01/12/2021 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
6:30 PM
VIRTAL MEETING: Call in 651-675-5050
I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV.PRESENTATIONS
A.BEST PRACTICES IN NOISE ABATEMENT PART I
B.BEST PRACTICES IN NOISE ABATEMENT PART II
V.OLD BUSINESS
A. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS
VI.STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT
A. 2020 NOC ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND 2021 NOISE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE (NOC) WORK PLAN
VII.ROUNDTABLE
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
1
Memo
To: The Airport Relations Commission
From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator
Date: January 6, 2021
Subject: January 12, 2021 VIRTUAL ARC Meeting
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, January 12 at 6:30 p.m. via a
WebEx virtual call. All City Council and advisory commissions are meeting virtually through at
least the month of January due to COVID precautions. Commissioners will receive an email
invitation to join the WebEx. Members of the public will be able to call into the meeting.
Please contact Executive Assistant Cheryl Stevenson at (651) 675-5005 or
cstevenson@cityofeagan.com if you are unable to join the meeting. Please note the new start
time for ARC meetings (6:30 p.m.) as agreed upon by the Commission.
I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, is for adoption by the Commission.
II.VISITORS TO BE HEARD
The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the beginning of
public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not addressed on the
regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can
be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. Members of the public wishing to call into the
meeting should call (651) 675-5050.
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Enclosed on page 5 is the minutes of the November 10, 2020 ARC meeting. The minutes
are in order for adoption by the commission.
2
IV.PRESENTATIONS
A.Best Practices in Noise Abatement, Part I – Brad Juffer, MAC Manager of Community
Affairs, will join the WebEx meeting to provide a presentation to the commission covering
the following topics:
•Worldwide best practices in aircraft noise abatement
•US Regulations impacting noise abatement measures at MSP
•Noise Abatement measures at MSP-How does MSP compare to other airports?
•The roles of the MAC, Noise Oversight Committee, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
B.Best Practices in Noise Abatement, Part II – The 2020-2021 ARC work plan included
an update from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on best practices in
noise abatement. Unfortunately, we were not successful in finding an IATA representative
to speak to the ARC. However, in lieu of an IATA representative, ARC Commissioner Lou
Lundberg generously offered to present an executive summary about noise abatement
procedures from a study Helios did in 2017 for the Toronto Airport Authority. The report is
attached on pages 6 through 93.
Helios is the aviation consultancy of Egis, focusing on air traffic management and airports.
Helios is located in the United Kingdom. The time difference did not allow for a Helios
representative to attend the ARC meeting. A Helios representative spoke to Commissioner
Lundberg and gave permission for him to provide highlights of the attached report.
V.OLD BUSINESS
A.MAC Monthly Reports – Enclosed on pages 94 through 99 is the November 2020
monthly summary report from the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC). The MAC
has combined several of their reports into one document, intended to be more user
friendly tothose less familiar with aircraft operations. To view the more detailed data pertaining to
runway usage, complaints, sound monitoring, and noise abatement go to:
https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/. The data on the reports is best viewed online as
the website is interactive. The December reports are now available online, but the monthly
summary report was not yet available at the time the ARC packet was prepared.
Brad Juffer is available to questions about operations, including the impacts of the COVID
pandemic on air traffic at MSP.
VI.NEW BUSINESS
There are no new business items.
3
VII.STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT
A.2020 NOC Accomplishments and 2021 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Work
Plan – Enclosed on pages 100 through 106 is a summary of the NOC’s 2020
accomplishments, along with the approved 2021 NOC Work Plan. NOC Co-Chairs Dianne
Miller and Jeff Hart presented the accomplishments and work plan to the MAC’s Planning,
Development and Environment Committee in December 2020.
The January 20, 2021 NOC meeting includes an update from several airlines on MSP air
service. The update will include the impact of the pandemic on the airlines and how they have
to proactively plan routes and aircraft capacity without the benefit of knowing demand. Staff
will share any presentation materials at the next ARC meeting as the NOC materials were not
available when this meeting packet was prepared.
Beginning on January 20, the NOC meetings will take place via Teams, an online meeting
platform. Any members of the public wishing to speak may join the meeting via Teams or call
in to speak under Public Comments.
VIII.ROUNDTABLE
Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that Commissioners
can ask questions or make requests for future agenda items.
IX.ADJOURNMENT
Per the request of the Commission, the Eagan ARC meetings will go no later than 8:00 p.m.
unless agreed upon by the Commission.
/s/Dianne E. Miller_______
Assistant City Administrator
ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of
aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the
community.
ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft
noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC,
under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents
of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan
without jeopardizing safety.
4
MINUTES OF THE EAGAN
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP
NOVEMBER 10, 2020
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 6:00
p.m. Those present from ARC were Michael Johnson, Jeff Spartz, Bill Raker, Lou Lundberg, Joseph
Axmacher, Debra Dulligner and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Theresa Hughes and Jeff Eckerle
were absent.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnson.
AGENDA
Commissioner Axmacher moved, Commissioner Raker seconded a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. All members voted in favor.
Commissioner Raker made a motion to expedite the meeting by only reviewing action items. All
members voted in favor.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Axmacher moved, Commissioner Dulligner seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
the September 8, 2020 Airport Relations Commission meeting. All members voted in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Commissioner Raker, seconded by Commissioner Lundberg the meeting adjourned at
6:05 p.m. All members voted in favor.
__________________________ _________________________________
Date Secretary
5
Best practices in noise
management
Commissioned by the Greater
Toronto Airports Authority
(GTAA)
29 Hercules Way
Aerospace Boulevard AeroPark
Farnborough Hampshire GU14 6UU UK
T +44 1252 451 651
F +44 1252 451 652
E info@askhelios.com
W www.askhelios.com
6
P2338D003 i
Document information
Document title Best practices in noise management
Commissioned by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA)
Author Kevin Tucker, Steve Leighton, Matt Brookes, Ravi Khiroya, Helios
Produced by
Helios
29 Hercules Way
Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark
Farnborough
Hampshire
GU14 6UU
UK
Produced for Cynthia Woods, Manager, Nosie Management Office, GTAA
Helios contact
Kevin Tucker
Tel: +44 1252 451 651
Fax: +44 1252 451 652
Email: kevin.tucker@askhelios.com
Produced under contract 2045385
Version 1.5 (FINAL)
Date of release 23 September 2017
Document reference P2338DD003
Disclaimer: Our work is produced for the above-mentioned client and is not intended to be relied upon by third parties. Helios accepts no liability for
the use of this document other than for the purpose for which it was commissioned. The analysis presented is based on data supplied by the
client/collected by third parties and publicly available information. This has been checked whenever possible; however Helios cannot guarantee the
accuracy of such data and does not take responsibility for estimates in so far as they are based on such data.
7
P2338D003 ii
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 This report ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 GTAA Noise Management Programme ..................................................................................... 6
1.4 Objective of this study ............................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Overview of approach ............................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Contents of this report ............................................................................................................... 8
2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 9
3 Quieter fleet initiatives .......................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 12
3.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 13
4 Night flight restrictions ......................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 15
4.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 18
4.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 20
5 Runway schemes .................................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 21
5.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 21
5.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 23
5.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 24
6 Ground and gate operations ................................................................................................ 25
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 25
6.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 25
6.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 26
6.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 27
7 Noise Abatement Procedures .............................................................................................. 28
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 28
7.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 28
7.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 32
7.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 33
8 Fly Quiet programmes .......................................................................................................... 36
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 36
8.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 36
8.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 39
8.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 39
9 Land use planning................................................................................................................. 41
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 41
8
P2338D003 iii
9.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 41
9.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 45
9.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 46
10 Noise Complaints .................................................................................................................. 48
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 48
10.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 48
10.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 52
10.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 53
11 Community outreach ............................................................................................................ 55
11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 55
11.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 55
11.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 57
11.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 58
12 Independent noise ombudsman .......................................................................................... 61
12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 61
12.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 61
12.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 62
12.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 62
13 Noise reporting and metrics ................................................................................................. 64
13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 64
13.2 Summary of best practice research ......................................................................................... 64
13.3 Toronto Pearson today ............................................................................................................ 68
13.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................................... 69
14 Summary & grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives ................................ 71
14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 71
14.2 Identification of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ....................... 71
14.3 Summary of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ........................... 71
14.4 Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ............................ 77
A Questions investigated by the best practice research ...................................................... 80
B Summary of potential programmes and initiatives ............................................................ 84
9
P2338D003 iv
List of figures
Figure 6: Airports and areas of noise management researched by the study ........................................ 7
Figure 7: Overview of approach ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 8: Airports researched during the study (26 plus Toronto) ........................................................ 10
Figure 9: Duration and start/end times of night periods ....................................................................... 15
Figure 10: Durations of night periods (including Toronto Pearson) ...................................................... 16
Figure 11: Example night-time movement limits .................................................................................. 17
Figure 12: Time periods for selected night-time runway schemes ....................................................... 21
Figure 13: Durations of night-time engine ground run restrictions........................................................ 26
Figure 14: Summary of the procedures and practices used to manage the noise generated from
arriving aircraft ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 15: Typical stepped approach vs a typical CDA ........................................................................ 29
Figure 16: Summary of the procedures and practices used to manage the noise generated from
departing aircraft .................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 17: Comparison between NADP1 and NADP2. ........................................................................ 31
Figure 18: Industrial areas (pink) in the vicinity of Toronto Pearson .................................................... 34
Figure 19: Metrics used in the Chicago, Heathrow, San Francisco and Vancouver Fly Quiet
programmes ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 20: Extract from the Heathrow Fly Quiet Programme league table showing airline rankings and
summarising achievement against each metric ................................................................................... 38
Figure 21: Extract from the Chicago Fly Quiet report for average deviation from night-time runway
tracks ................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 22: Extract from the San Francisco Fly Quiet league table showing airline rankings, scores for
each metric and overall scores ............................................................................................................ 39
Figure 23: Example of land use zones at Amsterdam Schiphol ........................................................... 42
Figure 24: Examples of the number of properties insulated and average spend per property ............. 43
Figure 25: Toronto Pearson Airport Operating Area (AOA) – NEF 30 contour .................................... 46
Figure 26: Number of complaints and complainants for selected airports per annum.......................... 51
Figure 27: Segmentation of noise complaints at Sydney airport .......................................................... 52
Figure 28: Proposed process for reviewing all complaints submitted in a quarter ................................ 54
Figure 29: Indicative structure for the community forum ...................................................................... 60
Figure 30: Copenhagen’s WebTrak system showing a noise event (in red) as registered by a noise
monitor ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 31: Graphs of noise monitor data from Gatwick’s Casper system ............................................ 65
Figure 32: Extract of the noise monitoring data section of Vancouver airport's 2015 noise report ....... 65
Figure 33: Extract from one of Chicago O'Hare's bespoke noise reports ............................................. 66
Figure 34: Sydney airport N70 contours for an average day in 1998 ................................................... 67
Figure 35: Noise monitor data presented on Toronto Pearson airport’s WebTrak system ................... 68
Figure 36: Example process for analysing data from noise monitors ................................................... 70
Figure 37: Proposed process for reviewing all complaints submitted in a quarter ................................ 75
Figure 38: Indicative structure for the community forum ...................................................................... 76
Figure 39: Example process for analysing data from noise monitors ................................................... 77
Figure 40: Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue – overview ..... 77
Figure 41: Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue ........................ 79
List of tables
Table 1: Qualitative criteria for selecting airports ................................................................................. 10
10
P2338D003 v
Table 2: Objectives for each area of noise management researched .................................................. 11
Table 3: Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson ........................................................ 13
Table 4: Potential new programmes and initiatives for quieter fleets ................................................... 13
Table 5: Night-time operating restrictions at researched airports ......................................................... 16
Table 6: Quota Count points classifications used in the UK quota system .......................................... 17
Table 7: Example QC points by aircraft type/engine fit ........................................................................ 18
Table 8: Toronto Pearson – night-flight budget .................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson ........................................................ 19
Table 10: Potential new programmes and initiatives for night flight restrictions ................................... 20
Table 11: Examples of factors influencing conformance with runway schemes ................................... 23
Table 12: Night-time runway preferences at Toronto Pearson ............................................................. 23
Table 13: Potential new programmes and initiatives for runway schemes ........................................... 24
Table 14: Potential new programmes and initiatives for ground and gate operations .......................... 27
Table 15: Examples of height restrictions at selected airports ............................................................. 30
Table 16: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise abatement procedures ........................ 33
Table 17: Summary of Fly Quiet reporting ........................................................................................... 38
Table 18: Potential new programmes and initiatives for a Fly Quiet programme ................................. 39
Table 19: Examples of land use planning rules ................................................................................... 41
Table 20: Examples of land use zoning around airports using noise conto urs .................................... 42
Table 21: Examples of funding for insulation noise insulation works ................................................... 44
Table 22: Example reasons for initiating noise insulation programmes ............................................... 44
Table 23: Potential new programmes and initiatives for land use planning .......................................... 46
Table 24: Elements of complaint policies identified by the research .................................................... 49
Table 25: Examples of how airports respond to complaints ................................................................. 50
Table 26: Example target response times stated in airport complaint policies ..................................... 50
Table 27: Typical methods of publicly reporting on noise complaints .................................................. 51
Table 28: Methods of submitting complaints to Toronto Pearson ........................................................ 52
Table 29: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise complaints ........................................... 53
Table 30: Summary of membership practices at other communit y forums .......................................... 55
Table 31: Summary of terms of reference at other community forums ................................................ 56
Table 32: Potential new programmes and initiatives for the community forum .................................... 58
Table 33: Potential new programmes and initiatives for an independent noi se ombudsman ............... 62
Table 34: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise metrics and reports.............................. 69
11
P2338D003 6
1 Introduction
1.1 This report
This report summarises a study undertaken on behalf of the Greater Toronto Airports
Authority (GTAA) to research noise management activities and best practices at 26
comparator airports worldwide. The output of the study is a set of potential new
programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue that are aimed at mitigating the impacts of
aircraft noise and/or enhancing community engagement.
1.2 Background
Toronto Pearson has the opportunity to become North America’s next global hub airport.
By 2037, it is expected that annual demand for the airport will reach 85 million passengers
and approximately 630,000 aircraft movements. The GTAA understands that, while growth
will provide economic benefits for the community and wider economy, it will also bring
impacts, including aircraft noise. Therefore, GTAA recognises that any growth must be
sustainable and in partnership with local communities. This wil l include noise mitigations
that provide a material benefit for the community.
With this in mind, on the basis of best practice techniques used at other airports around
the world, the GTAA wishes to understand how:
•Aircraft noise is managed and mitigated elsewhere in the world.
•Community engagement can be enhanced.
1.3 GTAA Noise Management Programme
The GTAA has a Noise Management Programme that follows the principles of the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise
Management1. The GTAA Noise Management Programme uses a mixture of elements to
mitigate operational impacts, including:
•Land Use Planning which identifies an Airport Operating Area (AOA) to support
municipalities in developing compatible land uses in the areas surrounding Toronto
Pearson.
•Noise Operating Restrictions which includes a night flight programme and night-
time preferential runway assignments.
•Noise Abatement Procedures to minimise the noise impacts on communities in the
immediate vicinity of Toronto Pearson during take-off and landing.
•Reduction of Noise at Source through restrictions on older/noisier aircraft types.
•An Enforcement Office which investigates, audits, and reports on potential violations
of the GTAA Noise Management Programme.
•A Noise Management Office which investigates complaints, monitors noise levels,
and acts as an informational resource.
1 The ICAO Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management is based upon four principles - reduction of noise
at source, land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures and operating
restrictions. Guidance on the Balanced Approach is provided in ICAO Doc 9829, Guidance on the Balanced
Approach to Aircraft Noise Management.
12
P2338D003 7
•Consultation and Outreach to engage with communities on concerns about aircraft
noise, and build awareness and understanding about the airport ’s role in the
community.
1.4 Objective of this study
The GTAA has a Five-Year Noise Management Action Plan (2013-2017) aimed at
reviewing, validating and updating the airport ’s existing Noise Management Program.
One element of the current Action Plan is to review noise management programmes at
other airports similar to Toronto Pearson, with the objective of identifying similarities and
potential new programmes or initiatives for GTAA to pursue (this study). Any new
programmes or initiatives should be viable within the existing regulatory and operational
environment at Toronto Pearson, and aimed at mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise
and/or enhancing community engagement.
The proposals for new programmes and initiatives will form the basis of the GTAA’s ne xt
Five-Year Noise Management Action Plan (2018-2022).
1.5 Overview of approach
The study has researched 11 areas of noise management at 26 comparator airports
worldwide (see Figure 1) using publicly available material. Using the information gathered
and current/planned noise management activities at Toronto Pearson, potential new
programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue have been proposed.
It is noted that an assessment of the financial costs and resources associated with any
potential new programmes or initiatives was not in the scope of this study.
Airports researched (26 plus Toronto Pearson)
•Toronto Pearson
•Vancouver
•Montreal
•Ottawa
•Calgary
•Los Angeles (LAX)
•San Francisco International
•Chicago O’Hare
•Santa Ana (John Wayne)
•Atlanta (Hartsfield-Jackson)
•New York (JFK)
•London Heathrow
•London Gatwick
•Frankfurt
•Amsterdam (Schiphol)
•Zurich
•Paris (Charles de Gaulle)
•Brussels
•Copenhagen (Kastrup)
•Madrid Barajas
•Dubai International
•Istanbul Ataturk
•Sydney
•Auckland
•Hong Kong
•Shanghai Pudong
•Singapore Changi
Eleven areas of noise management investigated
•Quieter fleet initiatives
•Runway schemes
•Night flight restrictions
•Ground and gate operations
•Noise abatement procedures
•Fly Quiet programmes
•Land use planning
•Noise complaints
•Independent noise
ombudsman
•Community outreach
•Noise reporting and metrics
Figure 1: Airports and areas of noise management researched by the study
13
P2338D003 8
1.6 Contents of this report
This report is structured as follows:
•Section 2 summarises the methodology used in the study. The questions investigated
by the research can be found in Annex A.
•Sections 3 to 13 document the practices at the 26 airports researched, current
activities at Toronto Pearson and the potential new programmes or initiatives for
GTAA to pursue in each of the 11 areas of noise management researched. This is
supported by a more detailed write-up of the research, including case studies, in
Annex C.
•The potential new programmes and initiatives proposed for GTAA to pursue are
summarised in Section 14. A summary list of potential new programmes and initiatives
can be found in Annex B.
14
P2338D003 9
2 Methodology
The approach used for the study is summarised in Figure 2 and the subsequent text.
Figure 2: Overview of approach
• Agree objective & scope with GTAA: This task reconfirmed the objective s of the
study, agreed upon 11 areas of noise management to be researched2, and agreed
that the research would be undertaken using publicly available information.
• Agree comparator airports & methodology: An initial list of 45 candidate airports
was established comprising other major airports in Canada, global hubs and other
large and medium size airports known for their good noise management practices .
