B" would account for the
rarer situation typified by LAX, where exposure on the sideline
constitutes the greater problem.
b) Noise Control Takeoff "A"
1. Rotate precisely on the numbers.
2. Establish f©redetermined deck angle
3. Maintain V + 10 knots.
%
4. At 1,000 feet reduce deck angle to 35% of
initial climb angle.
5. Accelerate (at max. power) to Vzf.
6. Retract flaps as soon as speed schedule permits.
7. Upon reaching Vzf, reduce power to "quietjthrust"
per NWA schedule.
8. Maintain Vz^ and quiet thrust to 4,000 feet
(rate of climb about 1,200-1,500'/minute).
9. At 4,000 feet reapply max. continuous power.
"1
Note: The following common errors were observed
^with NWA execution of its procedure. Failure to reduce deck angle
B-74
-------
sufficiently to allow rapid acceleration. Failure to retract
flaps as early as speed permits. Failure to reduce to
"quiet thrust" as flaps reach zero.
c) Noise Control Takeoff "B"
1. Accelerate to + 20 prior to rotation.
2. Rotate to angle equal to one half that needed
to maintain V^, + 10 at max. power.
3. Accelerate to Vzf maintaining low deck angle.
4. At Vzf retract flaps to zero.
5. At zero flaps reduce power to "quiet thrust"
per NWA schedule.
Landing
3. Yes—3/000 feet AFL obstructions permitting.
4. No—rule or order raising all ILS glide slopes—
on a crash program basis—to 3.0 degrees (actual not "nominal")
would be most beneficial. Going higher than 3.0 degrees will
likely result in inhibiting introduction of two segment and/or
decelerating approaches.
5. Yes—such instrumentation would pay for itself
through operating economies in one to two years. The instrumen-
tation should be RNAV having three dimensional capability rather
than requiring co-located DME on each ILS equipped runway. Back
course glide slopes should also be installed on all runways
serving jet equipment where only VASI or no instrumentation
currently exists.
B-75
-------
6. Yes—the operating rule should require immediate
use of visual two segment procedure per PSA/Air California/
National at Miami. IFR procedure should be implemented on a
schedule commensurate with the instrument manufacturers'
ability to provide equipment. Indoctrination and training of
pilots should proceed simultaneously. This writer prefers
use of decelerating technique as having greater potential for
safety and Operating efficiency over today's methods.
According to the results of the NASA-Ames tests conducted by
American Airlines in August/September 1971, the six degree initial
interceptinij^the three degree glide slope at 400 feet is
completely safe and offers maximum noise benefits.
7. No.
General
8. All aircraft systemwide. In emergency situations
aircraft could very well be exempted from employing the upper
segment or the decelerating technique if selected.
Airports
9. Yes—just as all operating civil aircraft should
be certificated for noise control purposes, so too should
airports as to the impact of their operations on adjacent land
areas. An additional logical extension is the certification
Pilots as to their training and competence in flying noise
abatement procedures.
B-76
-------
-b-
10. Yes—EPA must establish noise control "guidelines"
which become mandatory upon airport operations. If aircraft
changes including operating procedures are insufficient to
contain the area of exposure to avoid noise sensitive land uses
and land use changes cannot be adequately implemented, the
ultimate alternative is curtailment of airport operations
leading even to shutdown (presumably a new or alternate airport
would be available). No more than ten more years (1983)
should elapse before a total solution must be achieved by
each airport/community curtailed operations following that.
11. No—maximum -single event levels should be
specified by EPA standard. If state government desires lower
levels (both single event and cumulative), it has constitutional
authority to impose limits on airports within state. Asking
airport operators to establish and impose such standards
places them in untenable position in which they cannot act.
12. Yes—airport operators currently have proprietary
authority—which FAA has long exercised at WNA—to accomplish
the full range of noise control measures. However, for unknown
reasons the airport operators collectively have not had
sufficient incentive to act. As in the case of some airlines,
some airport operators have acted out of humanitarian reasons.
13. No—State governments acting at the request of
or authorizing local governments should select standards. The
B-77
-------
-7-
point is that general purpose government rather than single
purpose entities such as airport operators should resolve
conflicts between environmental and commercial interests.
