Noise Program History and Status

Presentation to:

Naples Airport Authority

January 15, 2015

Ted Baldwin

2

Presentation Outline

APF noise abatement history

Relevant FAA regulations

Part 36, Part 91, Part 150, and Part 161

Application at APF

Day-Night Average Sound Level

FAA guidelines versus City and County land use regulation

Most recent noise contours

Major existing noise abatement program elements

Authority direction to Noise Compatibility Committee

Recent NCC accomplishments and continuing efforts

3

Noise Program History

1941-1983 – APF’s first four decades

1985-2000 – Part 150s lead to Part 161

2000-2010 – The Part 161 decade

2008-2011 – Noise program review

2012 and on – Maximizing noise program effectiveness

4

Initial airport development

1941 – City and County purchase land for airport

1942 – Airport construction begins

Initial airport operation

1943 – Naples Airdrome opens as Army Air Corps base

1948 – Airport returns to City and County

1958 – City purchases County's interest

1969 – State creates (and transfers operation to) NAA

Initial noise abatement initiatives

1978, ‘79, ‘83 – First documented noise procedures

Established outside any formal federal program

Discussion of the next period requires some background on “Federal Aviation Regulations” Parts 36, 150, 161

Noise Program History – The First Four Decades

5

Part 36, “Noise Certification Standards”

Promulgated in 1969, amended 1977, 1991, 2005, ‘13, ‘14

Airplanes must meet standards to receive new or revised "type" (design) certificates

Standards for most aircraft are in terms of “stages”

For jets and “large transport category aircraft”

Stage 1 – Aircraft that meet no standard (“uncertificated”)

Stage 2 – Aircraft that meet 1969 standards

Stage 3 – Aircraft that meet 1977 standards

Stage 4 – Aircraft that meet 2006 standards

“Part 91” phases out some noisier aircraft

Stage 1 jets over 75,000 pounds – after 1988

Stage 2 jets over 75,000 pounds – after 1999

Stage 1 and 2 jets under 75,000 pounds – after 2015

6

Twin turbopropeller:

Larger Stage 4 g.a. jet:

Typical Stage 4 regional jet / mid-size GA jet:

Typical small Stage 3 g.a. jet:

Smaller Stage 2 g.a. jet:

Larger Stage 2 g.a. jet:

How different are the four stages?

Common Unrestricted Models

Common Restricted Models

Relative Noise “Footprints” for Representative Aircraft

7

Part 150, “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning”

Voluntary FAA-defined process for airport noise studies

Noise Exposure Map – FAA “accepts”

Population in Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours

FAA “accepts” for year of submission and five-year forecast

Guidelines consider all land uses compatible outside 65 DNL

Local jurisdictions can adopt more stringent standards

Noise Compatibility Program

FAA “approves” individual measures

Noise abatement measures to reduce noise exposure

Land use measures to correct or prevent non-compatible uses

Consultation

Land use jurisdictions, FAA, airport users, other interested parties

NAA has conducted five Part 150 studies

8

Day-Night Average Sound Level (“DNL” or “Ldn”)

Cumulative noise measure

10 dB penalty added from 10 pm to 7 am

Used by all federal agencies that deal with aviation noise

Basis for FAA approval of abatement measures

The City, Collier County, and Authority have

adopted 60 DNL as the local compatibility

standard – five decibels more stringent than

the federal guideline

Figure Source: EPA

9

What do the most recent DNL contours look like? 2015 DNL with and without Runway 5/23 modifications

The population within 60 DNL contour is reduced by approximately 60% in 2010 (from 106 to 46)

and by approximately 50% in 2015 (from 98 to 99)

The benefit is to residents in the highest noise exposure area.

The population within 60 DNL contour is reduced by approximately 50% in 2015 (from 198 to 99)

10

Part 161, “Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions”

Applies to proposed Stage 2 and 3 restrictions

Requires extensive benefit cost analyses and notice

Analyses must follow Part 150 procedures

Requires different level of analysis for Stage 2 and 3

Stage 3 restriction benefits must exceed costs

Requires FAA approval of Stage 3 restrictions

Same requirements apply to any restriction at “grant-obligated” airports

Few airports have pursued restrictions since Part 161 was adopted in 1991

Naples was the first to succeed – let’s review the steps

11

Noise Program History – Part 150s Lead to Part 161

1985-1987 – First Part 150 Study

1989 – FAA approves first Noise Compatibility Program

1995-1997 – First Part 150 Update

FAA accepts 1996 and 2001 Noise Exposure Maps, which identified 60 DNL as the local compatibility standard

FAA approves updated Noise Compatibility Program, including Stage 1 jet ban at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.)