Each airport was reviewed against a simple set of criteria to ensure compatibility with
Toronto Pearson (Table 1)3, based upon which it was agreed with GTAA4 to research
26 of these airports (Figure 3). Objectives were set for each of the 11 areas of noise
management to be researched (Table 2). These objectives were then sub-divided into
a small number of questions to be investigated for each airport (Annex A).
2 The original terms of reference were to researc h 6 areas of noise management. This was extended to
encompass all the noise management activities undertaken by GTAA .
3 The terms of reference for the study were that comparator airports should be similar in operations, projected
growth and urban environment to Toronto Pearson. It was subsequently agreed with GTAA to include the other
main airports in Canada, and some airports with fewer annual aircraft movements than Toronto Pearson that were
known to apply a broad range of noise management practices.
4 The terms of reference for the study were that comparator airports should be jointly determined with GTAA.
Agree objectives & scope with GTAA
Agree comparator airports &
methodology
Gather data for 26 airports
& Toronto Pearson
Summarise research for 26 airports
& Toronto Pearson
Review with GTAA
Potential new programmes and initiatives
for GTAA to pursue & reporting
15
P2338D003 10
Criteria Comments
Canadian
airports
To provide a national comparison, the other main airports in Canada were
included.
Operations
and aircraft
movements
Airports were classified according to their annual number of Air Transport
Movements (ATMs) - less than 250,000 ATMs per annum, 250,000-349,000
ATMs per annum and greater than 350,000 ATMs per annum. The purpose
was to ensure that the research included airports with a comparable number of
annual ATMs to Toronto Pearson. The rationale for this criteria was that
(i) airports with less traffic/lower growth than Toronto Pearson may be able to
apply more stringent noise restrictions and (ii) airports comparable in size to
Toronto Pearson are more likely to have similar levels of resources/budget
dedicated to noise management activities.
Urban
environment
The location of each airport relative to population centres was investigated.
Airports were grouped into those (i) located in the immediate vicinity of
population centres, (ii) not located close to population centres, but population
centres located under the flights paths and (iii) rural locations. Again, the
intention was to ensure that the sample of airports researched included airports
that, similar to Toronto, are located close to population centres.
Noise
management
practices
Similar studies in the public domain were reviewed to identify which airports
had a wide range of noise management practices. This resulted in some
airports that have fewer annual aircraft movements than Toronto Pearson, but
a broad range of noise management practices, being included in the study.
Availability of
public data
A review of the airports’ websites was undertaken to determine if a suitable
level of information was publicly available to support the study.
Table 1: Qualitative criteria for selecting airports
Figure 3: Airports researched during the study (26 plus Toronto)
16
P2338D003 11
Area Objective
Quieter fleet
initiatives
Identify incentive programmes used at other airports to encourage airlines to
adopt/expedite the purchase of quieter fleets and/or pursue known airframe noise
issues such as those that occur with some A320 family aircraft.
Night flight
restrictions Identify practices in night-time operating restrictions at other airports.
Runway schemes Identify runway schemes that are used at other airports for the purpose of providing
periods of respite/relief from aircraft noise.
Ground & gate
operations
Identify practices in noise operating restrictions for aircraft on the ground/at the gate at
other airports.
Noise abatement
procedures
Identify noise abatement procedures applied at other airports for arriving and
departing aircraft.
Fly Quiet
programmes
Determine the benefits and impacts of a Fly Quiet programmes in place at other
airports.
Land-use planning Identify how other airports deal with pressures for residential developments in areas
deemed 'incompatible' due to noise exposure.
Noise complaints Review the noise complaints process/policy at other airports.
Community
outreach
Identify the best practices, structures and processes of community engagement
committees similar to CENAC.
Noise ombudsman Explore the role of the independent noise ombudsman around the world.
Noise reporting and
metrics
Identify best practices in noise metrics and reporting to reflect the current noise
environment.
Table 2: Objectives for each area of noise management researched
• Gather data for 26 airports & Toronto Pearson: Data for the 26 airports was
gathered from publicly available sources. These included noise pages on the airports’
website, noise management programme brochures, annual noise reports, airport
master plans, the noise abatement pages from the airports ’ aeronautical information
publication (AIP), documents published on the websites of community noise forums
and other recent research documents on noise programmes.
• Summarise research for 26 airports: The research across the 11 areas of noise
management was summarised into a set of best practices. Where useful , this was
complemented by short case studies and simple benchmar king.
• Review with GTAA: The findings of the research was reviewed with GTAA. This
allowed for further information gathering on current practices at Toronto Pearson as
well as understanding which noise management measures would provide benefit.
• Identify potential programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue & reporting:
Based on the research, and current/planned noise management activities at Toronto
Pearson, potential new programmes or initiatives for GTAA to pursue were proposed.
Each potential new programme and initiative was supported by a rationale.
Identification of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
The potential new programmes and initiatives presented in this report have primarily
been developed on the basis of best practi ces in noise management at other
comparator airports, the existing regulatory environment and operations at Toronto
Pearson, and our best judgement as to which practices could provide a meaningful
benefit to local communities and/or GTAA. An assessment of the financial costs and
resources associated with any potential new programmes or initiatives was not in the
scope of this study.
17
P2338D003 12
3 Quieter fleet initiatives
3.1 Introduction
Most of the airports researched have measures to encourage airlines to use the quietest
aircraft types in their fleet and/or expedite the purchase of quieter fleets . These include
restrictions on certain types of aircraft (typically at night), incentive schemes, voluntary
arrangements and comparing fleets between airlines.
3.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
•Operating restrictions – restricting the operations of the noisiest aircraft types:
These involve restricting the operation of certain, often older/noisier, aircraft types,
particularly at night. Such restrictions are typically based on some form of noise
categorisation, for example, using the certified noise values on the aircraft operating
certificate or ICAO Chapter number. Airports ban or tightly restrict the operation of
ICAO Chapter 25 aircraft. In addition to this, some place night-time bans or restrictions
on marginally compliant6 Chapter 3 aircraft, Chapter 3 aircraft or aircraft above certain
certified noise levels.
•Financial mechanisms - noise based charging schemes: All but one of the
European airports researched incentivise quieter fleets by including a noise charge in
the landing and/or take-off fee. These schemes group aircraft into charging bands
based upon the certified noise levels found on an aircraft’s noise certificate or its ICAO
Chapter number. Lower noise charges are levied on aircraft in the ‘quieter’ charging
bands to incentivise their use. In addition, noise charges are increased at night . For
example, at London Heathrow, charges are increased by a factor of 2-2.5 at night for
all aircraft. Similarly, at Amsterdam Schiphol , noise charges for the noisiest category
of aircraft are more than doubled at night.
•Financial mechanisms - financial incentives to operate quieter aircraft types:
Two airports were found to use financial incentives to encourage airlines to replace
existing aircraft types with quieter ones. The scheme operated by Zurich airport
incentivises airlines to use a quieter aircraft on one of its existing routes by reducing
landing charges for up to 3 years. Amsterdam Schiphol incentivises cargo airlines to
replace marginally compliant Chapter 3 dedicated freighter flights with a quieter
freighter aircraft through a financial incentive per departure during the first year of
operation.
•A320 family retrofit schemes: A relatively new initiative is addressing the ‘whine’
generated on approach by the Airbus A320 family of aircraft. The aircraft have small
vents on each wing designed to help equalise the fuel pressure in the intra wing tanks.
When air rushes past the vents, it creates a high pitched ‘whine’. There is a simple
modification (known as a vortex generator) which can resolve the issue and reduce
5 The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has a number of noise standards, these are referred to as
Chapters. For subsonic jet and heavy propeller driven aircraft there are four Chapters – Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Chapter 4 and Chapter 14. The higher the Chapter number, the more stringent the noise standard (i.e. the
Chapter 2 standard was adopted in 1972, and is much less stringent that the most recent standard, Chapter 14).
6 Most aircraft meet the Chapter 3 noise standard by a certain noise margin. Marginally compliant Chapter 3
aircraft meet this Chapter 3 standard within a cumulative margin of not more than 5 decibels Effective Perceived
Noise level (5EPNdB). EPNdB is a noise unit used for aircraft noise certification tests.
18
P2338D003 13
the noise generated by the aircraft by up to 4-9 decibels7. Six of the 26 airports
researched have encouraged airlines to retrofit their aircraft with a vortex generator
either through modified landing charges or voluntary agreements.
•Fly Quiet Programs: Heathrow and San Francisco have metrics in their Fly Quiet
programmes that compare airline fleets against one another with quieter fleets scoring
better.
3.3 Toronto Pearson today
Toronto Pearson does not allow the operation of Chapter 2 aircraft, or aircraft with no
Chapter number, at night (see table below). Additionally, Chapter 3 or quieter aircraft
operating at night on a scheduled or repetitive basis must obtain an exemption o r
extension:
•Exemptions are for aircraft scheduled to operate at night.
•Extensions are for aircraft scheduled within normal airport hours (0630-0029 local)
and delayed on the day of operation due to weather, mechanical, security and ATC
delays.
Aircraft
(noise certification type)
Restricted hours (local time) -
arrivals and departures Type of restriction
No Chapter number assigned 2000-0800 No allowed to operate Chapter 2 aircraft 0000-0700
Chapter 3 aircraft 0030-0630 Exemption or extension
required to operate All other Chapters 0030-0630
Table 3: Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson
3.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Encourage airlines to use the quietest fleet possible for a given operation (e.g. long -
haul, short-haul, regional) through a combination of voluntary initiatives, operating
restrictions and, as appropriate, financial mechanisms.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
QF1 Investigate more stringent restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types at night.
QF2 Establish a programme to retrofit A320 family aircraft operating to/from Toronto Pearson
with vortex generators.
QF3 Establish a programme to determine how financial mechanisms could be used to
incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft types, should they be required in the future.
Table 4: Potential new programmes and initiatives for quieter fleets
7 Source: www.a320whine.com.
19
P2338D003 14
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•Further restricting the operation of the noisiest aircraft types: A number of the
airports researched restrict the operation of Chapter 3 aircraft at night. The types of
restrictions vary but broadly include marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft, Chapter 3
aircraft and aircraft above a certain certified noise levels. It is therefore proposed that,
depending on the current fleet mix, GTAA determine the benefit/impact of applying
similar practices at Toronto Pearson.
•A320 retrofit: In 2016, A319/A320/A321 aircraft accounted for approximately 18% of
all flights at Toronto Pearson8. While to date only a small number of airports have
encouraged airlines to retrofit A320 family aircraft with wake vortex generators, it is an
activity that has recently gained traction as awareness of the issue and its ease of
resolution have spread. Although there is a cost involved, retrofitting can be achieved
in relatively short timescales, and there is a demonstrable noise benefit. As per other
airports, this could be addressed through voluntary agreements with airlines or via
financial mechanisms. Other North American airports have started to lead on this
issue, and it is advisable for GTAA to do the same at Toronto Pearson.
•Financial mechanisms: Best practice in Europe is for airports to use financial
mechanisms to incentivise airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible for a given type
of operation (long-haul, short-haul and regional), primarily through the inclusion of a
noise charge in the landing/take-off fee. The implementation of financial mechanisms,
particularly noise based charging, could take considerable time and consultation with
airlines. Therefore, at this stage, it is proposed that GTAA establish a programme to
determine how financial mechanisms could be used to incentivise the use of the
quietest aircraft types at Toronto Pearson, if required in the future.
The GTAA has an interest in pursuing a Fly Quiet programme. This is addressed in
section 8.
8 Source: GTAA
20
P2338D003 15
4 Night flight restrictions
4.1 Introduction
Many of the airports researched define a night period where a different and more stringent
set of operating rules is applied compared to the day-time. Examples of night-time
practices include operating restrictions, movement limits, noise quotas and noise
surcharges. The intent of all restrictions is to reflect the need for a quieter airport operation
during those hours where residents in affected local communities could be expected to be
sleeping.
4.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Duration of the night period
Thirteen of the airports researched had a defined night period where a different and more
stringent set of operating rules was applied compared to the day-time. Night periods were
6-9 hours in duration, typically starting at 2200 or 2300 and ending at 0600 or 0700 (see
Figure 4 and Figure 5 below). Airports without a defined night period were primarily those
in the Middle East and United States. In the United States, airports tend to have a set of
voluntary measures in place at night rather than a defined night period with more stringent
restrictions than the day-time9.
Figure 4: Duration and start/end times of night periods10
9 For example, both Chicago and San Francisco have night-time measures in their voluntary Fly Quiet
programmes. These typically start between 2200 and 0100, and end between 0600 and 0700.
10 Heathrow and Gatwick have a night period from 2300-0700, within this period there is an operational ban on
the noisiest aircraft types. There is also a night quota period from 2330-0600, within this period there are
movement and night quota limits.
21
P2338D003 16
Figure 5: Durations of night periods (including Toronto Pearson)
Night-time practices
Examples of night-time practices identified by the research are summarised below:
•Night-time operating restrictions: Operating restrictions applied by airports at night
include movement limits, curfews/night-flight bans, restrictions on the operation of
certain (noisier) aircraft and runway used. Examples are given in the table below.
Night-time operating
restrictions Summary
Night-time movement
limits
Similar to Toronto, four of the airports researched applied night-time
movement limits. These limits are either applied annually or based upon
scheduling seasons. These are set by legislation. Examples are shown
in Figure 6.
Night curfews
Four of the airports researched had curfews. These ranged from
restrictions on the number and type of movements that can take place
during the curfew (Sydney) to a full curfew (Frankfurt). The Frankfurt
curfew runs from 2300-0500, with an additional limit of 133 movements
per night from 2100 to 2259.
Night-time restrictions
on certain aircraft
types
Airports ban or severely restrict Chapter 2 operations. In addition to this,
some place night-time bans or restrictions on marginally compliant
Chapter 3 aircraft, Chapter 3 aircraft or aircraft above certain certified
noise levels.
Runway restrictions Some airports also place restrictions on which runways can be used at
night – see section 5.
Table 5: Night-time operating restrictions at researched airports
22
P2338D003 17
Figure 6: Example night-time movement limits11
•Night quotas: Brussels, Gatwick, Heathrow and Madrid operate night quotas (a pilot
scheme is also in place at Hong Kong). In addition to movement limits, these schemes
manage the overall amount of noise generated at night through a noise ‘quota limit’.
Airports are allocated a night-time quota limit (total quota count) which cannot be
exceeded. Each night-time take-off and landing uses up part of this quota – the louder
the aircraft, the more quota it uses (each aircraft is allocated a quota count depending
on the amount of noise it produces - the louder the aircraft, the higher its quota count
(see Table 6)). Rules are also defined as to how the quota is allocated to airlines, how
much quota is held in reserve for aircraft operating late or early, and conditions under
which the quota system should be temporally suspended (for example to help relieve
major disruption).
Noise Classification (EPNdB) Quota Count (QC)
More than 101.9 16
99 - 101.9 8
96 - 98.9 4
93 - 95.9 2
90 - 92.9 1
87 - 89.9 0.5
84 - 86.9 0.25
Less than 84 0 (Currently exempt)
Table 6: Quota Count points classifications used in the UK quota system
Aircraft are assigned separate Quota Count (QC) values for take-off and landing.
and are derived from the certified noise levels found on an aircraft’s operating
certificate. In turn, these are influenced by engine type/model, maximum take-
11 The movement limits for Heathrow and Gatwick are for the night quota period 2330 -0600.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Amsterdam
Brussels
Heathrow
Gatwick
Toronto
number of movementsAirport limit applies for 6 hours
between 0030-0630
limits apply during the night quota
period (6.5 hours between 2330 -0600)
limit applies for 7 hours
between 2300-0600
limit applies for 8
hours between
2200-0600
23
P2338D003 18
off/landing weight and engine/airframe modifications. Examples QC values are
provided in Table 7.
Aircraft / engine type QC(Departure) QC(Arrival)
A320-232 / V2527-A5 0.5 0.25
777-300ER / GE90-115B 2 1
A330-343 / Trent 772B-60 2 0.5
B747-400 / CF6-80C2B1F 4 2
Table 7: Example QC points by aircraft type/engine fit
•Night-time noise charges: All 8 European airports that included a noise charge in
their landing/take-off fees (see section 3) separated this into a day and night-time
charge. The night-time charge is typically an additional percentage on top of the day-
time charge. For example, at London Heathrow, charges are increased by a factor of
2-2.5 at night for all aircraft. Similarly, at Amsterdam Schiphol noise charges for the
noisiest category of aircraft are more than doubled at night. Zurich operates a different
scheme whereby charges increase hourly/half-hourly as the night period
approaches/progresses.
Others related activities include:
•Restrictions in the hours adjacent to the night period: A small number of
examples were found of airports applying additional restrictions in the hours adjacent
to the night period. Often the rules/restrictions applied in these hours were less
stringent than those applied during the night period (but more stringent than those in
the day). Examples in these hours included gradual increases in night-time charges
and restrictions on operating/scheduling the nosiest aircraft types.
•Rules for managing aircraft operating late/early: Some airports put aside a
proportion of their night-time movement/quota limit to accommodate aircraft not
scheduled in the night period that run late.
•Penalties for non-conformance: A number of airports applied penalties for non-
conformance with night-time restrictions. These include severely increased landing
charges or fines levied by the authorities.
4.3 Toronto Pearson today
Night flight budget
Toronto Pearson operates a night flight budget to cap the number of flights permitted
between 0030 and 0629. The budget is set by Transport Canada regulations and updated
annually in line with passenger growth in the previous year12. Toronto Pearson is the only
airport in Canada to have such a budget system mandated by Transport Canada.
12 For example, in a given year, if the budget was 10,000 night flights and the increase in the number of
passengers in the previous year was 6%, the following year’s night flight budget would be 10,600 night flights.
24
P2338D003 19
Night-time operations
The night period at Toronto Pearson is defined as 0030-0630 and accounts for
approximately 3% of all flights. The following practices are applied during this period.
•Night-time movement limits: As mentioned above, Toronto Pearson has an annual
night-flight budget of 18,204 take-offs and landings between 0030 and 0630 (i.e. an
average of 50 per night). This is set by Transport Canada regulations, and the
associated rules allow the budget to increase annually in line with passenger growth.
In addition, in a year when the number of night flights reach more than 95 % of the
budget, the following year’s budget can be increased by an additional 10 per cent13.
Approximately 80% of the budget is allocated to pre-scheduled flights, and the
remaining 20% set aside for ‘extensions’ - aircraft scheduled within normal airport
hours but running late and other operationally necessary flights. Medevac, military and
police flights also count towards the night flight budget. The annual movement limit
and actual night movements is shown in the table below.
Period Night-flight budget Actual night-time
movements
Nov 2014 – Oct 2015 15,871 14,778
Nov 2015 – Oct 2016 16,923 14,889
Nov 2016 – Oct 2017 18,204 -14
Table 8: Toronto Pearson – night-flight budget
•Night-time restrictions on certain aircraft types: Toronto Pearson places noise
related restrictions on different aircraft types (see table below). Additionally, Chapter 3
or quieter aircraft operating at night on a scheduled or repetitive basis must obtai n an
exemption or extension. Exemptions are for aircraft scheduled to operate at night.