14. Undecided.
15. Nationwide including military and general aviation.
(Note': military requires additional consideration since
aii+craft will not be designed with noise control as a mission
requirement.)
Additional Questions
16. Yes—EPA set^ national noise exposure criteria
which becomes mandatory guidelines. FAA, HUD and other federal
agencies administering state and local grant funds be required
to use implementation of noise control/land use measures as
additional criterion.
17. Yes—improved ground and airborne instrumentation/
control systems have long been needed for safety and operating
efficiency as well as safety. NASA should be formally assigned
full R&D role responsibility for civil aeronautics including
certification for safety. FAA role should be redefined and
limited to routine enforcement of standards and procedures set
by EPA and developed and certificated by NASA.
B-78
-------
25 KNOB HILL ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033
203 - 633-2835
^111y Rational Organization to Insure around-controlled Environment
TG 31- 1"M
Mr. Randall Hurlfeurt fjo< Jt
Chairman, Task Group 2 * » / /
Aircraft / Airpo:frt Noise Study Task Force
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building 2
Arlington, Va. 20460
Dear Mr. Hurlburt,
I have attended «n meetings of Task Group 2, and have reviewed, the Draft
Report "Operation Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety, and Costs"
dated Ju&p 1st, 1973* I am familiar with and have long participated in the
development of aircraft noise abatement takeoff and approach procedures. I
have conducted pilot training programs in the vise of these procedures.
Our organization presents the following as our position on this subject:
1. We subscribe to the recommendation that airport certification, as
discussed in our position paper to Task Group 1, be used, as a means of
controlling aircraft noise exposure in areas around airports.
2. We recommend that NASA be required to certify noise abatement air-
craft configurations and operating procedures and the FAA be required,
to Implement noise level limits and operating procedures by pro-
I
mulgating regulations.
3. We recommend that airport certification by the FAA be based oh a
selection by the airport operator, working with the regional land-
use planners, of land, areas which are to be subjected to aircraft noise
exposure above specified levels. These areas can be selected using
aircraft types, numbers of operations, time of day and operating
procedures required to provide the desired air transport service and,
at the suae time hold the size of the areas exposed to specified
levels to quantities which can be zoned for or converted to land
uses compatible with these noise exposure levels.
4* Having defined the noise exposure contour for the airport as a
whole, the airport operator can assign portions of this noise ex-
posure to the various airlines operating at this airport. The
B-79
-------
Mr. Hurlburt, page 2
airlines will, then select aircraft types, numbers of operations, times
of day and operating procedures, to stay within their assigned contri-
bution to the total noise exposure.
Sincerely,
¦$sLc~t.iCr I'
Lloyd] V. Hint on
I i
Execb^tive Director
B-80
-------
POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE COMMENTS
TASK GROUP 2
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
The following comments are directed to the TG-2 Position Questionnaire dated
3/19/73. All observations arp made from the viewpoint of a General Aviation
manufacturer of light single and twin engine aircraft including turbo-prop and
business jets.
TAKEOFF
We oppose a rule establishing specific flight procedures for takeoff. Each airport
and its surroundings are unique in one respect or another. Aircraft configuration
and performance features vary as a function of design. A noise abatement pro-
cedure at one airport may be entirely inadequate, unsafe, or even unnecessary
at another. We believe that aircraft should be certificated in accordance with the
applicable FAA regulation (FAR-36, for example) and that any supplementary noise
abatement requirements should" be included, at those airports where such proced-
ures are considered necessary, in Jeppsen charts or other mission planning
guides.
LANDING
A rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes prior to commencing approach
appears reasonable at some locations. Such a rule should not be promulgated,
however, without a comprehensive evaluation program to establish altitude limits
for the various classes of aircraft.
B-81
-------
Position Questionnaire Comments
Page 2
A 3. 5 degree glide slope also appears feasible but should be carefully studied before
establishing any new rule. We would recommend an evaluation program including
general aviation type of aircraft and then, if the procedure proves safe and effective,
an interim rule for VFR only. Operators should not be required to install two seg-
ment approach instrumentation at this time.
