Creative solutions for eliminating the noisiest jets
1 / 20

Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets. Peter J. Kirsch. We’re making a lot of progress in addressing the problem of the noisiest aircraft . . . .

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets

Peter J. Kirsch

We’re making a lot of progress in addressing

the problem of the noisiest aircraft . . .

Aviation noise management is crucial to the continued increase in airport capacity; community noise concerns have led to uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that could impede the national air transportation system.

ANCA Congressional Findings

The long-term outlook beyond 2000 is for a generally stable situation with respect to noise contours around airports, followed by further reduction as the result of advances in noise abatement technology and the replacement of hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes by built Stage 3 airplanes.

-(Still Draft) FAA Noise Abatement Policy (2000)

My Undisputed Assumptions

  • FAA will continue to actively oppose all restrictions

  • Part 161 is on life support

    • Regardless of outcome of Naples case

  • National focus will increasingly be onlarge general aviation airports

  • Money to solve noise problem will become increasingly scarce

Noise at GA andCommercial Airports

Stage 2 phaseout


Amount of Noise

Proportion of noise from stage 2s

Percentage of noise

from stage 2s

Some Arguable Assumptions

  • NBAA/AOPA membership will decreasingly want to spend resources on protecting dwindling number of Stage 2s

  • Noise will increase at least at large GA airports

  • Economic benefits of Stage 2 operations will be perceived to be questionable

Why is part 161 on life support?

  • Staunch opposition to restrictions

    • FAA, Industry

  • FAA views are site-specific

    • Guidance, what guidance?

  • Process for stage 2 restrictions is cumbersome and awfully expensive

  • Grant assurances are a separate

  • matter (the ‘gotcha’)

Life support ≠ death of 161

  • Rules with limited scope, limited purpose, limited effect

  • Part of comprehensive approach

    • Capacity enhancement

    • Community peace

    • Obvious carrier/user benefits

  • Preventive vs. remedial rules

  • Formalizing existing conditions

Since 1990 – who has been successful?

  • One part 161 restriction (Naples)

  • No stage 3 restrictions

  • A few ongoing studies (BUR, LAX, VNY)

  • Grandfathers, part 161 exceptions are the norm, not the exception

  • Non-part 161 approaches

If part 161 hasn’t worked, what will?

  • Voluntary limits

  • Part 150-based measures

  • Indirect controls

  • Grandfathered noise rules

  • Legislation

  • Environmental mitigation

, Voluntary limits and part 150 NCPs

  • Voluntary limits not subject to Part 161

  • Compliance is a function of education, monitoring, and “jaw-boning”

  • Part 150 NCP measures

    • Demand more

    • Push harder

    • Not much better than voluntary rules

    • Not way to circumvent part 161

 Indirect controls

  • Non-noise-based controls that could affect noise (e.g., weight limits)

  • Non-aircraft management controls (e.g., hours of operation)

  • Planning and leasing decisions (e.g., location of airfield improvements)

  • Minimum standards

  • Flight patterns

  • Local agreements

 Grandfathered noise rules

  • Part 161 does not apply to pre-1990 noise rules

  • Amendments to pre-existing rules

    • Must be as restrictive or less restrictive than original (San Jose)

    • May be able to extend time limits (John Wayne, Westchester)

    • Some modifications OK

  • Restrictions may appear in unlikely documents

 Legislation

  • Federal legislation

    • Current pressure for an all-stage 3 fleet

  • Airport-specific legislation bypassing FAA

    • Jackson Hole, WY (exemption)

    • Centennial, CO (exemption)

    • Teterboro, NJ (safe harbor)

    • New Orleans, LA (no expansion)

  • Burgeoning national effort at federal legislation to phase out remaining stage 2s

 Environmental mitigation

  • Mitigation, not removal of noise

  • Vision 100 (FAA reauthorization) provides FAA limited right to impose airspace restrictions to mitigate expansion projects

  • FAA has recognized/approved restrictions in its Records of Decision (Boston-Logan)

  • Becomes condition of project approval

Conclusion (1): Deciding whether to pursue a part 161-based rule

  • Have we exhausted all feasible less-restrictive alternatives?

  • Can we prove it?

  • Do we still have an empirically-observed noise problem (DNL 65 dB)?

  • Can we solve the problem without restricting stage 3?

  • Is there any way to get there without part 161?

Conclusion (2): Alternatives to a part 161 rule

  • What can voluntary limits or Part 150 realistically accomplish?

  • Can we quietly factor noise into other decisions?

  • Do we have any existing noise rules to work from?

  • Can Congress help?

  • Can we use a restriction to mitigate expansion?


Peter J. Kirsch

(303) 825-7000

  • Login