Extensions are for aircraft scheduled within normal airport hours (0630-0029 local)
and delayed on the day of operation due to weather, mechanical, security and ATC
delays.
Aircraft
(noise certification type)
Restricted hours (local time) -
arrivals and departures Type of restriction
No Chapter number assigned 2000-0800 Not allowed to operate Chapter 2 aircraft 0000-0700
Chapter 3 aircraft 0030-0630 Exemption or extension
required to operate All other Chapters 0030-0630
Table 9: Noise related operating restrictions at Toronto Pearson
•Night-time preferential runway scheme: Toronto operates a night-time preferential
runway scheme from midnight to 0630 (see section 5). An order of priority is published
for runways used by arriving and departing aircraft. The scheme is currently under
review as part of the GTAA/NAV CANADA Noise Mitigation Initiatives Engagement
Plan.
13 In 2016/2017, the budget was increased by an additional 3 percent.
14 Figures not presented as the 2016/2017 budget runs to 31st October 2017.
25
P2338D003 20
•Management of late running aircraft: As per above, approximately 20% of the night-
flight limit is set aside for ‘extensions’ - aircraft scheduled within normal airport hours ,
but running late for various reasons.
•Penalties for non-conformance with restrictions: There is a fine in place of up to
16 times the landing fee for violation of night-flight rules. Enforcement action may also
be taken by Transport Canada. This could include an ad ditional fine of up to
CAD$5,000 for individuals and CAD$25,000 for corporations.
In addition, as part of its Noise Mitigation Initiatives Engagement Plan, NAV CANADA is
investigating designing new arrival and departure procedures to reduce aircraft noise at
night.
4.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Extend the time over which night noise impacts are managed and ensure that the total
amount of noise from aircraft at night does not increase.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NF1 Extend the period during which night noise impacts on communities are managed.
NF2 Implement a programme to ensure that the total amount of noise from aircraft does not
increase in the night-period/adjacent hours.
Table 10: Potential new programmes and initiatives for night flight restrictions
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•Extend the time over which night noise impacts on communities are managed:
One best practice is to have a defined night period where a more stringent set of
operating rules is applied compared to the day-time. Compared to other airports with a
defined night period, the night period at Toronto Pearson starts later, and with few
exceptions, is shorter in duration. It is therefore proposed that the time over which
night noise impacts on communities are managed be extended. Given that the current
night-flight regime at Toronto Pearson is regulated by Transport Canada, in the first
instance it is proposed that GTAA work with industry and community stakeholders to
agree to a separate set of rules in the hours adjacent to the current night period.
•Implement a programme to ensure that the total amount of noise from aircraft
does not increase in the night-period/adjacent hours: Another best practice is to
manage night flights in terms of number of movements and overall aircraft noise.
Toronto Pearson has an annual night-flight budget, albeit the practice of increasing
night-flights in line with annual passenger growth is unique amongst other airports in
this study with night-time movement limits. Assuming the continuation of this practice,
it is proposed that GTAA implement a programme to ensure that the total amount of
noise from aircraft at night does not increase. This could be manag ed through a night
quota scheme similar to those at some European airports, and/or night-time noise
contours.
26
P2338D003 21
5 Runway schemes
5.1 Introduction
Many of the airports researched have provisions to operate their runways in a way that
enables aircraft to avoid noise-sensitive areas and/or share noise amongst communities at
certain times of day.
5.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Runway schemes
Of the 26 airports researched, most operate some form of runway scheme for noise
management purposes. Each is broadly intended to either provide some form of
predictability to when communities will be overflown, focus aircraft on the least
populated/unpopulated areas and/or share noise amongst those living under the flight
paths.
Day-time and night-time runway schemes
Night-time schemes are more widely used as this is a more noise sensitive period of the
day, and airports are able to operate their runways with more flexibility at night when traffic
levels are lower.
Traffic levels will typically influence the start time of night-time runway schemes. Most
commonly, night-time runway schemes are operated between 2300 and 0600 as shown in
Figure 7 (note that the Toronto preferential runway scheme is also aimed at directing
traffic over less populated areas). However, schemes were found to start operating as
early as 2000 and end as late as 0900.
Figure 7: Time periods for selected night-time runway schemes
27
P2338D003 22
Types of runway schemes
The types of schemes operated vary considerably reflecting the influence of several local
factors – geographical location, location relative to populations and the number/orientation
of runways. Practices used for runway schemes are summarised below. In several cases
combinations of these are used:
•Prioritised list of preferential runways: Many of the airports researched publish an
order of priority for runway use. If conditions such as weather are satisfied, the firs t
preference runway combination is used. If conditions are not satisfied, the second
preference is used and so on.
•Fixed timetable for runway usage (runway alternation): A fixed timetable is
implemented and lists, local conditions permitting, which runways are to be used
during certain hours of the day. The timetable is aimed at providing those under the
flights paths a degree of predictability of when they will be overflown by aircraft.
•Rotating timetable for runway usage (runway alternation): To ensure that those
living under the flight paths were not overflown at the same time every day, some
airports applied a timetable for runway use that rotated, typically on a weekly basis.
This type of practice is particularly applicable to the night-time.
•Directing traffic over the least populated areas: These schemes are intended to
direct aircraft over the least populated or unpopulated areas. This practice is
particularly common at airports with a coastal location where as many aircraft as
possible are directed over the sea. At night, when traffic levels were lower, this
included having aircraft both arriving and departing over the sea (i.e. landing and
departing in opposite directions) when weather conditions permitted.
•Use of runways furthest from populated areas: Some airports with multiple
runways aim to only operate those runways furthest from populations during the night.
A day-time example was also found at Los Angeles (LAX) which has four parallel
runways. During the day-time, where practicable, arriving aircraft land on the outer
runways (closest to populations) and the (noisier) departures take-off from the inner
runways (furthest from populations).
•Long-term noise sharing: This approach aims to achieve some form of equitable
sharing of noise over an extended period of time. The main example of this is Sydney
airport which sets targets for the proportion of aircraft arriving/departing from/to the
north, east, south and west of the airport.
Conformance with runway schemes
Research identified that it is very difficult to provide 100 percent conformance with a ny
runway scheme. For example, the level of conformance at Heathrow is approximately
90%-95%, while the level of conformance for a recent 25 -week night-time runway trial at
Chicago O’Hare was 67%. There are several reasons for this, not all of which are under
the control of the airport (see Table 11). For this reason, several airports state that they
will apply their schemes voluntarily or ‘where possible’.
28
P2338D003 23
Influence Comment
Weather This includes wind direction/speed and nearby storms which
preclude the use of a preferred runway.
Traffic demand
At airports with multiple runways, preferred runway schemes
involving only single runway operation can only be operated during
low traffic demand.
Pilot preferences (safety) Pilots will sometimes request a certain runway on safety grounds,
for example the longest runway at the airport
Emergencies (safety) Use of a ‘non-preferred’ runway in the case of emergencies.
Runway inspections &
maintenance (safety)
The need use another runway while the preferred runway is being
maintained or inspected.
Table 11: Examples of factors influencing conformance with runway schemes
Reporting on runway schemes
Of the 26 airports researched, 8 provided public reports on the usage of runways. The
method and frequency of reporting varied from month ly, quarterly and annual written
reports to a daily online report. No clear trends were spotted in the frequency of reporting
periods; however, all of the reports provided graphics showing the percentage use of one
particular runway direction over the reporting period.
5.3 Toronto Pearson today
Toronto Pearson operates a night-time preferential runway protocol between 0000 and
0630 local. Air Traffic control will select a runway from the following list, taking into
account operational conditions (wind, weather) and safety:
Arrivals Departures
1st preference 05 23
2nd preference 15L 33R
3rd preference 06L 24R
Table 12: Night-time runway preferences at Toronto Pearson
As part of its Noise Mitigation Initiatives Engagement Plan , the GTAA and NAV CANADA
are undertaking the following activities:
•Reviewing the existing night-time preferential runway scheme: Reviewing the
current night-time preferential runway system to recommend a scheme that flies over
the fewest residents possible.
•Summer weekend runway alternation: This is investigating the feasibility of
alternating runways at weekends during the summer to provide periods of respite from
noise for communities impacted by these operations.
29
P2338D003 24
5.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Continue to investigate opportunities to use the runways at Toronto Pearson to
equitably share, or provide relief from, aircraft noise.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
PR1 Continue to investigate night-time preferential runway schemes and summer time
weekend runway alternation schemes aimed at sharing noise.
PR2 Identify opportunities to use the runways to provide relief from aircraft noise during off-
peak periods on weekdays.
PR3
For current (and any future) runway schemes operated at Toronto Pearson, define
expected levels of conformance, and implement a mechanism for regularly reporting
adherence/reasons for non-adherence.
Table 13: Potential new programmes and initiatives for runway schemes
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•Night-time preferential runway schemes and summer time weekend runway
alternation schemes: Many of the airports researched have a preferential runway
scheme aimed at either providing some form of predictability to when communities will
be overflown, focusing aircraft on the least populated/unpopulated areas and/or share
noise amongst those living under the flight paths. GTAA and NAV CANADA should
continue to explore opportunities for night-time preferential runway schemes and
summer time weekend runway alternation schemes. If these activities demonstrate
the ability to deliver an equitable share of noise, receive sufficient support from the
community, demonstrate that a suitable level of conformance can be achieved (see
proposal PR3) and successfully pass through a public consultation, they should be
implemented.
•Weekday runway schemes: A number of the airports researched also have a day-
time runway scheme. If a new night-time preferential runway scheme and summer
time weekend runway alternation i s implemented at Toronto Pearson, opportunities to
use the runways to provide noise relief during off -peak periods during the day-time on
weekdays is proposed.
•Expected levels of adherence and reporting: Research identified that it is very
difficult to provide 100 percent conformance with any runway scheme. It is therefore
important that, for any current and future schemes at Toronto Pearson, GTAA set
community expectations by identifying expected levels of conformance. Achievement
against these and reasons for non-conformance, should be reported regularly. It is
also recommended that GTAA notify communities in advance when adherence is not
expected to be achieved (e.g. due to runway maintenance or forecast weather
conditions).
30
P2338D003 25
6 Ground and gate operations
6.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated activities on the airport surface (taxiways/aircraft
parking positions etc.) intended to reduce the impact of ground noise on the local area.
The work in this area primarily investigated restrictions associated with engine ground
runs (e.g. engine testing) and the use of the aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) when an
aircraft is parked at the stand.
6.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Engine ground runs (engine testing)
Engine testing, or ground running, is often required following the completion of certain
maintenance tasks on the aircraft. Fifteen of the 26 airports researched applied
restrictions on engine ground runs/testing. In addition to restrictions, 6 airports applied
additional measures including ground run moni toring systems and the use of ground run-
up pens.
•Night-time restrictions: Typically, the restrictions applied by airports limited engine
testing during the night. The night-time period for ground runs was defined anywhere
between 2100 and 0700, with the most common definition being between 2300 and
0700 (see Figure 8).
•Location of ground runs: Airports also specify the locations at which gr ound runs
above idle power can take place. This often precludes areas close to residential
areas.
•Monitoring systems: A small number of airports have systems installed to manage,
track, approve or decline ground runs. These systems can also be used to track
compliance, record the noise generated by the ground run and report on the number
of engine tests. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have installed such systems.
•Ground running pens: Dedicated ground run pens work by either diverting or
reducing the ground noise from engine gr ound runs. These have been shown to
reduce ground noise due to engine testing by the order of 50%. Both Vancouver and
Chicago O’Hare have installed dedicated ground run up pens.
•Ground noise limits: Frankfurt and Auckland airports apply noise limits to ground
runs. These are measured by noise monitors located in/close to nearby residential
areas.
•Limits on the number of ground runs: As part of a local planning agreement,
Gatwick is limited to a maximum of 250 ground runs in a rolling 6-month period.
31
P2338D003 26
Figure 8: Durations of night-time engine ground run restrictions
APU restrictions
An Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is a small jet engine that allows an aircraft to operate
autonomously without reliance on ground support equipment .
Twelve of the 26 airports researched restricted the time an APU could be used when an
aircraft was parked at the stand. For example, both Heathrow and Gatwick request
shutdown of the APU within 10 minutes of arrival on stand and do not allow its activation
until 15 minutes prior to departure for narrow body aircraft and 50 minutes for wide body
aircraft. Extensions to these times are allowed in specific conditions such as when
temperatures reach high or low extremes to manage passenger comfort. For example, at
Copenhagen extensions are allowed when the outside air temperature is below –10°C or
above +25°C.
6.3 Toronto Pearson today
Ground run restrictions are Toronto Pearson are as follows:
• Location of ground runs: All engine testing above idle power takes place in
approved power run up areas that have been chosen to be as far away as possible
from neighbouring residential communities. All engine testing above idle power must
also be pre-approved by GTAA.
• Night-time restrictions for ground runs: Between the hours of 0000 to 0700 engine
power run ups are prohibited unless authorised by GTAA. In the period of 0000 to
0629, power run ups will only be approved if the aircraft is certified to ICAO Chapter 3
or higher and is scheduled to depart prior to 1200 the followi ng day. Multiple runs may
be requested, but each individual run must not exceed a maximum of 15 minutes.
Toronto Pearson has no specific APU restrictions.
32
P2338D003 27
6.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Align ground run and APU procedures at Toronto Pearson with typical practices applied
at other airports.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
GG1 Apply the night-time restrictions for ground running earlier and monitor compliance.
GG2 Implement APU restrictions on stands equipped with GPU/PCA.
Table 14: Potential new programmes and initiatives for ground and gate operations
It is understood that there are currently limited complaints about ground noise. Therefore,
the above are intended to align Toronto Pearson with typical practices at other airports
without being too onerous. The rationale for the initiatives are as follows:
• Night-time restrictions for ground running: Like Toronto Pearson, several of the
airports researched apply night-time ground run restrictions. These typically start at
2300 or earlier, hence the proposal for Toronto Pearson’s night-time restrictions for
ground runs to starts earlier. It is also proposed that GTAA monitor compliance with its
current ground run restrictions. This could take the form of ad -hoc monitoring rather
than the implementation of the type of ground run monitoring system used at Los
Angeles and San Francisco.
• APU restrictions: Best practice at a number of the airports researched is to limit the
use of APUs when the aircraft is parked at a stand equipped with GPU/PCA. This is
typically prescribed in terms of the number of minutes after arrival/before departure
that the APU should be shut down/started. Separate limits are also applied for
extreme temperatures.
33
P2338D003 28
7 Noise Abatement Procedures
7.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated the use of noise abatement procedures to manage
noise generated from aircraft during the approach and departure phases of flight. The
research also investigated practices in the management and communication of trials.
7.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Arriving aircraft
Twenty-two of the 26 airports researched were found to have at least one noise
abatement procedure to manage the noise from arriving aircraft. The most common
procedures were Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) and the applicatio n of altitude
limitations during the approach phase of flight to keep aircraft high over populated areas.
Figure 9: Summary of the procedures and practices used to manage the noise generated
from arriving aircraft
The following noise abatement procedures were identified for arriving aircraft :
•Continuous Descent Approach (CDA): Conventional approaches to an airport
involve a ‘stepped approach’ with periods of level flight (see Figure 10). A CDA aims
to reduce the amount of time an aircraft remains in level flight during the approach
phase, thereby reducing noise. Work by the UK CAA shows CDAs to provide noise
reductions of up to 2.5 to 5 dB, varying over distances from touchdown of 10 to
25nm15. The benefits come from the aircraft being higher than a stepped approach at
a given point and the need for comparatively less engine thrust . A comparison
between a conventional approach and a CDA is shown in Figure 10.
15 CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.
34
P2338D003 29
Figure 10: Typical stepped approach vs a typical CDA
In practice, it is currently difficult to enable CDAs to be flown without any level flight in
the busy traffic environment experienced at international airports. For this reason, of
the nine airports found to be operating CDA procedures, only four operated CDAs
throughout the day, albeit allowing some periods of level flight to obtain some noise
benefit16. The remainder only operated CDAs at night or in other periods of low traffic.
•Low Power Low Drag (LPLD): The lowering of flaps and the undercarriage before
landing disturbs the airflow around the aircraf t and creates noise. Low Power Low
Drag procedures are intended to safely delay the extension of flaps and
undercarriage. The practice can deliver reduction of between 3 to 5dB17. Eight
airports, mainly in Europe, mentioned the use of LPLD or a similar conf iguration on
approach, this was typically specified in conjunction with CDA in the AIP.
•Restricting reverse thrust on landing: Nine airports applied voluntary restrictions on
the use of reverse thrust on landing unless it was required for safety reasons. The
majority of these restrictions were applied during the night.
•Steeper approaches: An aircraft making a final approach to an airport will typically
follow a 3-degree descent path. Both Heathrow and Frankfurt have recently trialled
steeper approaches of 3.2 degrees. The slight increase in approach angle causes an
aircraft to be 215 feet higher at 10 nautical miles from the airport. The trial at
Heathrow showed steeper approaches provided a small noise improvement of
between 0.5 and 1.4dBA SEL.
•Voluntary industry code of practice: In the UK, the Department for Transport, Civil
Aviation Authority, airports, airlines, the air navigation service provider developed an
industry code of practice for noise from arriving aircraft. The document defines options
to reduce approach noise, including the implementation of CDA and LPLD
procedures, and provides guidance to air traffic control, flight crews and airports on
16 The UK definition of a CDA (covering Gatwick and Heathrow), as listed in the AIP, involves a continuous
descent with no level segments longer than 2.5 nautical miles. A level segment defined as no more than a 50ft
height change over 2 nautical miles. Similarly, at Amsterdam Schiphol a flight path is considered continuously
descending when there is no level segment. A segment is considered level if the altitude loss is less than 50 ft
over a distance of 2.5 NM.
17 CAA Paper 1165, Managing Aviation Noise, UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2014.
35
P2338D003 30
how to deliver improvements. The document was widely circulated within the industry
and is publicly available18.
•Altitude limits: Thirteen airports made use of minimum altitude restrictions over
certain areas such as cities, or applied minimum ILS joining point altitudes. In all
situations, the restrictions aimed to keep aircraft higher for longer in order to reduce
noise. For example:
Airport Examples of height restrictions
Heathrow
Heathrow airport applies restrictions on the height at which
aircraft can join the ILS and does not permit joining below
2500ft in the day (0600 to 2330 local) and 3000ft or 10
nautical miles in the night
Auckland Auckland airport applies a minimum altitude of 5,000ft over
the high-density parts of the city.
Los Angeles (LAX)
LAX applies a minimum altitude of 2,000ft for helicopters
over the city and restricts helicopter flights in the overnight
period.
Table 15: Examples of height restrictions at selected airports
Departing aircraft
Twenty three of the 26 airports researched were found to apply noise abatement
procedures to manage the noise from departing aircraft. The most commonly used
procedures were Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 and 2 (NADP1/NADP2), or an
equivalent.