We oppose any rule that would limit the use of thrust reversers because of possible
compromises to safety of operations.
AIRPORTS
We believe that airport operators should have considerable latitude in defining the
requirements for operations in and around their facilities. We do not believe,
however, that such latitude should extend to the authorization to specify a given
level of noise as hazardous. Such knowledge would normally be beyond the qualifi-
cations of an airport operator. We believe that noise monitoring equipment would
prove beneficial but we see no useful purpose in certificating airports for noise.
B-82
-------
To; Task Group 2
From: Robert Bennin
(wx\
bfrtj -?!?o
Date: March 27, 19 73
Subject: Response to
Position Questionnaire.
TAKEOFF
1. Yes. Operating procedures similar to those discussed in
FAA project report by R.D. Shreve should be implemented im-
mediately as a FAA rule. As part of the operating procedure
the deck angle of the aircraft should be increased to greater
than the present 1U'° - 15°. Some discussion centers around
a deck angle of 2 0° plus.
2. The takeoff procedure should be developed from the findings
of the work being done by Northwest, Air California, Pacific
Southwest Airlines, and the Shreve report mentioned above.
LANDING
3. Yes. While I am aware of the data and discussion regarding
minimum maneuvering altitudes, I can only say that they must
be high enough to mimimize the noise impact on the ground and
yet provide safe transition for a two-segment approach. PSA
and Air California data should be studied carefully so that
a standard operating procedure applicable to all of the
national airports.can be developed.
H. Yes. Those airports that have ILS would provide for proper
attitude of aircraft during descent. There should be an increase
in the glide slope angle to a minimum of 3° and then incrementally
to 3.5° while operating procedures for two segment operations
are being developed.
5. Yes. Maneuvering instrumentation should be installed by
the same agency responsible for installing navigational aids,
radar and other safety devices.
6. The existing framework of FAA rule making should be used
to implement two-segment approaches. -This would be similar to
the take off procedures specified in the Project Report by R.D.
Shreve, Ammendment to FAA Regulations, To Provide For a
Take-off Noise Control Operating Rule, dated Nov. 15, 1972 and
Nov. 21, 1972.
Intercept and maneuvering altitudes should be developed
to provide maximum height over the community and to be applic-
able at all the nation's airports.
Some variation of a two segment approach should be VFR
only. As instrumentation and installation at airport run-
way proceeds, tighter two-segment glide angles should be
imposed based on IFR.
B-83
-------
7. Other considerations than those listed should be reviewed
eg. length of time aircraft is on active runway, duration of
air and noise pollution because of increased taxi operation.
We might consider a combination of thrust reversal and brakes
to optimize the factors listed.
GENERAL
Immediately
8. The rules considered above should apply to all category
jet transport as listed in Part 36. Rules for general aviation
aircraft should also be considered for later implementation.
9-10. Airports should be certificated for noise in the same
way as for safety. It is suggested that airport operators be
responsible for monitoring and maintaining the cumulative noise
exposure that is being suggested in TG 3. Under the airport
certification, the airport operators would be authorized to
use receiver control options lasted in 12.
Using an incremental time ftfame, beginning immediately
with VFR operating procedures, and then going to tighter
procedures as IFR instrumentation is installed. Dates are still
to be determined depending on full equipment availabliity
and cost.
11. Yes. The purpose would be to isolate chronic offenders
and permit the airport operators to intiate special action when
necessary.
12. See questions 9 -10.
13. It is hoped that the standards set will be the lowest poss-
ible; the best standard would be one that applied to all airports
equally.
Noise levels should be prescribed in such a manner that
it should never be necessary for the airport operator to exer-
size individual judgement in this matter. To permit indiv-
idual operators to specify noise levels would only serve to
further confuse the picture.
14. Noise monitoring should be required for both single noise
events and cumulative noise measurements. The single event could
be combined in the cumulation,using a threshold to flag excess-
ive levels. Location of monitors should be dictated by the
size of the airport and the community exposed, these will vary
from airport to airport.
15. These rules should apply to all airports described by FAR
36 in the jet transport category.
