1 / 20

Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets

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 . . . .

barny
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Creative Solutions for Eliminating the Noisiest Jets Peter J. Kirsch

  2. We’re making a lot of progress in addressing the problem of the noisiest aircraft . . .

  3. 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

  4. 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)

  5. 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

  6. Noise at GA andCommercial Airports Stage 2 phaseout ?? Amount of Noise

  7. Proportion of noise from stage 2s Percentage of noise from stage 2s

  8. 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

  9. 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’)

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. If part 161 hasn’t worked, what will? • Voluntary limits • Part 150-based measures • Indirect controls • Grandfathered noise rules • Legislation • Environmental mitigation

  13. , 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

  14.  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

  15.  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

  16.  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

  17.  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

  18. 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?

  19. 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?

  20. Questions/Discussion Peter J. Kirsch pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com (303) 825-7000 www.airportattorneys.com

More Related