Figure 11: Summary of the procedures and practices used to manage the noise generated
from departing aircraft
The following noise abatement procedures were identified for departing aircraft:
•Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 and 2 (NADP1/NADP2): NADP1 and
NADP2 are guidance on departure procedures published by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO)19. The procedures are outlined below and shown
graphically in the following figure:
18 Arrivals code of practice: http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Noise-from-
Arriving-Aircraft-%E2%80%93-An-Industry-Code-of-Practice1.pdf
19 ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS Part 1, Chapter 3 Annex
36
P2338D003 31
— NADP1 is intended to provide noise reduction for noise-sensitive areas near the
airport (but provides more for areas more distant from the airport th an NADP2).
— NADP2 provides noise reduction to areas more distant from the airport (but
provides more for areas near the airport than NADP1).
Figure 12: Comparison between NADP1 and NADP2.
Fourteen of the airports researched either prescribed the use of NADP or a similar
procedure such as the equivalent FAA Advisory Circular. Of the fourteen airports, only
Amsterdam Schiphol recommended the use of a single procedure (NADP2) but
permitted the use of NADP1 if it was not possible to comply with NADP2. All other
airports were non-prescriptive and simply required the use of NADP1, 2 or the
procedure listed within FAA AC91-53A20.
• Departure routes - altitude restrictions: Seven airports applied guidelines to ensure
that departing aircraft did not exit their Standard Instrument Departure (SID) route
before a specified altitude, which was typically around 3,000ft. This aimed to limit the
noise exposure of departing aircraft to a specific area.
• Departure routes - early turns: Eight airports made reference to allowing aircraft to
make ‘early turns’ after take-off. These were used to either allow slower aircraft, such
as propeller driven aircraft to exit the main departure flow, or to manage departure
noise, by turning aircraft off the extended runway centreline before overfl ying
residential areas. Conversely five airports restricted early turns before a specific
altitude or the end of the Standard Instrument Departure (SID). Again, this was
intended to limit the noise exposure of departing aircraft to a specific area.
• Continuous Climb Operations (CCO): Continuous Climb Operations (CCO) is a
procedure used to allow an aircraft to climb from take-off to cruise with no level
segments. Environmental benefits are achieved through reduced fuel burn and
potential aircraft noise mitigation through thrust and height optimisation . Research has
shown that the air navigation service providers (ANSPs) in the UK and Denmark
facilitate CCO. Trials have been undertaken at Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt
are currently developing CCO procedures with the German ANSP, DFS.
20 FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A Noise Abatement Departure Profile
37
P2338D003 32
• Voluntary industry code of practice: Similar to the arrivals code of practice in the
UK, industry partners have developed a code of practice for departing aircraft21. The
document defines options to reduce departure noise through the implementation of
systems to reduce APU usage, implement reduced engine taxi and Continuous Climb
Operations. Again, the document provides guidance to air traffic control, flight crews
and airports on how to deliver improvements.
• Departure noise restrictions: Four of the airports researched used noise monitors
and their noise and track keeping system to measure the noise generated by aircraft
and applied financial penalties if the limits were breached.
Trials
Published practices on how airports engaged communities prior to, during and after
airspace trials were investigated. Of the airports researched, only a few provided
information on trials. This typically took the form of:
• Information on trials: Publishing information on upcoming trials and post-trial
assessments on the noise pages of the airport’s website.
• Trial websites: A dedicated website providing information on any ongoing trials and
summary reports from completed trials.
• Communication: Sydney was found to have proactive community engagement
initiatives as part of infrastructure works and airspace trials/consultation processes.
This included the distribution of material to over 100,000 residences, community
sessions and door to door visits.
7.3 Toronto Pearson today
Noise abatement procedures for arriving aircraft
Pilots are requested to minimise the use of reverse thrust. All approaches should remain
at or above 3,000 feet (above sea level) until intercepting the extended runway centreline
for final approach. While on final approach , arriving aircraft should remain on or above the
3 degree glideslope.
The GTAA/NAV CANADA Noise Mitigation Initiatives Engagement Plan includes (i)
designing new approaches for use during designated night-time operations, and (ii)
studying the potential to use new technology to reduce the need for low altitude levelling
by arriving aircraft. Also, as part of this plan NAV CANADA is due to study if increasing
published speeds on the ‘downwind’ leg of the approach may provide noise benefits in
some parts of Toronto by negating the need for some large aircraft to deploy their flaps as
early.
Noise abatement procedures for departing aircraft
Noise Abatement Departure Procedures 1 or 2 (NADP1 or NADP2) are required to be
used for departing aircraft on all runways. Departing aircraft are expected to follow their
departing routes until reaching 3,600 feet (above sea level). Early turns are only permitted
for small/regional jets.
21 Departures code of practice: http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Departures-
Code-of-Practice-June-2012.pdf
38
P2338D003 33
The GTAA/NAV CANADA Noise Mitigation Initiatives Engagement Plan will investigate if,
during designated night-time periods, i ncreasing the altitude achieved before aircraft turns
are permitted may deliver noise benefits for those under the departure flight path.
Trial updates
Updates on ongoing trials are given at the GTAA community forum, CENAC, through a
standing agenda item (noise statistics updates).
7.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Reduce the noise generated by arriving and departing aircraft.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NAP1 Establish an industry group to be the focal point for the operational and policy
aspects of the programmes and initiatives proposed in this report.
NAP2 Investigate options for additional low power/low noise procedures such as
Continuous Descent Approaches, Low Power Low Drag operations and a
voluntary night-time ban on the use of reverse thrust.
NAP3 Investigate if Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 2 (NADP2) provides greater
noise benefits to residential communities than NADP1.
NAP4 With other industry partners develop a voluntary industry code of practice for
noise abatement procedures at Toronto Pearson.
NAP5 Develop a standard methodology for future trials influencing the noise
environment around Toronto Pearson.
Table 16: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise abatement procedures
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•Establishing an industry body on noise procedures and policy at Toronto
Pearson: Several initiatives and programmes have been proposed that will require
interactions between GTAA, NAV CANADA, Toronto-based airlines and Transport
Canada (both in this section and others). Rather than undertaking each action in
isolation, it is proposed that a single industry body is formed to act as a focal point for
the operational , policy and best practice aspects of the programmes and initiatives
identified in this report. This should include nominating one person from each
organisation to be responsible for oversight of noise related activities at Toronto
Pearson.
•Noise abatement procedures for arriving aircraft: The review of best practice has
identified some arrival noise abatement procedures with a proven noise benefit that
could be investigated further by Toronto Pearson:
— Reverse thrust on landing: Over a third of airports researched had some form
of restriction on reverse thrust on landing, mainly at night. This could be
achieved relatively quickly through a voluntary agreement with airlines.
— Low Power Low Drag (LPLD): The point on the approach path when aircraft
exit LPLD is typically governed by an airline’s Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs). Therefore, investigating LPLD operations (both SOPs and adherence)
39
P2338D003 34
followed by the development of some best practices for Toronto Pear son could
provide another small noise benefit.
— Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs): CDAs are another procedure with
a proven noise benefit and used in some form by seventeen of the twenty -six
airports researched (noting that the CDAs at these airports typically involve
segments of level flight). Based on this, it is proposed that options for
implementing CDAs at Toronto Pearson are investigated . This activity is
envisaged to take time to implement and will most likely need to be undertaken
as a phased activity – for example initially implemented during the night when
traffic levels are lower.
•Departure noise abatement procedures: Given the amount of land dedicated to
industrial use around Toronto Pearson (Figure 13), there could be some merits in
investigating if Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 2 (NADP2) provides greater
noise benefits to residential communities than NADP1 22.
Figure 13: Industrial areas (pink) in the vicinity of Toronto Pearson
•Voluntary industry code of practice: To maximise the benefit of the various noise
related procedures, it is proposed that a voluntary industry code of practice like the
documents produced in the UK, is published by the main industry partners. The aim of
the code of practice would be to promote, align and spread best practice amongst the
main industry partners.
•Standard methodology for future noise related trials: Several of the programmes
and initiatives identified by this report could result in trials that will influence the noise
environment near Toronto Pearson. The development of a standard methodology for
trials is proposed to ensure the value of each trial is maximised, the possibility of
22 NADP1 and NADP2 are guidance on departure procedures published by the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO). NADP1 is intended to provide noise reduction for noise-sensitive areas in close proximity to
the airport (but provides more for areas more distant from the airport than NADP2). NADP2 provides noise
reduction to areas more distant from the airport (but provides more for areas in close proximity to the airport than
NADP1).
40
P2338D003 35
unintended consequences is reduced, all stakeholders are aware of the objectives
and the benefits are clearly evaluated . Any methodology would not necessarily need
to be substantive, but should include items such as pre-trial objectives, pre-trial
evaluations, pre-trial notification to communities, pre-trial input from communities,
updates during the trial, post-trial assessment and reporting, and a repository for all
relevant trial material.
41
P2338D003 36
8 Fly Quiet programmes
8.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated ‘Fly Quiet’ programmes. A ‘Fly Quiet programme is a
voluntary initiative designed to encourage airlines to adopt newer (quieter) aircraft or fly
existing aircraft in a manner which minimises their noise impact on the communities
surrounding the airport. Typically, Fly Quiet programmes include combinations of the
following:
• A set of metrics used to measure noise performance.
• Comparison of performance between different airlines .
• Public reporting of results.
• Public recognition of the best performing/most improved airlines.
8.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the research is presented below. More detail, including case studies, is
provided in Annex C.
Existence of Fly Quiet programmes
Four of the 26 airports researched had a Fly Quiet programme. These are summarised
below:
• Vancouver: The Vancouver Fly Quiet programme has two measures – adherence to
published noise abatement procedures (NAPs) and measured noise levels. Each year
the airline with no suspected violations of NAPs and the lowest average annual noise
level for their aircraft category (propeller aircraft, narrow body jet aircraft and wide
body jet aircraft), is publicly recognised at an awards ceremony.
• Heathrow: Heathrow compares the performance of 50 airlines against six metrics to
further encourage airlines to use quieter aircraft and to fly them in the quietest way
possible. The six metrics score the fleet operated by the airline to/from Heathrow,
achievement against noise abatement procedures and compliance with night -time
arrangements for arriving aircraft. Airlines are ranked in a quarterly league table
according to their overall score across the six metrics.
• San Francisco: The San Francisco Fly Quiet programme was initiated by the
community forum and aims to encourage airlines to operate as quietly as possible in
the San Francisco Bay area. Similar to Heathrow, airlines are ranked in a quarterly
league table according to their overall score across six metrics. The six metrics score
the fleet operated by the airline to/from San Francisco, measured noise levels, night -
time runway use and adherence/performance against three specific local noise
abatement procedures. The programme also has annual award s to recognise the
quietest overall airline, most improved airline and exceptional commitment to the
programme.
• Chicago O’Hare: The Chicago O’Hare Fly Quiet programme focusses on night-time
operations. The metrics measured are night -time runway use, deviation from planned
night-time flight tracks, night-time complaints, night-time noise measurements and (all
day) ground runs.
42
P2338D003 37
Fly Quiet metrics
The metrics used in Fly Quiet programmes depend on factors such as ease of
measurement, importance to local communities and the airport’s noise abatement
procedures (NAPs). Some metrics measure noise directly using noise monitors, while
others are ‘proxy’ metrics that give a strong indication of whether the aircraft is being flown
in the quietest way possible. Metrics used in Fly Quiet programmes can be categorised as
follows:
• Strategic metrics: These metrics measure how quiet an airline’s fleet is (e.g. Chapter
number certification).
• Operational metrics: These include measurements of actual aircraft noise and
adherence to NAPs.
• Night-time metrics: Adherence with restrictions on aircraft operations at night (e.g.
night-time flight tracks)
Figure 14: Metrics used in the Chicago, Heathrow, San Francisco and Vancouver Fly Quiet
programmes
Reporting
A key element of Fly Quiet programmes is public reporting. Examples of Fly Quiet
reporting are shown in Table 17, Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17.
QC/seat/movement
Fleet noise certification
Continuous descent
arrivals
achievement (CDA)
Flight track keeping
achievement (TK)
Pre 0430 arrivals
Unscheduled
pre 0600
arrivals
STRATEGIC
OPERATIONAL
NIGHT
Noise exceedances
Night time
preferential
runway use
Over water
departure
achievement
Minimum
height
achievement
Night time over water
departure achievement
Complaints
Night time
TK
Average
measured
night noise
Ground run
up monitoring
Violation
of NAPs
Average
annual noise
43
P2338D003 38
Element Summary
Frequency Chicago, Heathrow and San Francisco report quarterly on
their Fly Quiet programmes.
League tables Both Heathrow and San Francisco produce league tables
comparing airline performance across the different
metrics.
Expected levels of compliance Heathrow, and to a certain extent Chicago, highlight if an
airline is performing as expected against a given metric.
Working with airlines Heathrow actively works with airlines who do not achieve
the expected level of performance for individual metrics.
Awards San Francisco and Vancouver hold annual award
ceremonies to recognise the best performing and most
improved airlines.
Table 17: Summary of Fly Quiet reporting
Figure 15: Extract from the Heathrow Fly Quiet Programme league table showing airline
rankings and summarising achievement against each metric
Figure 16: Extract from the Chicago Fly Quiet report for average deviation from night -time
runway tracks
44
P2338D003 39
Figure 17: Extract from the San Francisco Fly Quiet league table showing airline rankings,
scores for each metric and overall scores
8.3 Toronto Pearson today
Toronto Pearson does not have a Fly Quiet program
8.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Establish a Fly Quiet programme as one way of encouraging airlines to adopt new
quieter aircraft, or fly existing aircraft in a manner which minimises their noise impact on
the communities surrounding the airport.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
FQ1 As a precursor to a Fly Quiet programme, establish a mature set of metrics that measure
aircraft noise performance.
FQ2 Implement a GTAA ‘Fly Quiet’ programme to compare airline performance across a
number of noise metrics.
Table 18: Potential new programmes and initiatives for a Fly Quiet programme
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
• Establish a mature set of metrics as a precursor to a Fly Quiet programme: Any
metrics used in a future GTAA Fly Quiet programme will need to be accepted by
airlines and communities. Failure to do so would risk one or both parties not engaging
45
P2338D003 40
in what has been to date a voluntary programme. Therefore, as a precursor to a Fly
Quiet programme, GTAA should identify, with stakeholders, candidate metrics that
measure aircraft noise performance and bring them to a suitable level of maturity (i.e.
acceptable to airlines and communities, ability to measure 24/7, agreed method of
calculation).
• GTAA Fly Quiet programme: A small number of airports researched have Fly Quiet
programmes as one way to encourage the operation of aircraft in the quietest way
possible and the use of the quietest fleet. It is proposed that GTAA establish its own
Fly Quiet programme. A full-scale Fly Quiet programme, similar to those at Heathrow
and San Francisco, will take time to develop and need considerable consultation with
both airlines and communities. W hile this is taking place, GTAA could establish a
programme like that operated at Vancouver.
46
P2338D003 41
9 Land use planning
9.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated how land use is managed near airports .
For this study, land use planning has only been investigated with respect to aviation noise.
No reference has been made to other national or local land use planning activities, or
rules associated with buildings/obstacles under the flight paths.
9.2 Summary of best practice research
Two main areas of best practice were identified – land use planning and noise
mitigation/insulation programmes. A summary is included in this section, a detailed report
of the research, including case studies, is provided in Annex C.
Land use planning and zoning
Twenty of the 26 airports researched published land use rules around their airport. The
main trends identified are summarised below:
•Source of land use policy: Policy on land use near an airport is typically provided by
the Federal Government for the entire country. These rules are often augmented by
local authorities.
•Typical rules: Land use policy will typically define rules/restrictions on land use and
development close to the airport. These are usually defined with reference to noise
contours. Typical rules/restrictions are given in the table below:
Rules/restrictions Comments
Restrict all development Sometimes including mandatory purchase of
buildings already inside the contour.
Restrict development of certain land uses For example, residential developments or
public buildings such as schools.
Allow the development subject to certain
conditions
For example, (i) the use of noise insulation
programmes or (ii) identification in a local
land registry that a residential building is
subject to aircraft noise.
Table 19: Examples of land use planning rules
•Land use planning zones: Land use policy often involves the use of phased
restrictions on development. For example, noise contours are used to create ‘zones’,
with each having more stringent restrictions the closer it is to the airport. Examples of
zones, and their associated restrictions, are shown in Table 20. A schematic of the
zones used at Amsterdam Schiphol are shown in Figure 18.
47
P2338D003 42
Airport/region Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
United States
70 dB CNEL, no new
build, potential for
compulsory purchase
65 to 70 dB CNEL,
noise insulation area
65 dB CNEL, no new
build of noise sensitive
buildings
Canada / Toronto
NEF 30 and above,
no new residential
development
Australia
Above ANEI 40,
(70dB Ldn) mandatory
purchase and
conversion to parks
ANEI 30 to 40,
residential sound
insulation
ANEI 25 to 40, public
building sound insulation
New Zealand
Above 65dBA Ldn,
100% funding for
noise insulation
programmes
Above 60dBA Ldn,
75% funding for noise
insulation
programmes
Above 57dBA, ground
noise insulation
programme
Amsterdam
Zone 1/2, Demolition
for safety or high
noise levels typically
located around
runway ends
Zone 3, No new build
of housing or
businesses. Potential
areas for noise
insulation Located
under ILS
Zone 4, No new major
housing sites or
redevelopment allowed in
the areas to the sides of
the ILS and under
departure turns.
Table 20: Examples of land use zoning around airports using noise contours
Figure 18: Example of land use zones at Amsterdam Schiphol
59
Demolition zones (safety).
Demolition Zones (noise).
No new build of offices,
business and homes, and
insulation zone.
No new build of housing or
redevelopment allowed
48
P2338D003 43
•Common challenges and solutions: There are often competing demands for land
use between the airport and local authorities or the need for joint
understanding/agreement on the aspirations of each party. In the United States this is
addressed by a Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning study which seeks to
review and align policy with the future development o f the airport. Local citizens,
public agencies and airport users are encouraged to engage in the study. Public
workshops and hearings are used to engage with the stakeholders. The final report
along with the noise maps are publicly available .
Noise insulation programmes
Sixteen airports were found to either offer noise insulation schemes or had done so in the
past. Six of these undertook an ‘active’ noise insulation programme which involved
engagement with communities rather than relying on applications fr om residents. Figure
19 summarises the number of buildings insulated and average spend per building for 12
airports.
Figure 19: Examples of the number of properties insulated and average spend per property 23
The different elements of noise insulation programmes are summarised below:
•Eligibility for noise insulation: Eligibility for insulation was based upon the location
of the property within defined noise contours (see Table 20 for examples) and if it
pre-dates the scheme. Additionally, i n the United States, interior noise within an
eligible property must be above 45dB DNL and any insulation installed must reduce
23 The following noise insulation schemes are closed (figures in brackets denote the year of closure - John Wayne
(2009), Sydney (2000), Brussels (2004) and Copenhagen (2016)). For these schemes the spend per building at
the time of closure has been recalculated to 2017 values.