A priority to install instrumentation for operating pro-
cedure should be established on the basis of those airport
communities most severely impacted and could include the
following considerations:
a. property exposed B-84
-------
b. frequency of flights
c. type of aircraft
d. topographic constraints
e. weather constraints
f. lenght of runways
g. land locked
B-85
-------
DRAFT - WORKING DOCUMENT
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Airport/Aircraft Regulation
The airport/aircraft regulation as proposed here is intended
to substantially enlarge the scope of existing FAA regulations
and regulatory procedures. The regulations adopt the proced-
ural framework of FAA rule making, thus affording uniform ad-
minstrative compliance with regard to aircraft operations.
The proposed regulations incorporate a number of substantive)
noise abatement procedures and technology and divide the res-
ponsibility for controlling noise emissions from aircraft
operations.
I The first of these regulations addresses itself to airport
certification and contains a list of those activities deemed
to be under the control of the airport operator. This section
sets no specific sound level standards for aircraft, nor does
it attempt to relate the setting of sound level standards to
the framework of airport/aircraft activities. It does, how-
ever, set penalties for noisy aircraft operations and incen-
tives for control technology.
II The second of these regulations is divided into two sections
and applies to certain activities and devices deemed to be
under the control of the aircraft operators/owner. Since
noise emission levels depend heavily on individual aircraft
characteristics, control is best achieved by operating proce-
dures and/or technical retrofit.
Ill The third regulation establishes the maximum permissible
noise levels for different thrust/class engines and sets the
time frame for their manufacture. This section provides the
framework for an advanced technology of quiet engines.
B-86
-------
PROVISIONS
I AIRPORT CERTIFICATION
This section authorizes the airport operators to act to protect
the inhabitants within a given noise contour, from the effects
of no5?e, and establi shes the responsibility for monitoring
and maintaining the cumulative noise exposure level. This
section further provides that the airport operator extablish
by a specific date, airport procedures included but not
limited to:
landing fee schedules
quotas
restrictions
preferential runways
curfews
land use
land acquisition
B-87
-------
II AIRLINE OPERATOR/OWNER
This section provides that the airline operator/owner,
implement take off and landing procedures and a schedule
of engine retrofit in accordance with the following:
Date/Immediate/takeoff procedures and 1 segment glide angle
Date/+1 takeoff procedures and 2 segments VFR glide angle
Date/+2 takeoff procedures and 2 segments steep VFR glide angle
Date/+3 takeoff procedures and nacelle retrofit
Date/+4 takeoff procedures stop nacelle retrofit and begin
reform program
This section also provides that the airline operator/owner shall
be responsible for maintaining the established maximum permissible
noise level for individual aircraft or the mix of aircraft in
their fleet.
III AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
This section requires the development of a new generation of
aircraft engine to be installed on aircraft manufactured after
a specified date.
Date Engine.Class Allowable Level
+1 5 below FAR 36
+2 10 M
+3 15 " "
B-88
-------
UNITY OR
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT
/W/f'
£rr *<"*%
?3>
ROBERT J. BRESNAHAN
DIRECTOR OF AVIATION
19051 CAMPUS DRI V E
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
TELEPHONE: 834-2400
AREA CODE 714
April 4, 1973
Mr. Randall L. Hurlburt
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Randy:
Listed below are the Orange County Airport's answers to the position
questionnaire for Task Group 2 submitted by you on March 19, 1973:
TAKEOFF
1. Should there be an operating rule establishing specific flight
procedures for takeoff?
Answer: Yes. At some of the larger airports we would agree
that probably two procedures should be developed for departure
profiles depending oil the airplane model. At some airports,
like Orange County Airport where we have seven to ten business
jets a day, it is imperative that a rule be established to
require this
-------
Randall L. Hurlburt
April 4, 1973
Page Two
LANDING
3. Should there be a rule establishing minimum maneuvering altitudes
prior to the commencement of approach? What should these
altitudes be?
Answer: Yes. 3000 feet AGL.
4. Should there be a rule raising ILS glide slopes immediately to
3.5 degrees?
Answer: I am not convinced that we could raise the ILS glide
slopes immediately to 3.5 degrees, but if a thorough study
indicates it is safely possible, I feel it should be done.