1998 – Third Part 150, NEM and NCP Update

FAA approves 24-hour Stage 1 jet ban

2000 – Fourth Part 150, NEM Update

Provided background for pursuit of Stage 2 ban

Required follow-on Part 161 study, application, and approval

12

Noise Program History – Part 161 Process

January 2000 – NAA initiates Part 161 process

June – NAA submits Part 161 to FAA for 24-hour Stage 2 jet ban

August – NAA submits supplement addressing FAA comments

October 2001 – FAA approves Part 161, but alleges ban violates grant assurances and begins investigation under Part 16

March 2002 – NAA begins enforcement of Stage 2 ban

NAA defends 3rd party challenges in federal and state courts

March 2003 – FAA finds ban "unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory, and preempted by federal law“

FAA suspends NAA’s eligibility for federal grants

Several rounds of appeals, hearings, and decisions

September 2003 – NAA appeals to U.S. Court of Appeals

June 2005 – Court rules in Naples’ favor, grant eligibility restored

Community benefits from reduced noise exposure

13

Noise Program History – Fifth Part 150, 2008-2011

Went significantly beyond Part 150 requirements

Extensive Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) process

Substantial noise measurement program

Official contour maps for 2010 and 2015 – accepted by FAA

“Informational” contours for 2020, and March and August 2010

Reviewed all existing noise program elements in detail

Particular focus on “single event” analyses

Considered every alternative proposed by any party

No alternatives identified that would improve on existing program

Showed existing operational program represents optimal mix

NCP completed but not submitted, since no changes to propose

Runway 5/23 Extension Environmental Assessment

Showed improvements would complement existing measures

14

Examples of Single Event Contour Analyses, for Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (“NADPs”)

15

2008-2011 Study Recommendation

Period Approx. Oper’ns Population in 60 DNL

FY 2005 actual (peak) 163,000 1,306

FY 2010 actual (bottom) 86,000 not available

CY 2010 forecast 115,000 106

FY 2014 actual 95,000 Not available

CY 2015 study forecast 129,000 198 (99 with extensions)

CY 2020 study forecast 141,000 657 (without extensions)

FAA-approved forecasts for all three years were below 2005 peak year and actual operations were even lower

Concern FAA would with retreat from support of ongoing noise initiatives if NCP was submitted, even with no proposed changes

NAA elected to turn focus to maximizing effectiveness of existing noise abatement program

16

Major Existing Noise Abatement Measures

Preference for Runway 5 departures and 23 arrivals.

17

Improving Implementation of Existing Measures

Pursue precise Standard Instrument Departures (“SIDs”)

In particular Area Navigation (“RNAV”) procedures

Pursue formal approach procedures to maintain altitude on approach as long as feasible

RNAV approaches and Optimized Profile Descent (”OPD”) procedures

FAA has determined actions must be addressed in “Florida Metroplex” process

Study has just started

See http://oapmenvironmental.com/ Florida Metroplex Airports

Naples

Marco Island

Fort Myers

18

Existing NAPLES SIDs use “Radar Vectors”

19

Radar vectors result in significant track dispersion

Existing dispersion is approximately five times that HMMH typically observes for RNAV procedures.

20

RNAV SIDs would improve adherence to corridors

Corridors reflect typically observed full width of RNAV SIDs. Most aircraft would be in center of corridor.

21

Benefits of RNAV SIDs – RSW Case Study Runway 24 Departures on “ALICO THREE” SID

Pre-FLOWCAR (Florida West Coast Airspace Redesign) Departures February 15-29, 2008

Traditional SID utilizes ground-based NAVAIDS and radar vectors

Objective is to fly over east-west Alico commercial corridor

22

Benefits of RNAV SIDs – RSW Case Study Runway 24 Departures on “CSHEL FOUR” RNAV SID

Post-FLOWCAR Departures February 1- March 3, 2009

RNAV procedure significantly improves adherence to Alico corridor

23

Two Existing RNAV Approach Procedures Provide Vertical Guidance

24

NCC response to NAA: Establish “Action Plan”

Overall objective and specific goals based on NCC charter

Identifies “action items”

Priorities, responsible parties, and schedule

Monitoring, reporting, and refinement processes

Immediate action items in four areas

Improve implementation of approved measures

Monitor implementation of approved measures

Pursue formal arrival and departure procedures

Maximize compliance with formal procedures

Established January 24, 2012

Progress monitored and reported each year

Objectives, goals, and action items revised and added as relevant

25

Integrate noise abatement into training

and into flight planning (WhisperTrack™)

Promote adherence to FAA-established formal

arrival procedures

Monitor operations and provide feedback

Incre

asin

g p

ublic

be

nefit

Increasing difficulty (cost, time, approvals, etc.)

Enhance formal departure procedures

Ranked according to relationship

between anticipated benefit and

difficulty of implementation.

Improve airfield signage

Video displays

Develop slogan and

“brand”

2012-2014 Action Plan Progress

Completed

Waiting for FAA

Update pilot handouts

Enhance formal arrival procedures

Prepare annual reports

Develop award program

Provide disclosure to residents

Meet with top-25 operators

Update airport website

Prepare summary poster

26

Turbine, Piston, Helicopter Handouts (Turbine Example)

27

On-Airfield Signage

Helps get the word out to the folks in the back of the plane

28

Operations Monitoring and Analysis

Investigation of a citizen complaint, June 19, 2013, 8-10 p.m.

Citizen Address

29

Major FY 2014-15 Action Plan Goals

Continue outreach to operators, pilots, etc.

Consider consolidated pilot meetings, meetings with flight schools

Consider letters or other communications to passengers / users

Pursue award program

Continue promotion of noise abatement measures

Refresh printed, video, website, and other outreach materials

Continue pursuing noise disclosure to residents

Particular outreach and promotion focus on:

Adherence to the voluntary curfew

Use of full runway length for takeoff

Use of noise abatement departure procedures

Use of published RNAV approaches with vertical guidance

Adherence to preferred flight paths, including traffic patterns

Voluntary minimization of reverse thrust

30

Questions?

Thank you for your attention!

tbaldwin@hmmh.com