49
P2338D003 44
interior noise by at least 5dB. Airports such as Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle and
Zurich provide more than one insulation scheme, with each scheme having a different
eligibility criteria. For example, Heathrow has day-time, night-time and quieter homes
schemes.
•Insulation provided: The type of insulation provided varied from ventilation/double
glazing in bedrooms only to insulation of roofs, doors and all windows. Again, some
airports such as Heathrow and Paris Charles de Gaulle provided different levels of
insulation depending on the scheme/zone a property fell within. At Chicago O’Hare a
post works survey is carried out to make sure the works have reduced noise.
•Funding of works: Whether insulation is full or partly funded again varied by airport,
the noise contours a property fell within and type of scheme (e.g. daytime/night-time).
Funding of works ranged from 50% to 100% funding, or a fixed amount was provided
towards the works. Some specific examples are shown in the table below.
Airport/region Level of funding for noise insulation works
Auckland
Within the 65dBA Ldn contour the airport must provide 100%
of the cost of insulation. Within the 60dBA Ldn contour the
airport must provide 75% of the costs of insulation, with a 25%
top-up available from a community fund to assist lower income
families. The airport is required to fund noise insulation
schemes at new schools built within the contour to a total value
of 75% of the works.
Heathrow
The day noise scheme covers free loft insulation and
ventilation, and 50% of the cost of double glazing. The night
noise scheme covers free loft insulation and ventilation, and
50% of the cost of double glazing in bedrooms. The quieter
homes initiative includes 1,200 homes closest to the airport
and includes custom made noise solutions and is undertaken
at no cost to the resident.
Table 21: Examples of funding for insulation noise insulation works
•Impetus for initiating noise insulation schemes: The reason for the introduction of
a noise insulation programme was not usually published by airports. However,
research has shown the impetus for scheme s to be a combination of l egislation,
voluntary actions, airport development and availability of government funds. Examples
are shown in Table 22.
Airport/region Comments
United Kingdom
Airports are required to undertake insulation programmes
under the UK Civil Aviation Act. Both Heathrow and Gatwick
voluntarily established their programmes under this act and
have since offered to extend the original programmes as part
of expansion plans
Copenhagen, Sydney &
Frankfurt
These airports undertook noise insulation schemes in
response to expansion plans. Frankfurt initiated its scheme
voluntarily.
United States
Airports undertaking a Part 150 airport noise compatibility
study qualify for Federal grants for noise insulation
programmes.
Table 22: Example reasons for initiating noise insulation programmes
50
P2338D003 45
• Source of funds for noise insulation schemes: The source of funds for noise
insulation schemes was identified for 12 airports. With two exceptions funds came
from some form of charge placed on airspace users and/or passengers. For the 6
airports in the United States Federal Grants were used to fund between 75% and 90%
of the total cost of insulation schemes 24. Four other airports funded their noise
insulation schemes through noise charges levied on airlines and/or passengers (see
quieter fleets section). The two remaining airports used government funds, but the
exact source could not be identified.
• Management of noise insulation schemes: The insulation schemes are either
managed by the airport directly or by a public body such as the local council or central
government.
9.3 Toronto Pearson today
Land use planning and zoning
Like many of the airports researched, and in accordance with guidelines set by Transport
Canada and outlined in TP1247E Land Use in The Vicinity of Aerodromes, Toronto
Pearson has a defined noise contour within which noise sensitive land uses (e.g.
residential properties) should not be located. Transport Canada’s guidelines for
development of compatible land uses in the areas surrounding airports use the Noise
Exposure Forecast (NEF). It is Transport Canada’s recommendation that areas within a
30 NEF contour or above should not be used for sensitive land use such as new
residential development
Accordingly, Toronto Pearson has established an Airport Operating Area (AOA) which
uses well-defined natural and manmade boundaries to approximate the 30 NEF contour
on the ground (see Figure 20). The Region of Peel, with the cities of Brampton and
Mississauga, and the City of Toronto have included the AOA in their Official Plans and
have approved associated policies that limit incompatible land uses wi thin these areas for
new developments. For infill developments, GTAA has worked with local and regional
planning authorities to establish a voluntary compatible future land use plan, including the
mitigation of noise impacts through appropriate building de sign features as well as
ensuring notice to buyers of potential impacts is given25.
Noise insulation programmes
Transport Canada does not stipulate any recommendations for airports to provide noise
insulation schemes. Instead (i) it recommends no residential development within the AOA
(NEF 30 noise contour) and, (ii) places obligations on the responsible authority to ensure
new properties have appropriate insulation where this recommendation is not followed.
24 It is understood that these grants are funded from more broader taxes on airspace users (3% ($111 million
USD) of the total value of this tax collection was spent on nois e insulation programmes in 2016).
25 This is in accordance with Transport Canada guidelines
(http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp1247-menu-1418.htm).
51
P2338D003 46
Figure 20: Toronto Pearson Airport Operating Area (AOA) – NEF 30 contour
9.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
•GTAA to examine the conditions under which it will undertake voluntary land use
planning activities that go beyond the scope of the cu rrent regulatory environmen
stipulated by Transport Canada.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
LU1 In addition to the current (Transport Canada) regulatory environment for land use
planning, GTAA to consider the additional merits of working with local communities and
regional/local authorities to agree to a voluntary compatible future land use plan.
LU2 GTAA to examine the conditions under which it may consider a voluntary noise insulation
programme.
Table 23: Potential new programmes and initiatives for land use planning
For this study, land use planning has only been investigated with respect to aviation noise.
No reference has been made to other national or local land use planning activities, or
rules associated with buildings/obstacles under the flight paths.
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•Consider the merits of a voluntary compatible future land use plan: In terms of
aircraft noise, Transport Canada recommends that areas within a 30 NEF contour or
above should not be used for sensitive land use such as new residential development.
Toronto Pearson has established an Airport Operating Area (AOA) which uses well -
defined natural and manmade boundaries to approximate the 30 NEF contour on the
ground. Surrounding municipalities have included the AOA in their Official Plans and
52
P2338D003 47
have approved associated policies that limi t incompatible land uses within these
areas.
At the same time, local authorities can designate exemptions for residential
development in the AOA, and Toronto Pearson has its own future development plans.
Therefore, it is proposed that, in addition to existing regulatory requirements, GTAA
examine the merits of working with local communities and regional/local authorities to
establish a voluntary26 compatible future land use plan along the lines of the Part 150
airport noise compatibility planning programmes undertaken in the United States.
•Examine the conditions under which GTAA may consider a voluntary noise
insulation programme: The majority of airports researched currently have, or
previously had, noise insulation schemes to mitigate the impacts of aviati on noise on
local communities close to the airport. Where information has been made available,
the impetus for initiating these schemes has been identified as a combination of
national legislation, voluntary actions, airport development and availability of
government funds.
Within the current regulatory environment, Transport Canada does not stipulate any
recommendations for airports to provide noise insulation schemes. However, as so
many of the airports researched have these schemes, it is proposed that GTAA
examine the conditions under which it may consider a voluntary noise insulation
programme. For example, aligning with practices (noise insulation contours) at other
major international airports, changes in flight paths that extend the NEF 30 contour
beyond the existing AOA or a scheme to support future development. For the first
point, this could involve benchmarking the existing AOA against rules applied at other
major international airports, such as the FAAs 65 to 70 dB CNEL noise insulation area
and the requirement to reduce the interior noise by at least 5dB if it is above 45dB.
26 Any initiative would need to be voluntary as it would be outside of the current regulatory environment.
53
P2338D003 48
10 Noise Complaints
10.1 Introduction
This section investigates the process for managing complaints about aircraft noise .
Complaints have been researched in three areas:
•Complaints process – how complaints are submitted.
•Complaints policy – how the complaints are handled.
•Complaints reporting - how complaints are reported upon and analysed.
10.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Complaints process
Sixteen of the 26 airports researched were found to accept noise complaints from the
public. Most complaints are handled by the airport, but it is not unusual for complaints to
be handled by other organisations such as local government, an airport committee, the
regulator, air navigation service provider or an ombudsman. The method by which
complaints were submitted and the type of information requested is summarised below:
•Submission of complaints: Airports provide different options for communities to
submit complaints to account for different demographics. Online forms (17 airports),
by phone (16 airports) and dedicated online tools (10 airports) were the most
prevalent methods available, along with other traditional methods such as email and
letter.
•Information requested: Half of the airports researched accepted complaints
regarding specific aircraft, typically via online flight tracking tools such as the WebTrak
system used at Toronto Pearson, or by requesting information in the online complaints
form. When complaining about an individual aircraft, online tools allow the
complainant to select the aircraft in question on a map and register a complaint. This
also makes the investigation of complaints by an airport more efficient.
Complaints policy
Half of the airports researched provided some information on how complaints were
handled – either as a standalone policy or as part of the informati on published on how to
make a complaint. The amount of information provided varied between airport but
included information such as the different ways to make a complaint, the conditions under
which a response would be provided to the complainant, target response times and
specific policies on communication with high frequency complainants.
Elements of the various complaint policies identified by the research are summarised in
Table 24. Examples of such material from other airports is provided in Annex C.
54
P2338D003 49
Element Summary
How to make a complaint
Explanation of how to make a complaint (e.g. online forms, by phone, online tracking
tool) and the necessary details (e.g. phone numbers for the Noise Management
Office).
Information required to make a
thorough investigation
If a complaint was being made against a specific aircraft, the information required to
make a thorough investigation.
Complaints that airport cannot
respond to For example, aircraft not using the airport.
Complaints handling and use of
personal data
How complaints are registered and the receipt of the complaint is acknowledged.
Also, statements regarding how any personal information will be treated confidentially
are included.
Investigation of complaints
How the complaint is investigated. For example, San Francisco, Sydney27 and
Vancouver explain the airport’s noise and tracking keeping system is used by staff to
make their investigations. The Sydney complaints policy clearly states they types of
investigations that can take place.
Responding to complaints
For example:
•If a response is always provided, provided on request or only provided if
appropriate. Some airports also specify target response times for complaints (see
Table 26).
•If written or verbal responses are provided. Additionally, San Francisco also
provides responses to complaints via Community Round Table events (see the
Community Outreach section).
•The type of information typically provided by the airport in response to a
complaint. For example, information explaining flight procedures and information
derived from the airport’s noise and track keeping system showing maps of flight
paths near the complainant and details of the flight against which the complaint
was made.
•How the airport will address complaints from high frequency complainants.
•How abusive complaints will be addressed.
Further information on responding to complaints can be found in Table 25.
What happens to complaints
Information on if/how the complaints are reported upon publicly and used to improve
the noise environment – for example (i) used to identify trends and (ii) reviewed by
community forums.
Violation of regulations or
procedures
Canadian airports highlight that if there has been a violation of Canadian Aviation
Regulations or the published Noise Abatement Procedures, this will be passed to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation Enforcement for further investigation.
Other
Airports that receive a high-volume of complaints tend to have more detailed policies.
Examples include:
•Resolving complaints: The Sydney policy states what criteria need to be met for a
complaint to be considered resolved.
•If the complainant is not satisfied with the response: Very little information was
found on how a complaint can be escalated if the complainant is dissatisfied with
the investigation. The exception is Sydney where the complaint can be escalated
to the Australian Noise Ombudsman.
•Time window to submit complaints: Complaints against Amsterdam Schiphol can
only be accepted within 10 days of the event.
•Submission of multiple complaints: At Heathrow, where complaints are made
about multiple aircraft events within one email/complaint form, only one complaint
will be recorded.
•Provision of extensive data: Both Heathrow and Gatwick state that they will not
undertake extensive data gathering exercises for individual complaints.
•Visits to the airport: At Heathrow, if thought to be beneficial for the complainant,
an invitation to visit the airport will be made.
Table 24: Elements of complaint policies identified by the research
55
P2338D003 50
Best practice is to respond to complaints and provide information to the complainant.
Typical practices are as follows.
Type of complaint/
complainant
Example practices
First complaint
Airports will typically provide a response to the first complaint. At
some airports this will be accompanied by information explaining the
operation of the airport, noise activities and where to find further
information.
Subsequent complaints
For subsequent complaints, typical practice is to continue providing
information until no new information is available. For example, the
Sydney complaints process states ‘If you have contacted us
previously and received a response, we may not respond further if
there is not additional information that we can reasonably provide’.
If no further information is available, best practice at some airports is
to inform the complainant accordingly.
High frequency complainants
Several airports receive a high proportion of their complaints from a
small number of complainants (see Figure 21). Gatwick and Heathrow
have specific entries on how the airport will respond to this group of
complainants. For example, the Gatwick policy states ‘Where we have
repeatedly explained the policies and noise measures which affect a
complainant’s postcode area and previously supplied sufficient
information to the extent that we are unable to further enhance
understanding, we will notify the complainant of our intention only to
register - rather than to respond to – all future complaints’.
Abusive complaints
Heathrow and Gatwick state that they will not respond to any
complaints made that are of an abusive or threatening nature or
containing obscene language. It is also stated that any such
complaints may be referred to the Police for investigation.
Table 25: Examples of how airports respond to complaints
Airport Response time
San Francisco 1 day (for call backs)
Calgary, Frankfurt 3 days
Heathrow 5 days28
Amsterdam 7 days29
Sydney 21 days
Table 26: Example target response times stated in airport complaint policies
27 Complaints made against Sydney Airport are managed by the Australian Air Traffic Control provider, Airservices.
28 The Heathrow complaints policy states that ‘If further investigation is required we will acknowledge the
complaint within this timeframe and inform the complainant when we expect to be able to fully respond to their
enquiry’.
29 Amsterdam Schiphol airport’s target response time was 7 days, however, if this timescale was unachievable,
complainants would be notified.
56
P2338D003 51
Figure 21: Number of complaints and complainants for selected airports per annum30
Complaints reporting
Most of the airports researched publicly report on noise complaints. The methods of
reporting and level of additional detail provided var y significantly. Where reporting of noise
complaints occurs, one or more of the examples shown in Table 27 are used:
Method Summary
Traditional noise reports
Eleven airports reported on complaints either on a
monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Complaints data
reported included total complaints, reasons, geographic
distribution, complainants and times of day.
Online reporting
Three airports reported complaints statistics on
dedicated web pages or websites. Heathrow airport
makes the number of complaints registered each day
available.
Interactive online platforms
Gatwick has an interactive platform for complaints
reporting. Complaints are presented on a map of the
airport locale together with number of complaints
received by postcode (ZIP code). Users can obtain more
specific information about a particular postcode by
selecting it (see below for more information).
Table 27: Typical methods of publicly reporting on noise complaints
Best practice was for airports to further segment complaints in order to identify common
causes and patterns. Examples identified included:
•Reporting on complaints and complainants: For example, Vancouver airport
reports separately on both complaints and complainants. This information is also
segmented by district.
•Segmentation of complaints and explanation of causes: Sydney segments
complaints into reasons such as aircraft height, runway choice etc (see Figure 22). It
also provides a quarterly commentary of changes in complainants, the main issues
raised and associated explanations.
30 In addition, Chicago and San Francisco receive a high proportion of their complaints from a small number of
complainants (e.g. in June 2016, San Francisco received 79,307 complaints from 437 Palo Alto residents).
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Vancouver
Toronto
Calgary
Montreal
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Chicago O'Hare
John Wayne (SNA)
Sydney
Amsterdam
Heathrow
Gatwick
number of complaints/complainantsAirports (that report on complaints)Number of complaints and complainants at different airports in the study
complainants (where data is available)complaints
57
P2338D003 52
•User defined segmentation of complaints: At Gatwick complaints can be
investigated by postcode (ZIP code). Information available includes number of
complainants, complaints per aircraft type/number of engines, complaints by hour and
complaints by reason.
Figure 22: Segmentation of noise complaints at Sydney airport
10.3 Toronto Pearson today
Complaints process
Complaints can be submitted using the following methods:
Method Summary
Online form
Complainants are asked to specify the date, time, aircraft
type (jet, propeller etc), operation (arrival, departure etc) and
event type (too loud, too late, too frequent etc).
Complainants can also state how they wish to be contacted.
WebTrak (online flight tracking tool)
When an aircraft is selected on the WebTrak tool, users can
choose to register a complaint. They are directed to the
online form which has much of the required information pre-
populated.
Phone The phone service is available from 8am to 5pm, Monday to
Friday.
Table 28: Methods of submitting complaints to Toronto Pearson
Complaints policy
Complaints are registered and analysed using the airport’s flight tracking system records
and reports from noise monitoring systems. Complaints are responded to on request and
can only be registered if correlated to a specific aircraft.
Complaints reporting
Complaints are reported at the GTAA community forum, CENAC, through a standing
agenda item (noise statistics updates). Compla ints and complainants are tracked monthly
and segmented by Federal Sortation Area, Federal electoral district, by runway and hours
when the night-time preferential runway scheme is in operation.
58
P2338D003 53
10.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Focus the complaints handling process on enabling tangible actions to address the
causes of noise complaints from the community.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NC1 Appoint points of contact in NAV CANADA and the main Toronto-based airlines to
support the day-to-day investigation of complaints.
NC2 Publish an updated noise complaints policy.
NC3 Implement a quarterly review of complaints with the objective of understanding any
patterns in complaints and identifying follow-up actions to address them.
Table 29: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise complaints
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
• Appointing NAV CANADA and airline representatives to support the day-to-day
investigation of complaints: The day-to-day investigation of complaints should be
supported through closer working with operational staff in NAV CANADA and the main
Toronto-based airlines. This will add greater understanding to complai nt responses
and will support GTAA responding to complaints quickly with full information regarding
the event. Where there was a clear operational breach, GTAA could respond outlining
the measures they would take with NAV CANADA and the airline concerned to
prevent future occurrences. If there was a good operational reason for the noise
event, e.g. a flight safety issue, or an emergency, this could be conveyed to the
complainant. It will also provide a communication channel for awareness of common
issues to be fed back to pilots and controllers.
• Publish an updated noise complaints policy: GTAA already has several elements
of the complaints policies identified across the airports researched. These should be
formalised and published in a complaints policy on the noise complaints page of the
GTAA website. Using a combination of new material and material already published
on the GTAA website, this should include (i) how to make a complaint, (ii) the
information required for GTAA to make a thorough investigation of the complaint, (iii)
complaints handling and use of personal data, (iv) how complaints are investigated,
(v) how complaints will be responded to (including the type of information the airport
will typically provide, what happens when no new information can be provided and
how the airport responds to frequency complainants) and (vi) an explanation of how
complaints are reported and used to investigate improvements to the noise
environment.
Discussions with GTAA identified areas where staff could be used more efficiently in
resolving complaints. For example, the additional time taken to classify and investigate
multiple complaints submitted on a single complaint form. At the same time, some
individuals collect and submit complaints on behalf of their commu nity. Any new policy
will need to balance (i) giving the community as much flexibility as possible in the way
they register genuine complaints about aircraft noise, with (ii) the benefits of the
deeper analysis of individual complaints that could be undert aken if GTAA staff could
process complaints more efficiently through a more standardised complaints
submission process.