5. Should operators be required to install instrumentation which
would provide guidance during a two-segment approach?
Answer: I am assuming that the operator referred to in this
question is the aircraft operator and not the airport operator.
Again, I am not convinced that the hardware is available for
a safe two-segment approach. I do feel, however, that the
Task Group ought to make strong recommendations to Congress to
appropriate research and development money to accelerate the
research and development necessary for this project.
6. Should there be an operating rule requiring pilots to fly
two-segment approaches? What intercept altitude should be
specified? What should be the angle of the upper segment?
Should the rule initially be VFR only? When should VFR and
IFR rules be effective?
Answer? Two-segment approaches should become standard operating
procedure once the procedures and hardware have been developed
that would require them to be completely safe. The intercept
altitude and the angle to the upper segment will be established
by research and thorough investigation. I can see no reason
why two-segment approaches cannot be made now under VFR
conditions. Any time the weather is 3000 feet, 5 mile visibility
the airlines ought to be able to safely fly two-segment
approaches.
7. Should there be a rule prohibiting the use of thrust reversers
on dry runways unless required by Air Traffic Control or unless
runway length or atmospheric conditions require their use in
the interest of safety?
B-90
-------
Randall L. Hurlburt
April 4, 1973
Page Three
Answer: Abolutely no. Noise from thrust reversers is not a
major problem at most airports.
GENERAL
8. To what aircraft should any of the rules considered above apply?
Answer: The rules we are considering on this Task Group should
aPPly to the transport category aircraft and to the business or
general aviation type that are jet powered.
9. Should airports be certificated for noise?
Answer: No. As a matter of fact I do not visualize how an
airport could be certificated for noise. It appears that any
contour established by the Federal Government in a certification
plan would certainly be drawing the boundary lines for
litigation.
10. Should airport operators be required to assure that no area is
exposed to hazardous noise as defined by Task Group 3? By when?
Answer: This question is premature. I do feel, however, that
once the Federal Government has established a hazardous noise
level we would all work toward reducing the hazard to people on
the ground within a specific time frame, maybe within ten years.
11. Should airport operators be authorized to specify maximum single
event noise levels for aircraft or procedures to be used by
pilots?
Answer: Yes. The Orange County Airport has adopted a single
event noise level and we intend to prohibit aircraft exceeding
that level during the safe operation of the aircraft.
12. Should airport operators be authorized to designate preferential
runways, establish curfew hours on designated runways, limit
ground maintenance runups, establish airport use fees based on
noise, restrict the number of operations at the airport, restrict
use of the airport to aircraft of specified type, weight, trip
length, etc., or'otherwise conduct the operation of the airport
in such a manner as to assure that no area is exposed to
hazardous noise?
B-91
-------
Randall L. Hurlburt
April 4, 1973
Page Four
Answer: In my opinion a±rpert operators now have the authority
to establish curfew hours, limit-^ound maintenance runups,
establish airport use fees baset^ or^ noi^sj^arestrict the number
of operations at the airport and-^r e s±^eirG€the use of the airport
to aircraft of specific weights. The Orange County Airport is
now doing all of the above. Taking all of the steps mentioned
above does not assure that the operation of the airport will be
compatible with the neighboring communities. The term "hazardous
noise" should be removed from this question since it has not yet
been established.
13. If local conditions require, should airport operators be author-
ized to specify a lower level of noise as hazardous and adjust
their airport operations accordingly?
Answer: No. I feel that whatever level of noise is classified
as "hazardous" must be developed and established by the Federal
Government and applied to all airports.
14. Should noise monitoring be required for single event noise? for
cumulative noise? How often and at how many locations should
monitoring be conducted?
Answer: Yes. I agree that noise monitoring at the larger air
carrier airports probably would not accomplish very much, but
for smaller general aviation airports that do have a problem it
is a very effective public relations tool, and the proper
monitoring system will allow the airport operator to establish
noise abatement procedures most effective for his airport.
Sometimes all it takes is a 10 degree turn to reduce the noise
impact of residential areas.
15. To what airports should any of the above considerations apply?
Answer: All airports served by certificated scheduled airlines.
16. Are there any other rules which should be considered?
Answer: I feel that it should be mandatory to give training
to general aviation jet pilots in noise abatement and the
effect of noise on people on the ground. The use of simulators
by business jet aircraft manufacturers could do a great deal
in training general aviation pilots on the noise problem and
the most effective way to fly the aircraft to reduce that
problem.
B-92
-------
Randall L. Hurlburt
April 4, 1973
Page Five
It is important that members of the Task Group keep in mind that
air safety must have an overriding priority over all other
considerations when discussing the noise problem and operational
changes that might alleviate the effect of noise on persons on the
ground. The noise problem cannot be solved overnight, and now is
no time to panic into attempting untested procedures or operational
changes that may place the pilot in an embarrassing position.
Respectfully submitted
Robert J. Bresnahan
Director of Aviation
RJB: b
B-93
-------
^32—^1-c,
CITY OF SAN JOSE
CALIFORNIA
AU '
AIRPORT DEPARTMENT
April 4, 1973
Mr. R. L. Hurlburt, Chairman
Task Group 2
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Randy:
The following are my answers to your Position Questionnaire
of 3/19/73:
1. Yes, there should be rules, however, it will probably be
necessary to have more than one rule, since some variation in
departure will be desirable to accommodate the differences in
the areas surrounding airports.
2. In our particular case, maximum climb consistent with safety
appears to be the most acceptable. In most cases, it is recog-
nized that a power cutback is desirable at many airports.
3. I do not believe this is necessary, and the problem can
better be handled by controlling departure and patterns to be
used under all conditions.
4. I do not believe this should be done immediately. There
appears to be questions as to the degree of safety. Should be
implemented if and when it is determined to be a safe operation
and would would not adversely affect Category II operations.
While glide slopes have a preponderance to reducing noise in
an area under a given noise trend, if the 4.5 degree glide slope
were used at San Jose, it would diminish our approach problem to
a land area that is easily controlled.
5. If, by operators, you mean airport operators, then "No". It
is historically provided by the FAA. If you mean airline operators,
then "Yes", and they may wish the financing to come from a user fee
in the form of a ticket or head tax.
B-94
-------
R. L. Hurlburt
Page 2
April 4, 1973
6. Yes, two-segment approaches should be effective under VFR
conditions, with intercept altitude from 800' to 1000'. I would
recommend that initially the upper angle be 5 degrees rather than
6 degrees, to make it more easily adapted to by pilots. IFR rules
should be effective upon installation of the proper equipment and
proper pilot training.
7. No, I would rather state, as policy, that the amount of power
to be used on dry runways be held to low values for noise abate-
ment purposes. Reverse thrust should be used to a small degree
to be in position for safety in deceleration.
8. To all jet and turbojet aircraft.
9. No, it should not be done without the Federal unless they are
willing to assume the liability for noise generated within their
criteria.
10. I cannot answer this until I know how "hazardous noise" is
defined by Group 3.
11. Yes. The maximum noise level should be specified by the
airport operator and if unreasonable or unsafe, the air carriers
can refuse to serve the airport, as well as an airport assuming
liability for noise generated as a result of the use of the airport
must have the jurisdiction of controlling the noise generated.
12. Yes, to all except the last phrases; I will have to see the
definition of "hazardous"
13. Yes, as well as airports are legally liable. No, if they are
held t6 be not liable for noise.
14. While noise monitoring can be very useful, I believe it should
not be required at every airport.
15. Should be left to the discretion of the airport and surrounding
community; to all airports having traffic consisting of turbojet
or jet powered aircraft.
16. Airports must be able to set VFR patterns used by air carrier
and all other aircraft. This is extremely important in controlling
B-95
-------
R. L. Hurlburt
Page 3
April 4, 1973
traffic as to flight pattern and altitude in relation to noise
sensitive areas near the airport, and should be done with new
legislation.