59
P2338D003 54
• Quarterly review of complaints: Where practicable, there needs to be a visible link
between noise complaints and tangible actions to improve the noise environment. The
information requested by GTAA in its noise complaints forms (e.g. time, type of
operation, type of aircraft, reason for complaint) already provides a considerable
amount of detail for the analysis of complaints. In addition to the day-to-day review of
individual complaints, it is proposed that GTAA have a structured process to review all
complaints submitted each quarter. The objective will be to identify and understand
any patterns in complaints, identify any practicable follow-up actions and explain these
to the public. This could include reviews with communities, follow-up with airlines or
further investigations. Summary material should be published on the noise complaints
page of the GTAA website. A possible process for the above is summarised in Figure
23:
Figure 23: Proposed process for reviewing all complaints submitted in a quarter
•GTAA
•NAV CANADA
•Toronto based airlines
Day-to-day review of
individual complaints
Review of all complaints
submitted in a quarter
Follow-up
investigations
Identification of
tangible actions
Quarterly reporting
and review
•GTAA community forum
•Specific communities (as
required)
•Publication of a complaints
summary on the GTAA website
•Sharp increase in complaints
•Change in pattern of complaints
Identification of
possible issues
60
P2338D003 55
11 Community outreach
11.1 Introduction
This area of research investigates activities undertaken by airports to engage with local
communities on aircraft noise. In particular, it investigated structures and processes of
community engagement committees similar to CENAC.
11.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the best practices identified are included in this section. More detail,
including case studies, is included in Annex C.
Existence of community forums
Fourteen of the 26 airports researched publicly reported on having a dedicated community
engagement forum. Of the remainder, 4 airports have undertaken ad-hoc community
engagement activities. This includes the creation of panels to undertake consultation s,
studies and provide information.
Membership
A summary of membership practices at other community forums is given in Table 30.
Element Summary
Chairmanship
Over half of the community forums identified were not chaired by the
airport. Instead there was an independent chairperson, either an elected
representative or an independent person.
Industry membership
All the forums included representatives from the airport, air traffic control
provider and the regulator. There were also examples of members from
relevant government departments or regional councils.
Community membership
The local community was represented either by elected officials
(councillors or members of parliament), community representatives or a
combination of both. If community members were involved they
represented a local area. Information on the selection of community
representatives could only be found for Gatwick where a consensus
agreement was reached between the 14 local noise lobby groups to
occupy 4 spaces on the Noise Management Board.
Number of members
The community forums researched typically had up to 20 members,
although those at Frankfurt and Chicago have approximately 60
members. To manage this size of forum, the Frankfurt group also has a 3-
person board of directors and a steering committee to decide the work of
the forum.
Term of membership
Terms of references from 5 forums provided prescriptive durations of
between 2 and 4 years before an individual required re-election/re-
nomination. The Gatwick Noise Management Board also limits the
duration of membership to a maximum of 2 terms. The majority of airports
researched allowed the named organisations to select a primary and
alternate representative.
Capabilities of members
None of the terms of reference researched applied criteria for the
seniority of forum representatives but did provide guidelines on the ability
of the individual to make decisions on behalf of the organisation they
represented. The members of industry organisation ranged in seniority
from senior managers to directors.
Table 30: Summary of membership practices at other community forums
61
P2338D003 56
Terms of Reference
A summary of terms of reference at other community forums is given in Table 31.
Element Summary
Advisory status All groups held an advisory status - they could make recommendations
but not mandate enforcement or apply penalties.
Governance
Some of the community forums researched are not directly run by the
airport. For example, the San Francisco Airport/Community Round Table
is a voluntary committee, the Chicago O’Hare Noise Compatibility
Commission (ONCC) is an inter-governmental agency and the Gatwick
Noise Management Board has an independent Chairperson to work
closely with both the community and industry, and as necessary, arbitrate
between the two. Gatwick facilitates the Noise Management Board, with
an independent secretariat and third party providing technical support. An
additional independent consultant, paid by the airport, advises the
community members.
Executive committee The Frankfurt community forum has a 3-person board of directors and a
steering committee to decide the work of the forum.
Dedicated workplan
Eight of the 14 airports with community forums maintained a dedicated
workplan. This enabled the forum to have a more pro-active role in noise
management. The remaining six focused on reviewing the work
undertaken by the airport.
Working groups
Five of the 14 airports with community forums operated regular sub-
groups to manage specific tasks. All groups held the power to create ad-
hoc subgroups.
Participation of members of
the public (i.e. non-forum
members)
Eight of the airports with community forums have meetings that are open
to the public in some form (i.e. non-forum members). Typically, this takes
the form of a dedicated agenda item for public involvement. One example
of full public participation was found and two other airports only allowed
members of the public to observe the forum (with one of these having a
dedicated public session once a year). Public involvement is often subject
to a number of conditions including a time limit (typically 2 -3 minutes per
speaker), limits on issues that can be discussed (often items on the
meeting agenda only) and rules about the use of abusive language. The
other airports identified as having community forums were found not to be
open to the public. For these forums, public concerns were raised via
nominated community representatives.
Frequency
Meetings are typically held every 2 to 3 months with formal minutes
published alongside documentation from the meeting, such as
presentations or progress reports.
Meeting arrangements
The airport is typically responsible for the management, coordination and
facilitation of meetings, and usually provides resource, be that financial or
technical support.
Table 31: Summary of terms of reference at other community forums
Activities and successes
Examples of activities community forums at Chicago O’Hare, London Gatwick, Los
Angeles (LAX), and San Francisco have undertaken are given below. It is noted that these
forums all have some form of work programme:
•Fly Quiet programmes: The San Francisco and Chicago O’Hare community
roundtables have supported the introduction of Fly Quiet noise management
programmes. Both groups continue to monitor compliance with the programme.
•A320 retrofit: Forums at Chicago O’Hare, LAX and San Francisco jointly engaged
with United Airlines to retrofit A320 family aircraft to reduce the ‘whine’ generated on
approach by these aircraft.
62
P2338D003 57
•Overseeing the implementation of an independent arrivals review: The Gatwick
Noise Management board (NMB) has the task of overseeing the implementation of 22
recommendations from a review of arriving aircraft. A year since the publication of the
review, 11 recommendations have been completed.
•Night-time operations: Amongst others, the LAX community roundtable worked to
increase the altitude of arriving aircraft between midnight and 0630.
Additional community outreach practices
•Sydney airport has a community committee and has previously undertaken direct and
deliberate community engagement using the following method s: websites, phone
calls, emails, adverts, FAQ sessions, community and stakeholder meetings, door to
door visits and sent brochures to over 100,000 residences.
•The Chicago O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) has a mobile
community engagement vehicle which travels to community events, festivals, schools,
and libraries throughout the year. The vehicle has video presentations and computer
demonstrations that explain, among other things, the O'Hare Airport Noise
Management System and noise profiles of different types of aircraft.
11.3 Toronto Pearson today
As part of its airport ground lease, the operator of Toronto Pearson is required to have a
community engagement forum. As a result, GTAA formed the Community Environment
and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC) in 1996.
Membership
CENAC is chaired by the airport and comprises:
•Citizens and/or elected officials: This comprises 13 voting members representing 6
areas. Representatives are a combination of elected officials, resident s and other
appointments at the discretion of the local council.
•Technical members: Representatives from Transport Canada, the airlines, staff
representatives, province of Ontario, GTAA and other technical support as required
(e.g. an acoustician)
Terms of reference
CENAC has an advisory role and will make recommendations to the GTAA Chief
Executive Officer on topics concerning noise and environmental impact. This includes
advising on, but not limited to the following topics31:
•Aircraft operation procedures impacting aircraft noise in Toronto Pearson’s Airport
Operating Area (AOA).
•The examination of alternatives for noise mitigation.
•The enforcement of aircraft noise violations.
•Municipal land use within the GTAA AOA.
•The review of the GTAA’s environmental programmes and adherence to ISO targets.
31 CENAC Terms of Reference, April 2015.
63
P2338D003 58
•The examination of potential environmentally sensitive measures at Toronto Pearson.
GTAA coordinate, facilitate and produce documentation including reports and statistics to
support CENAC public meetings which take place 4 to 5 times per annum. As required,
CENAC can appoint ad-hoc sub-committees to deal with issues as they arise . A recent
example was an ad-hoc sub-committee to determine the locations for future noise
monitors. This included both GTAA staff and community membe rs.
Meetings and activities
CENAC meets approximately 4 to 5 times per year. Each meeting has a closed committee
meeting followed by an open public session. The meeting has a standing noise statistics
update agenda item, which primarily covers noise complaints, enforcement investigations
and trial updates. Updates are provided on several topics such as night flights, noise
mitigation initiatives and runway rehabilitation.
CENAC accomplishments include influencing a cargo company to accelerate the adoption
of quieter aircraft, the development of Toronto Pearson’s first Noise Management Action
Plan, supporting the 2013 Air Quality study and conducting a review of the noise
monitoring terminal locations resulting in the addition of eight new noise monitors.
Members represent the Committee at outreach sessions, including consultations
associated with the current noise mitigation studies.
11.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Enhance community engagement by focusing the work of CENAC on addressing
community concerns about aircraft noise. In doing so, ensure the wider community
(non-CENAC members) is involved in identifying and resolving the concerns.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
CENAC1
Enhance community engagement by focussing the work of CENAC on
addressing community concerns about aircraft noise through an annual work
programme.
CENAC2
Ensure the wider community (non-CENAC members) is involved in
identifying and resolving the concerns to be addressed by the annual work
programme.
CENAC3 Consider if increasing the independence of CENAC from GTAA would
enhance community engagement.
Table 32: Potential new programmes and initiatives for the community forum
The overall aim of the above initiatives is to ensure that, while people will continue to be
overflown and dislike aviation noise, CENAC is a truly representative body where all public
concerns can be raised and turned into tangible actions to improve the noise environmen t:
•Annual work programme focused on community concerns: Many community
forums have a dedicated work programme to enable them to be more active in noise
matters. CENAC should develop its own noise work programme and directly link it to
community concerns. A considerable amount of forum activity will be orientated
around the work programme and understanding/resolving issues. As required,
permanent or ad-hoc working groups could be established to deal with specific
matters in the work programme such as identifying solutions to address
64
P2338D003 59
concentrations of noise complaints and monitoring the implementation of the
recommendations from the NAV CANADA airspace study.
•Wider community (non-member) involvement: It should be ensured that the wider
community (presently non-CENAC members) is involved in identifying and resolving
the concerns to be addressed in by the annual work programme. This could be
achieved, for example, by giving the community members of CENAC a wider role in
engagement with their communities or by expanding the membership to increase the
representativeness of participants. This could be structured around meetings in their
local communities (i) pre-CENAC meetings to identify concerns, and (ii) post-CENAC
meetings to report back on what action is being taken to help . To be truly successful in
achieving this aim, CENAC and the community noise groups in the Toronto area (e.g.
T.A.N.G.) will also need to be actively engaged with one another. It is also noted that
some airports have established new forums when there has been a need to increase
the level of involvement from communities or where the existing forum has not been
perceived as effective or representative.
•Increasing the independence of CENAC from GTAA: Over half of the community
forums identified by the research are not chaired by the airport, while others operate
with a degree of independence from the airport. For example, the San Francisco
Airport/Community Round Table is a voluntary committee and the Chicago O’Hare
Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) is an inter-governmental agency. At
Gatwick, the Noise Management Board has an independent Chairperson who works
closely with both the community and industry, and as necessary , arbitrates between
the two. Gatwick facilitates the Noise Management Board, with an independent
secretariat and third party providing technical support. An additional independent
consultant, paid by the airport, advises the community members. Accordingly, GTAA
should consider if giving CENAC more independence would support one of the aims
in the terms of reference of this study of enhancing community engagement. It is
emphasised that in all the examples cited above, both the airport and other industry
stakeholders maintain a strong involvement in the forum and a commitment to
progress agreed actions.
An indicative structure for the forum, taking account of the proposals above , is shown in
Figure 24. This includes working groups to deal with specific matters relating to the work
programme and the suggestion for an executive of one community and one industry
member to work closely with the Chairman.
65
P2338D003 60
Figure 24: Indicative structure for the community forum
Independent Chair
Executive
Working groups
WG1
WG2
Ad-hoc 1
Ad-hoc 2
Technical support
•1 community member
•1 industry member
Membership •Members meet with their
local communities pre/post
community meetings
Work
programme
66
P2338D003 61
12 Independent noise ombudsman
12.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated the existence and responsibilities of noise ombudsmen
- an independent body or person responsible for oversight and intervention in noise
activities.
12.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the findings of the research is presented below. More detail, including case
studies, is provided in Annex C.
Presence of a noise ombudsman
Three of the countries researched have an established noise ombudsman or mediation
services - Australia, Belgium and the United States. In addition, an Independent
Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) has been proposed in the United Kingdom
following the Airports Commission review into future aviation capacity.
Roles and responsibilities of the noise ombudsman
Typical responsibilities of noise ombudsman include:
• Complaints: Handling of complaints or oversight of the complaints process.
• Community: Review of consultation processes and community concerns related to
aircraft noise.
• Airspace change: More recently, proposals for ICCAN in the UK and proposed
changes to the responsibilities of the ombudsman in the United States, has moved the
emphasis of the role towards involvement in the airspace change process, in
particular community engagement during this process.
• Reviews: Reviews of specific aspects of noise management.
Overview of different noise ombudsman
An overview of each noise ombudsman is given below:
• The Australian Noise Ombudsman (ANO) is funded by the government and has a
public charter. The role of the ombudsman is to review complaints handling, monitor
community consultation processes, monitor the presentation of noise data to the
public and undertake targeted reviews of speci fic aspects of noise management. It
can investigate both civil and military noise complaints and make recommendations to
both Air Services Australia and the Chief of the Air Force. If recommendations are
made, they are initially sent privately with a response required within 60 days. The
recommendations are non-blinding, but are made public alongside a joint press
statement between the ANO and the relevant party outlining the issues and the
relevant response. Progress against agreed recommendations is tracked.
• The Belgium Airport Mediation Service is an independent mediator for handling,
managing and responding to complaints. It is also responsible for collecting and
disseminating information on aircraft trajectories and provides support and mediation.
• The United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Noise Ombudsman was
established in 1996 with a similar role to the Australian noise ombudsman. The
ombudsman is part of the FAA rather than being an independent entity. The role is
67
P2338D003 62
being revised through the FAA Community Accountability act which is currently with
the Senate. If passed it will put more emphasis on the ombudsman liaising with
communities. The proposed revisions include (i) a cting as a liaison between
communities affected by aircraft noise and the FAA Administrator, (ii) monitoring the
impact of the FAAs NEXTGEN (Next Generation Air Transportation System)
programme on communities in the vicinity of airports and (iii) appointing ‘community
ombudsman’ for each FAA region.
• The role of the proposed UK Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise
(ICCAN) is currently being consulted upon by the Department for Transport. The role
is proposed to include (i) involvement in airspace change, (ii) assisting communities in
understanding proposed changes, (iii) reviewing plans and making recommendations
on behalf of communities on airspace/noise changes and (iv) producing best practice
guidelines for noise management and community engagement. It is understood that
current proposals are for ICCAN to have no statutory powers and be a publicly funded
independent part of the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
12.3 Toronto Pearson today
Like many other countries there is no noise ombudsman in Canada.
Transport Canada directs concerns/complaints about aircraft noise to the airport in
question. Airports are expected to have a noise management programme to deal with
aircraft noise and complaints from adjacent communities , as well as a noise management
committee (community forum) similar to CENAC. At major airports, Transport Canada also
provides a representative to the community forum.
There is an emphasis on the noise complaints process and community forum successfully
resolving concerns about aircraft noise. When this does not occur, there is no third party
with a statutory responsibility to arbitrate on the matter 32. Instead individuals/communities
raise the matter with Transport Canada, local politicians and/or to GTAA staff outside of
the noise management office.
12.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
Objective
Consider the need for a designated independent third party to arbitrate where the
community feels a noise issue has not been resolved satisfactorily.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
INO1
GTAA to consider, in addition to the proposals made in this report, the need for a
designated third party to arbitrate in matters where the community feels a noise issue
has not been resolved satisfactorily.
Table 33: Potential new programmes and initiatives for an independent noise ombudsman
The current regulatory environment does not include a formally designated third party to
arbitrate in instances where communities feel a noise complaint/issue has not been
resolved satisfactorily. Ideally, the proposals made in Section 11 above would ensure that
32 By comparison, the Canada Transportation Act authorises the Canadian Transportation Agency to resolve
complaints regarding noise and vibration caused by the construction and operation of railways under its
jurisdiction as well as public passenger service providers.
68
P2338D003 63
all complaints that the community does not believe have been addressed correctly or
completely by the GTAA process, would be addressed directly in the community forum.
Transport Canada, community and industry participation in that potentially independen t
forum would help ensure that a reasoned collective decision can be taken on the merit of
that complaint, and it could either result in a new noise work programme action, or else be
rejected on the basis of a broad agreement.
Nevertheless, it is proposed that GTAA consider, in addition to the proposals made in this
report (on the complaints process, CENAC and the process for trials, plus the joint NAV
CANADA/Canadian Airports Council voluntary airspace change communications and
consultation protocol), if there is a current/future need for a formally designated
independent third party to arbitrate between communi ties and the aviation industry when
noise issues cannot be resolved locally. It is noted that it would not be in the control of
GTAA to implement such a body. It would require discussion with Transport Canada , and
possibly new rules/legislation.
69
P2338D003 64
13 Noise reporting and metrics
13.1 Introduction
This area of research investigated how airpo rts report on aircraft noise from noise
monitors. It concentrates on how noise information is presented to the public.
13.2 Summary of best practice research
A summary of the research is presented below. More detail, including case studies, is
provided in Annex C.
Measurement of aircraft noise
Twenty-two of the 26 airports researched place noise monitors in the vicinity of an airport,
either under flight paths or in noise sensitive areas, to make measurements of aircraft
noise.
Reporting the measurement of aircraft noise
Four main ways of reporting measurements of aircraft noise were identified by the
research – online platforms, reporting of noise monitor data, bespoke noise reports for a
given community and noise contours:
•Online platforms: Twelve of the airports researched had online platforms with all
(except one) providing live and historical noise data. In general, these presented flight
tracking data and the location of noise monitors. As aircraft passed a given monitor,
some form of colour coding was used to visualise the change in noise level s –
typically louder events were presented as being towards the red end of a colour scale,
and quieter events towards the green end (see example of for Copenhagen airport
below).
Figure 25: Copenhagen’s WebTrak system showing a noise event (in red) as registered by a
noise monitor
In addition to live data, online platforms are now starting to summarise noise data in a
given timeframe. For example, Gatwick’s Casper system presents a series of charts
(see Figure 26). These can be manipulated by the user to show a specific timeframe
and/or noise monitor. Sydney airport uses a simple website to report quarterly on
noise monitor data. For a given monitor/community the site provides the hourly
70
P2338D003 65
number of noise events above 70dBA, number of noise events at different dBA levels
and average noise generated by aircraft types.