17. No Comment.
Very truly yours,
• j C-t" //> f, f u ^ *¦
James M. Nissen
Airport Manager
JMN:ej
B-96
-------
Appendix C
TASK GROUP 2 MEMBERSHIP
Chairman
Randall L. Hurlburt
Environmental Protection Agency
Members
William B. Becker
Air Transportation Association
Lawrence P. Bedore
National Business Aircraft Association
Russ Belles
Rockwell International
George Bender
Boston, Massachusetts Airport for AOCI
Robert S. Bennin
City of New York
Robert J. Bresnahan
Orange County, California Airport
Harry Drell
Lockheed Corporation
Roger Flynn
1709 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C.
Lee D. Goolsby
National Aeronatics & Space Administration
Ken Hale
Rockwell International
Fred C. Hall
Boeing Company
Lloyd Hinton
National Organization to Insure A Sound-Controlled
Environment
Fred Illston
American Air Lines
James Johnson
Environmental Protection Agency
H. Ray Lahr
Air Line Pilots Association
Bert J. Lockwood
Los Angeles, California Airport
Harold F. Mar thins en
Air Line Pilots Association
Charles P. Miller
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
James Mullins
Federated Department Stores
James M. Nissen
San Jose, California Airport
John E. O'Brien
Air Line Pilots Association
Robert O'Brien
Environmental Protection Agency
Barrett J, Riordan
Council on Environmental Quality
Robert N. Rockwell
Air Line Pilots Association
William Sanjour
Environmental Protection Agency
Donald A. Schelp
Boeing Company
William R. Sonneman
Trans World Air Lines
James R. Thompson
Lockheed Corporation
Lloyd Treece
United Air Lines
John Tucker
Air California
Consultants
Betsy Amin-Arsala
Bill Galloway
Damon C. Gray
Brian Judge
Robert Meyersburg
Jonathan Spencer
George Washington University
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
Hydrospace, Challenger Inc.
Informatics, Incorporated
Environmental Protection Agency
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
C-l
-------
GLOSSARY
AC
Advisory Circular
AFL
Above Field Level
ALPA
Air Line Pilots Association
AO CI
Airport Operators Council International
AOPA
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ATA
Air Transport Association
ATC
Air Traffic Control
dB
Decibels
dBA
Decibels A-Weighted
BME
Distance Measuring Equipment
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPNdB
Effective Perceived Noise Decibels
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FAR's
Federal Aviation Regulations
FY
Fiscal Year
IFR
Instrument Flight Rules
ILS
Instrument Landing System
Lrfn
Day/Night Average Noise Equivalent Level
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBAA
National Business Aircraft Association
NEF
Noise Exposure Forecast
NOISE
National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment
PNdB
Perceived Noise Decibels
PSA
Pacific Southwest Airlines
R-Nav
Area Navigation
v2
Safety Speed in Takeoff Configuration
Vx
Maximum Angle of Climb Speed
VAM
Visual Approach Monitor
VASI
Visual Approach Slope Indicator
VFR
Visual Flight Rules
V-Nav
Vertical Navigation
VORTAC
Very high frequency Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation
Radio Navigation Facility
Glossary - 1
-------
Pacific Southwest Airlines
NOISE ABATEMENT SEGMENTED APPROACH
VISUAL CONTACT WITH AIRPORT MUST BE ESTABLISHED
PRIOR TO INITIATING APPROACH AND MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT ENTIRE APPROACH
B 737 FLAPS 28 *
GEAR DOWN
140 KNOTS
¦ 9 727 FLAPS 15 *
GEAR DOWN
160 KNOTS
B737
1727 FLAPS 25 '
140 KNOTS
FLAPS 30 *
VREF * IS KNOTS
ATC "SPEED CONTROL
B 727 - Reduce initial altitude 100 feet for
each additional 10 knots required
Reduce initial altitude 200 feet for
each additional 10 knots required
BEGIN TRANSITION TO
FINAL SEGMENT
>
X
3)
3000 FT MSI
B 737 -
2200 FT MSL
1000 FT MSL
6 0 DME
4.0 DME«
2.5 DME
1 5 DME
LANDING FLAPS
Anticipate thrust requirement!
and transition to FINAL SEG-
MENT smoothly.
STABILIZED ON
FINAL SEGMENT
NOTES
' Flap positions shown are
recommended for no wind
conditions. For other conditions
it will be necessary to vary flap
positions or flap initiation altitudes
------- |