Figure 26: Graphs of noise monitor data from Gatwick’s Casper system
•Traditional noise reports: Thirteen airports produced traditional ‘print friendly’ noise
reports. These were produced either monthly or annually and typically provided
information on noise monitor data only. They focussed on information such as the
number of single noise events, average and maximum noise levels, and noise
contours. The level of detail in these noise reports varied significantly. For example,
Vancouver airport presented charts on night operations, runway use, run-ups, noise
concerns and noise monitoring data, all with accompanying explanations. This was
particularly useful as it allowed the reader to draw meaningful conclusions from the
information presented. Other airports published a series of automatically generated
charts per noise monitor.
Figure 27: Extract of the noise monitoring data section of Vancouver airport's 2015 noise report33
33 Data on average annual noise levels and average number of noise events is presented
71
P2338D003 66
•Bespoke noise reports: Chicago O’Hare, Heathrow and Sydney place temporary
monitors in local communities and produce bespoke noise reports for that area. These
report on both aircraft tracks and noise levels. For noise, background noise levels,
aircraft noise levels and maximum aircraft noise levels ar e typically reported upon.
Examples from Chicago O’Hare are shown below.
Figure 28: Extract from one of Chicago O'Hare's bespoke noise reports 34
•Noise contours: Some airports also produce noise contours, presenting both
historical and forecast future noise levels (note – noise contours are often produced
by modelling rather than noise monitor data). These are produced for a variety of
reasons – statutory obligations, future planning, assessing the impact of new aircraft
types/operational changes and noise insulation schemes. Similar to noise monitor
data, noise contours usually use traditional noise metrics based upon noise exposure
over a given period of time. The exception is Sydney which includes contours based
upon the number of events above 70dBA (see Figure 29).
34 Data shows the hourly noise levels for the 2-week monitoring period and the total number of measured aircraft
noise events.
72
P2338D003 67
Figure 29: Sydney airport N70 contours for an average day in 1998
Noise metrics
A variety of noise metrics were identified by the research. These are used to report on
single events (e.g. the overflight of an aircraft) and noise exposure (e.g. noise exposure
over a given period of time). The main trends and common issues are summarise d below.
It is noted that the intention of this section is not to critique the use of specific noise
metrics.
•Traditional noise metrics: The majority of airports report noise using traditional
acoustic measures such as decibels. A variety of metrics are us ed to report on aircraft
noise. Some are internationally recognised such a Leq (equivalent sound level of
aircraft noise), while others are national metrics such as the Australian Noise
Exposure Index (ANEI), often based on variations of internationally re cognised
metrics. Traditional noise metrics are often regarded as difficult to understand by the
general public as they are logarithmic and can be difficult to equate to an individual’s
perception of a noise event.
•Number above metrics: Sydney airport reports on the number of aircraft events
(measurements) above 70 decibels (dBA), referred to as the N70 metric. The
advantage of this metric is that it is simple to understand and gives an indication of
how noise would change if traffic increased or decreased . For example, if the number
of flights doubled, the number of events above 70dBA would double – this of course
relies on all things being equal and does not account for changes in traffic mix. A
weakness of this metric is that it treats all events above 70dBA the same. Conversely
it is argued that this does not matter as long as the 70dBA threshold reflects the point
at which aircraft noise becomes an annoyance 35.
•Challenges: As per above, establishing a suitable metric to report on aircraft noise is
challenging. Useful insight into this challenge is provided in a survey of noise attitudes
35 Reference: UK CAA Environmental Research and Consultancy Department
ERCD REPORT 0904, Metrics for Aircraft Noise, 2009.
73
P2338D003 68
published by the UK CAA. One of its aims was to examine whether LAeq was still an
appropriate measure of annoyance to aircraft noise around major airports. The study
found that, compared to other noise indicators, the traditional LAeq metric correlated
best with annoyance with aircraft noise, but the public struggled to understand the
metric. It therefore summarised that ‘there is, therefore merit in considering greater
use of Nx [number above] metrics as supplemental indicators to help portray noise
exposure, but recognising that evidence -based decisions should continue to use
LAeq’36.
13.3 Toronto Pearson today
Reporting measurement of aircraft noise
Toronto Pearson has a WebTrak online tool to present live noise monitor data to users
from each of the 17 noise monitors in the vicinity of the airport. The Leq dB measurements
are displayed at each site and are complimented by a colour scale. The scale ranges from
45dB (green) to 90dB (red). The airport has been working with CENAC to assess
locations for additional temporary noise monitoring terminals.
Figure 30: Noise monitor data presented on Toronto Pearson airport’s WebTrak system
Toronto Pearson uses the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) metric for noise contours. This
contour is recommended by Transport Canada and is used to define the Airport Operating
Area (see the land use planning section).
36 UK CAA survey of noise attitudes 2014: Aircraft, CAP 1506, 2017.
74
P2338D003 69
13.4 Potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursu e
Objective
Focus the use of noise monitor data on gathering information on community concerns
about aircraft noise.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NM1 Ensure that reporting on noise monitor data is understandable to local communities and
is focussed on identifying potential issues and tangible solutions.
Table 34: Potential new programmes and initiatives for noise metrics and reports
The rationale for potential new programmes and initiatives is explained below:
•General: It is common practice to report on data from noise monitors. The challenge
is to present this data in a way that is understandable to communities, leads to the
identification of any issues and, as appropriate , the need for further action. The GTAA
has recently undertaken a review of locations for temporary noise monitoring
terminals. These should be deployed when data is genuinely needed to support the
understanding of issues. Similar to the handling of noise complaints, it should be
ensured that the reporting on noise monitor data is understandable to local
communities and is focussed on identifying potential issues and tangible solutions.
This includes agreeing with communities what outputs and metrics are meaningful to
them, and a standard methodology for analysing noise monitor data
•Understandable outputs: Community requirements for the reporting of noise monitor
data should be identified through the GTAA community forum, CENAC. For example,
maximum noise levels, noisiest aircraft types, noise by time of day, changes in noise
levels, number of measurements above a certain noise level.
•Understandable noise metrics: Similar to the UK CAA survey of noise attitudes
2014 report, it is proposed that a supplementary metric is used alongside traditional
metrics, such as Leq which is reported on the Toronto Pearson WebTrak system. The
supplementary metric could be the N70 metric, or similar, used at Sydney to report the
number of aircraft noise events above 70 decibels.
•Standard methodology for analysing noise monitor data: To aid the identification
of potential issues, GTAA should establish a standard method for analysis noise data.
An example process is shown in Figure 31.
75
P2338D003 70
Figure 31: Example process for analysing data from noise monitors
Noise monitor
data
Comparison with noise levels in
the previous monitoring period
Determine need
for further action
Identify reasons for
change
•Weather/background noise
•Complaints
•Aircraft tracks
•Correlate with aircraft
tracks
Noise complaints
Change
Report
Involvement of
•NAV CANADA
•Toronto based airlines
76
P2338D003 71
14 Summary & grouping of potential new programmes
and initiatives
14.1 Introduction
This section summarises the potential new programmes and initiatives identified in
sections 3 to 13, and groups them into a manageable set of activities. All full list can be
found in Annex B.
14.2 Identification of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA
to pursue
The potential new programmes and initiatives presented in this report have primarily
been developed on the basis of best practices in noise management at other
comparator airports, the existing regulatory environment and operations at Toronto
Pearson, and our best judgement as to which practices could provide a meaningful
benefit to local communities and/or GTAA.
An assessment of the financial costs and resources associated with any potential new
programmes or initiatives was not in the scope of this study .
14.3 Summary of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to
pursue
The potential new programmes and initi atives identified for GTAA to pursue are
summarised below:
•Quieter fleet initiatives: Most of the airports researched have measures to
encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft types in their fleet . It is proposed that
GTAA work with airlines to encourage the use of the quietest fleet possible for a given
operation (e.g. long-haul, short-haul, regional) through a combination of voluntary
initiatives, operating restrictions and, as appropriate, financial mechanisms .
Specifically, this should include, depending on the current/future fleet mix, more
stringent restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types at night (for example Chapter 3
aircraft) and a programme to retrofit A320 family aircraft with wake vortex generators
to reduce the noise generated by this type on approach.
A number of airports in Europe use financial mechanisms, in particular a noise charge
added to the landing/take-off fee, to incentivise airlines to use the quietest aircraft
types possible. The implementation of these mechani sms could take considerable
time and consultation with airlines. Therefore, at this stage, it is proposed that GTAA
establish a programme to determine how financial mechanisms could be used to
incentivise the quietest aircraft types should they be required in the future.
•Night flight restrictions: Over half of the airports researched have a defined night
period where a more stringent set of operating rules is applied compared to the day-
time. The intention of such restrictions is to reflect the need for a quieter airport
operation during those hours where residents in affected local communities could be
expected to be sleeping. Toronto Pearson has such a period; however, compared to
other airports, it starts later, and with few exceptions, is shorter in duration. Therefore,
it is proposed that the current night period is extended. Given that the current night-
flight regime at Toronto Pearson regulated by Transport Canada, in the first instance it
is proposed that GTAA work with industry and community stakeholders to agree to a
separate set of rules in the hours adjacent to the night period.
77
P2338D003 72
Another practice is to manage the night flights in terms of number of take-offs/landings
and overall aircraft noise. Toronto Pearson has an annual night-flight budget, albeit
with a unique practice amongst other airports in this study with night -time movement
limits of increasing in line with annual passenger growth. Assuming the continuation of
this practice, it is proposed that GTAA implement a programme to ensure that the total
amount of noise from aircraft at night does not increase – for example through a night
quota scheme and/or night-time noise contours.
• Runway schemes: Many of the airports researched operate runway sche mes for
noise purposes. Each scheme is broadly intended to provide some form of
predictability of when communities will be overflown, focus aircraft on the least
populated/unpopulated areas and/or share noise amongst those living under the flight
paths This practice is most common at night when traffic levels are lower and the
runways can be operated flexibly. The GTAA operates a night-time preferential
runway scheme from midnight to 0630 each day. The scheme was designed to impact
the fewest residential neighbourhoods. As part of their Noise Mitigation Initiatives
Engagement Plan, GTAA and NAV CANADA are reviewing the existing night -time
preferential runway scheme and exploring opportunities for a summer time weekend
runway alternation scheme. These ideas are still under review and no decisions have
been made. Any permanent changes to how the runways may be used would need to
go through full public consultation before being implemented.
Research shows that it is not possible to provide 100 percent conformanc e with any
runway scheme. For both the current night-time preferential runway scheme, and any
future schemes, it is therefore important that GTAA set stakeholder expectations by
identifying expected levels of conformance. Achievement against these and reas ons
for non-conformance, should be reported regularly.
• Ground and gate operations: It is understood that there are currently limited
complaints about ground noise at Toronto Pearson. Therefore, initiatives have been
proposed to align Toronto Pearson with typical best practice at other airports without
being too onerous. These are to start night-time restrictions for ground running earlier
and monitor compliance, and introduce time restrictions on the use of auxiliary power
units (APUs) while parked at stands equipped with ground power units (GPU) and
preconditioned air (PCA).
• Noise Abatement Procedures: Airports operate noise abatement procedures to
manage the noise generated from aircraft during the approach and departure phases
of flight. Research identified some arrival noise abatement procedures with a proven
noise benefit that could be investigated further by Toronto Pearson – (i) a voluntary
agreement with airlines not to apply reverse thrust at night, (ii) Low Power Low Drag
(LPLD) procedures which reduce noise by safely delaying the extension of flaps and
undercarriage, and (iii) investigating options for Continuous Descent Approaches
(CDA) which reduce noise by limiting the amount of time an aircraft remai ns in level
flight while on approach. As CDAs can be difficult to implement, both in busy traffic
and in terms of achieving limited amounts of level flight, in the first instance it is
expected that they would be implemented at night.
78
P2338D003 73
Given the amount of land dedicated to industrial use around Toronto Pearson , there
could be some merits in investigating if Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 2
(NADP2) provides greater noise benefits to residential communities than NADP1 37.
In addition to procedures, GTAA sh ould ensure co-ordinated activity by all industry
partners on noise activities at Toronto Pearson . This includes (i) forming a single
industry body to be the focal point of the operational, policy and best practice aspects
of all the programmes and initiatives identified in this report (including nominating one
person from each industry stakeholder organisation to be responsible for oversight of
noise related activities at Toronto Pearson), (ii) aligning and spreading best practice
through a document similar to the voluntary industry code of practice developed in the
UK and (iii) developing a standard methodology for future noise related trials.
• Fly Quiet programmes: A small number of airports have Fly Quiet programmes.
These are voluntary initiatives that publicly compare airline performance against a
number of noise related metrics. It is proposed that GTAA establish its own Fly Quiet
programme as one way of encouraging airlines to adopt new quieter aircraft, or fly
existing aircraft in a manner which minimises their noise impact on the communities
surrounding the airport. As a precursor to Fly Quiet, GTAA will need to establish a
mature set of candidate metrics that are accepted by airline and community
stakeholders. This will take time so, in the interim, GTAA could establish a Fly Quiet
programme like that operated at Vancouver.
• Land use planning: Like many of the airports researched, and in accordance with
guidelines set by Transport Canada and outlined in TP1247E Land Use in The Vicinity
of Aerodromes, Toronto Pearson has a defined noise contour within which noise
sensitive land uses (e.g. residential properties) should not be located. Transport
Canada’s guidelines for development of compatible land uses in the areas
surrounding airports use the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF). It is Transport Canada’s
recommendation that areas within a 30 NEF contour or above should not be used for
sensitive land use such as new residential development. Accordingly, Toronto
Pearson has established an Airport Operating Area (AOA) which uses well-defined
natural and manmade boundaries to approximate the 30 NEF contour on the ground.
The Region of Peel, with the cities of Brampton and Mississauga, and the City of
Toronto have included the AOA in their Official Plans and have a pproved associated
policies that limit incompatible land uses within these areas for new developments.
For infill developments, GTAA has worked with local and regional planning authorities
to establish a voluntary compatible future land use plan, including the mitigation of
noise impacts through appropriate building design features as well as ensuring notice
to buyers of potential impacts is given. Additional schemes 38, similar to the Part 15039
airport noise compatibility planning programmes undertaken in th e United States,
could be contemplated.
37 NADP1 and NADP2 are guidance on departure procedures published by the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO). NADP1 is intended to provide noise reduction for noise-sensitive areas in close proximity to
the airport (but provides more for areas more distant from the airport than NADP2). NADP2 provides noise
reduction to areas more distant from the airport (but provides more for areas in close proximity to the airport than
NADP1).
38 Any initiative would need to be voluntary as it would be outside of the current regulatory environment.
39 The Federal Aviation Administration Part 150 (Airport Noise Compatibility study is a voluntary program under
which airport operators can conduct an analysis of noise exposure associated with airport operations, identify land
uses that are incompatible with specified noise levels, and recommend a program of alternatives for mitigating
these impacts or eliminating incompatible land uses.
79
P2338D003 74
The majority of airports researched currently have, or previously had, schemes to
insulate noise sensitive buildings (e.g. residential properties) close to the airport.
These schemes were initiated by national legislation, voluntary actions, airport
development and availability of government funding. Based upon Transport Canada
rules, GTAA is under no obligation to provide noise insulation to buildings within the
AOA, this responsibility is placed on developers. However, as so many of the airports
researched have these schemes, it is proposed that GTAA examine the conditions
under which it may consider a voluntary noise insulation programme. This could
include aligning with practices at other major international airports, changes in flight
paths that extend the NEF 30 noise contour beyond the existing AOA or a scheme to
support future development.
•Noise Complaints: Like most of the airports researched, Toronto Pearson has a
process for handling noise complaints. It is proposed that GTAA focus this on enabling
tangible actions to improve the noise environment. The day-to-day investigation of
complaints and any subsequent follow-up actions should be supported through closer
working with operational staff in NAV CANADA and the main Toronto based airlines.
It is also proposed that, using a combination of new material and material already
published on the GTAA website, GTAA produce a formal policy. T his should include (i)
how to make a complaint, (ii) the information required for GTAA to make a thorough
investigation of the complaint, (iii) complaints handling and use of personal data, (iv)
how complaints are investigated, (v) how complaints will be responded to (including
the type of information the airport will typically provide, what happens when no new
information can be provided and how the airport responds to frequency complainants)
and (vi) an explanation of how complaints are reported and used to investigate
improvements to the noise environment. Any new policy will need to balance giving
the community as much flexibility as possible in the way they register genuine
complaints about aircraft noise, with the benefits of the deeper analysis of individual
complaints that could be undertaken if GTAA staff could process co mplaints more
efficiently through a more standardised complaints submission process.
In addition to the day-to-day review of individual complaints, it is proposed that GTAA
undertake a quarterly review of complaints. The objective will be to identify and
understand any patterns in complaints, identify any practicable follow-up actions and
explain these to the public. A possible process is shown in Figure 32.
80
P2338D003 75
Figure 32: Proposed process for reviewing all complaints submitted in a quarter
•Community outreach: Like many other airports, Toronto Pearson has a community
forum: the Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC). The
overall aim of the initiatives proposed for this area is to ensure that, while people will
continue to be overflown and dislike aviation noise, CENAC is a truly representative
body where all public concerns can be raised and turned into tangi ble actions to
improve the noise environment. This will include CENAC developing its own noise
work programme directly linked to community concerns. A considerable amount of
forum activity will be orientated around the work plan and understanding/resolving
issues.
It should be ensured that the wider community (presently non-CENAC members) is
involved in identifying and resolving the concerns to be addressed in by the annual
work programme. This could be achieved, for example, by giving the community
members of CENAC a wider role in engagement with their communities or by
expanding the membership to increase the representativeness of participants . This
could be structured around meetings in their local communities (i) pre -CENAC
meetings to identify concerns, and (ii) post-CENAC meetings to report back on what
action is being taken to help. To be truly successful in achieving this aim, CENAC and
the community noise groups in the Toronto area (e.g. T.A.N.G.) will also need to be
actively engaged with one another. It is also noted that some airports have established
new community forums when there has been a need to increase the level of
involvement from communities or where the existing forum has not been perceived as
effective or representative.
Over half of the community forums identified by the research are not chaired by the
airport, while others operate with a degree of independence from the airport. For
example, the San Francisco Airport/Community Round Table is a voluntary committee,
and the Chicago O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) is an inter -
governmental agency. At Gatwick, the Noise Management Board has an independent
Chairperson who works closely with both the community and industry, and as
necessary, arbitrates between the two. Gatwick facilitates the Noise Management
Board, with an independent secretariat and third party providing technical support. An
•GTAA
•NAV CANADA
•Toronto based airlines
Day-to-day review of
individual complaints
Review of all complaints
submitted in a quarter
Follow-up
investigations
Identification of
tangible actions
Quarterly reporting
and review
•GTAA community forum
•Specific communities (as
required)
•Publication of a complaints
summary on the GTAA website
•Sharp increase in complaints
•Change in pattern of complaints
Identification of
possible issues
81
P2338D003 76
additional independent consultant, paid by the airport, advises the community
members. Accordingly, GTAA should consider if giving CENAC more independence
would support one of the aims in the terms of reference of this study of enhancing
community engagement. It is emphasised that in all the examples cited above, both
the airport and other industry stakeholders maintain a strong involvement in the forum
and a commitment to progress agreed actions.
An indicative structure for the forum, taking account of the proposals above is shown
in Figure 33. This includes working groups to deal with specific matters relating to the
work programme and the suggestion for an executive of one community and one
industry member to work closely with the Chairman.
Figure 33: Indicative structure for the community forum
•Independent noise ombudsman: A small number of countries researched have a
noise ombudsman, an independent body or person responsible for oversight and
intervention in noise activities. In the current regulatory environment, Transport
Canada places an emphasis on an airports noise complaints process and community
forum successfully resolving concerns about aircraft noise. When this does not occur,
there is no third party with a statutory responsibility to arbitrate on the matter 40.
Instead individuals/communities raise the matter with Transport Canada, local
politicians and/or to GTAA staff outside of the noise management office.
Ideally, the proposals made for CENAC earlier would ensure that all complaints that
the community does not believe have been addressed correctly or completely by the
GTAA process, would be addressed directly in the community forum. Transport
Canada, community and industry participation in that potentially independent forum
would help ensure that a reasoned collective decision can be taken on the merit of
that complaint, and it could either result in a new noise work programme action, or
else be rejected on the basis of a broad agreement. Nevertheless, it is therefore
proposed that GTAA consider if, in addition to the proposals made in this report (and
the joint NAV CANADA/Canadian Airports Council voluntary airspace change
communications and consultation protocol), there is a current/future need for a
formally designated independent third party to arbitrate between com munities and the
40 By comparison, the Canada Transportation Act authorises the Canadian Transportation Agency to resol ve
complaints regarding noise and vibration caused by the construction and operation of railways under its
jurisdiction as well as public passenger service providers.
Independent Chair
Executive
Working groups
WG1
WG2
Ad-hoc 1
Ad-hoc 2
Technical support
•1 community member
•1 industry member
Membership •Members meet with their
local communities pre/post
community meetings
Work
programme
82
P2338D003 77
aviation industry when noise issues cannot be resolved locally. It is noted that it would
not be in the control of GTAA to implement such a body . It would require discussion
with Transport Canada and possibly new rules/legislation.
• Noise reporting and metrics: It is common practice to report on data from noise
monitors. The challenge is to present this data in a way that is understandable to
communities, leads to the identification of any issues and, as appropriate, the need for
further action. GTAA has recently undertaken the review of locations for temporary
noise monitoring terminals. These should be deployed when data is genuinely needed
to support the understanding of issues.
Similar to the handling of noise complaints, it should be ensured that the reporting on
noise monitor data is understandable to local communities and is focussed on
identifying potential issues and tangible solutions. This included agreeing with
communities what outputs and metrics are meaningful to them, and a standard
methodology for analysing noise monitor data (see Figure 34).
Figure 34: Example process for analysing data from noise monitors
14.4 Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to
pursue
The programmes and initiatives summarised above have been grouped into a
manageable set of activities. The groupings are summarised in Figure 35.
Figure 35: Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue –
overview
Noise monitor
data
Comparison with noise levels in
the previous monitoring period
Determine need
for further action
Identify reasons for
change
•Weather/background noise
•Complaints
•Aircraft tracks
•Correlate with aircraft
tracks
Noise complaints
Change
Report
Involvement of
•NAV CANADA
•Toronto based airlines
Structured,
evidence based,
approaches to
enable ongoing
improvement to the
noise environment
Data & reporting
initiatives
Reducing the impact of
aircraft noise
Short-term
Long-term
Community & industry
engagement
Community forum
(CENAC)
Industry
Managing night noise
Short-term
Long-term
Initiatives outside
of the current
regulatory
environment
Examine voluntary
initiatives
83
P2338D003 78
The individual proposals that fall into each of these groupings are shown in Figure 36 (see
the following pages). A summary of each grouping in Figure 36 is as follows:
•Reducing the impact of aircraft noise: This group of activities aims to directly
reduce the impact of aircraft noise – either by reducing the amount of noise generated
by an aircraft, or providing some form of predictable break from aircraft noise through
runway schemes. Short-term activities are either already underway or envisaged to be
achievable/have significant progress made in the next 1-2 years. These are intended
to provide ‘quick wins’ to improve the noise environment. Long -term proposals are
more complex to implement, potentially requiring considerable investigation, new
technology, consultations, trials and changes to existing operational pro cedures.
•Managing night noise: The objectives of these activities are to ensure that the total
amount of noise from aircraft at night does not increase and to extend the time during
which night noise impacts are managed . Again, the short-term activities are intended
to produce some small ‘quick wins’ in the next 1-2 years. The long-term activities are
the main programmes/initiatives aimed at managing night-noise at Toronto Pearson.
These will require considerable consultation with communities, investigat ions and
changes to existing procedures.
•Community & industry engagement: The main objective of these activities is to
enhance community engagement, focus the work of CENAC on addressing
community concerns about aircraft noise and involve the wider community (e.g. non-
CENAC members) in understanding/resolving these concerns. Engagement with
industry partners is another objective to ensure co-ordinated activity by all industry
partners on noise activities at Toronto Pearson.
•Data & reporting initiatives: These activities are aimed at putting structured,
evidence based, approaches in place to address issues and enable ongoing
improvement to the noise environment around Toronto Pearson. They include using
operational data, noise complaints and measurements o f aircraft noise to enable
tangible improvements in the noise environment.
•Examine voluntary initiatives: The objective of this grouping is to examine the need
for voluntary initiatives outside of the current regulatory environment to leverage
improvements in the noise environment. If taken forward, these activities will require
considerable consultation with airlines, Transport Canada and local authorities.
Therefore, the intention is to launch these programmes in the short-term so the
concepts, and the understanding amongst the relevant stakeholders, are mature
enough to progress these activities quickly should they be required in the future.
84
P2338D003 79
Figure 36: Grouping of potential new programmes and initiatives for GTAA to pursue
•Investigate summer time weekend runway alternation
schemes (PR1/PR3)
•Retrofit A320 family aircraft with vortex generators (QF2)
•Investigate lower power low drag operations (NAP2)
•Auxiliary power unit restrictions (GG2)
•Investigate opportunities to use the runways to provide
noise relief during off-peak periods on weekdays (PR2)
•Investigate continuous descent approach operations
(NAP2)
•Investigate if departure procedure NADP2 has benefits of
NADP1 for residential communities (NAP3)
•Investigate night-time preferential runway schemes
(PR1/PR3)
•Voluntary night-time ban on use of reverse thrust (NAP2)
•More stringent restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types at
night (QF1)
•Earlier start time for ground-run restrictions (GG1)
•Extend the period during which night-time noise is
managed (NF1)
•No increase in total night-time noise (NF2)
•Programme to determine how financial mechanisms could be used to incentivise quieter fleets if required in the future (QF3)
•Consider the merits of a voluntary land-use compatibility plan with communities and local authorities (LU1)
•Examine the conditions under which a voluntary noise insulation scheme would be considered (LU2)
•Consider the need for a designated third party to arbitrate where a noise issue has not been resolved satisfactorily (NO1).
•Formal complaints policy (NC2)
•Quarterly review of noise complaints (NC3)
•Focus reporting on aircraft noise on tangible actions (NM1)
•Fly Quiet programme (MR1, MR2)
•Report compliance with preferential runway schemes (PR3)
•Benchmarking noise insulation schemes used at other airports (LUP2)
Reducing the impact of aircraft noise
Managing night noise
•Annual work programme aligned to community concerns
(CENAC1)
•Ensure wider community involvement (CENAC2)
•Consider increasing the independence of CENAC from
GTAA (CENAC3)
•Industry forum with oversight of operational & policy
activities related to noise (NAP1)
•Day-to-day complaints investigation supported by NAV
CANADA/main Toronto airlines (NC1)
•Voluntary industry code of practice (NAP4)
•Standard trials methodology (NAP5)
Community & industry engagement
Data & reporting initiatives
Short-term Long-term
Short-term Long-term
Community forum (CENAC)Industry
Examine voluntary initiatives
85
P2338D003 80
A Questions investigated by the best practice
research
Quieter fleet initiatives
Objective: Identify incentive programmes used at other airports to encourage airlines to
adopt/expedite the purchase of quieter fleets and/or pursue known airframe noise issues
such as those that occur with some A320 family aircraft.
Areas of investigation:
•A320 family: Are/how are other airports incentivising the retrofit of A320 family aircraft with
vortex generators?
•Incentives: What incentive programmes are used at other airports to encourage airlines to
adopt/expedite the purchase of quieter fleets?
•Restrictions: Are/what types of restrictions are placed on the noisiest aircraft types/chapters?
Night flight restrictions
Objective: Identify practices in night-time operating restrictions at other airports.
Areas of investigation:
•Duration: What are the durations of the night-time at comparator airports?
•Types of scheme: What types of night-flight schemes are in place at the comparator
airports?
•Where possible, identify (i) any penalties for non-conformance with night-flight restrictions,
(ii) management of aircraft not scheduled to operate in the night period, but running
later/early into the night period and (iii) annual number of night flights at comparator airports.
Runway schemes
Objective: Identify runway schemes at other airports that are used for the purpose of
providing periods of respite/relief from aircraft noise.
Areas of investigation:
•Day-time: What types of runway schemes are used during the daytime? What is their
purpose/rationale?
•Night-time: As per above but for night-time.
•Reporting: Is adherence reported to the public / how is this reported?
86
P2338D003 81
Ground & gate operations
Objective: Identify practices in noise operating restrictions for aircraft on the ground/at the
gate at other airports.
Areas of investigation:
• Engine run-up restrictions: How many of the comparator airports have engine run-up
restrictions? How do these compare to Toronto in terms of stringency (e.g. time of
day/duration), location (i.e. having specific locations on the airfield (including ground -run
pens)) and reporting?
• APU usage: How many of the comparator airports have restrictions on the amount of time
APUs can be used on stand (on arrival and pre-departure)?
• Other practices: Where possible, identify any other practices (for example, reduced engine
taxi, night-time taxi-routings, monitoring systems).
Noise abatement procedures
Objective: Identify noise abatement procedures applied at other airports.
Areas of investigation:
• Arrivals: What are the types of arrival noise abatement procedures used at other airports?
For example, CDAs (including when used), minimum height requirements, steeper
approaches, use of PBN to avoid populations.
• Departures: What are the types of departure noise abatement procedures used at other
airports? For example, CCOs (including when used), minimum height requirements, use of
NADP1 or 2, maximum lateral deviations from the route centrelines, use of PBN to avoid
populations.
• Other procedures: For example the use of early turns.
• Trials: Where possible, identify any best practices in communicating trials. For example,
goals, monitoring/reporting and implementation.
Fly Quiet programmes
Objective: Determine the benefits and impacts of Fly Quiet scoring and reward
programmes in place at other airports. Note - as few airports have Fly Quiet programmes
we propose to also look more broadly at the type of metrics airports report upon.
Areas of investigation:
• Metrics: What types of metrics are typically monitored and reported upon (publicly) by
airports?
• Reporting: How are such metrics reported to the public (e.g. website, reports
(monthly/quarterly/annual), Fly Quiet programmes, comparison of airline performance)?
• Fly Quiet programmes: For airports with Fly Quiet programmes, identify the details of the
programme (e.g. metrics, how the metrics are collected (e.g. ANOMS), how
reported/frequency, feedback to airlines, incentives/penalties).
• Violations: Identify how violations with NAPs/restrictions are addressed (e.g. penalties/fines).
87
P2338D003 82
Land use planning
Objective: Identify how other airports deal with pressures for residential developments in
areas deemed 'incompatible' due to noise exposure.
Areas of investigation:
• Defining the AOA: How do other airports define the equivalent of the Toronto Airport
Operating Area (AOA)? For example, an area within a defined noise contour.
• Rules within the AOA: What rules apply for development in these areas?
• Noise insulation schemes: What criteria/mitigations are used for noise insulation schemes?
Where possible, identify what criteria/mitigations are used for noise insulation schemes
within the equivalent of the AOA.
• Complaints within the AOA: Where possible, identify how complaints from within the AOA
about aircraft noise are treated? Note – this question will also be investigated under
‘complaints’.
Noise complaints
Objective: Review the noise complaints process/policy at other airports.
Key questions to answer:
• Complaints process: What are the main elements of the complaints process at other leading
airports worldwide?
• Complaints policy: What are the main elements of the complaints policy at other airports?
Investigate how high frequency complainants are engaged.
• Complaints reporting: What reports/media are used to report on the numbers/locations of
complaints?
• Responsibility: How far (and high) from the airport are complaints handled? This is of interest
to GTAA.
• Complaints within the AOA (taken from the land-use planning section): Where possible,
identify how complaints from within the AOA about aircraft noise are treated?
Community outreach
Objective: Identify the best practices, structures and processes of committees similar to
CENAC.
Key questions to answer:
• Existence: Identify existence of committees like CENAC that exist at other airports.
• Governance/membership: Responsible body (e.g. APT, regulator, government),
Chairmanship and typical membership groups (e.g. main aviation stakeholders, local
councils, local resident groups (elected official vs resident representatives ).
• Terms of reference: Broadly identify the remit of the group and working arrangements.
• Activities/successes: Where possible, broadly identify the types of activities that take
place/successes in improving the noise environment around the airport.
• Identify community outreach activities at other airports and compare to Toronto.
88
P2338D003 83
Independent noise ombudsman
Objective: Explore the role of the independent noise ombudsman around the world.
Areas of investigation:
•What are the responsibilities of the noise ombudsman?
•Which countries have a noise ombudsman? Currently thought to be Australia and the United
States, as well as the Independent Aviation Noise Authority proposed by the UK Airports
Commission.
Noise reporting and metrics
Objective: Identify best practices in noise metrics and reporting to reflect the current noise
environment.
Areas of investigation:
•Metrics/measures: What noise metrics/measures do airports use to present noise monitor
data to the community? Judge how meaningful these are to the general public.
•Reporting: How is noise monitoring data reported to the community? Judge how meaningful
these are to the general public.
89
P2338D003 84
B Summary of potential programmes and initiatives
The potential programmes and initiatives identified in sections 3 to 13 are listed below.
Quieter fleet initiatives
Objective
Encourage airlines to use the quietest fleet possible for a given operation (e.g. long -
haul, short-haul, regional) through a combination of voluntary initiatives, operating
restrictions and, as appropriate, financial mechanisms.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
QF1 Investigate more stringent restrictions on the noisiest aircraft types at night.
QF2 Establish a programme to retrofit A320 family aircraft operating to/from Toronto
Pearson with vortex generators.
QF3 Establish a programme to determine how financial mechanisms could be used to
incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft types, should they be required in the future.
Night flight restrictions
Objective
Extend the time over which night noise impacts are managed and ensure that the total
amount of noise from aircraft at night does not increase.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NF1 Extend the period during which night noise impacts on communities are managed.
NF2 Implement a programme to ensure that the total amount of noise from aircraft does not
increase in the night-period/adjacent hours.
Runway schemes
Objective
Continue to investigate opportunities to use the runways at Toronto Pearson to
equitably share, or provide relief from, aircraft noise.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
PR1 Continue to investigate night-time preferential runway schemes and summer time
weekend runway alternation schemes aimed at sharing noise.
PR2 Identify opportunities to use the runways to provide relief from aircraft noise during off-
peak periods on weekdays.
PR3
For current (and any future) runway schemes operated at Toronto Pearson, define
expected levels of conformance, and implement a mechanism for regularly reporting
adherence/reasons for non-adherence.
90
P2338D003 85
Ground and gate operations
Objective
Align ground run and APU procedures at Toronto Pearson with typical practices applied
at other airports.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
GG1 Apply the night-time restrictions for ground running earlier.
GG2 Implement APU restrictions on stands equipped with GPU/PCA.
Noise Abatement Procedures
Objective
Reduce the noise generated by arriving and departing aircraft.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NAP3 Establish an industry group to be the focal point for the operational and policy aspects of
the proposed programmes and initiatives identified in this report.
NAP1
Investigate options for additional low power/low noise procedures such as Continuous
Descent Approaches, Low Power Low Drag operations and a voluntary night -time ban
on the use of reverse thrust to improve the noise environment around Toronto Pearson.
NAP2 Investigate if Noise Abatement Departure Procedure 2 (NADP2) provides greater noise
benefits to residential communities than NADP1.
NAP4 With other industry partners develop a voluntary industry code of practice for noise
abatement procedures at Toronto Pearson.
NAP5 Develop a standard methodology for future trials influencing the noise environment
around Toronto Pearson.
Fly Quiet programmes
Objective
Establish a Fly Quiet programme as one way of encouraging airlines to adopt new
quieter aircraft, or fly existing aircraft in a manner which minimises their noise impact on
the communities surrounding the airport.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
FQ1 As a precursor to a Fly Quiet programme, establish a mature set of metrics that measure
aircraft noise performance.
FQ2 Implement a GTAA ‘Fly Quiet’ programme to compare airline performance across a
number of noise metrics.
91
P2338D003 86
Land use planning
Objective
•GTAA to examine the conditions under which it will undertake voluntary land use
planning activities that go beyond the scope of the current regulatory environm en
stipulated by Transport Canada.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
LU1 In addition to the current (Transport Canada) regulatory environment for land use
planning, GTAA to consider the additional merits of working with local communities and
regional/local authorities to agree to a voluntary compatible future land use plan.
LU2 GTAA to examine the conditions under which it may consider a voluntary noise insulation
programme.
Noise Complaints
Objective
Focus the complaints handling process on enabling tangible actions to address the
causes of noise complaints from the community.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NC1 Appoint points of contact in NAV CANADA and the main Toronto based airlines to support
the day-to-day investigation of complaints.
NC2 Publish an updated noise complaints policy.
NC3 Implement a quarterly review of complaints with the objective of understanding any
patterns in complaints and identifying follow-up actions to address them.
Community outreach
Objective
Enhance community engagement by focusing the work of CENAC on addressing
community concerns about aircraft noise. In doing so, ensure the wider community
(non-CENAC members) is involved in identifying and resolving the concerns.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
CENAC1 Enhance community engagement by focussing the work of CENAC on addressing
community concerns about aircraft noise through an annual work programme.
CENAC2 Ensure the wider community (non-CENAC members) is involved in identifying and
resolving the concerns to be addressed by the annual work programme.
CENAC3 Consider if increasing the independence of CENAC from GTAA would enhance
community engagement.
92
P2338D003 87
Independent noise ombudsman
Objective
Consider the need for a designated independent third party to arbitrate whe re the
community feels a noise issue has not been resolved satisfactorily.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
INO1
GTAA to consider, in addition to the proposals made in this report, the need for a
designated third party to arbitrate where the community feels a noise issue has not
been resolved satisfactorily.
Noise reporting and metrics
Objective
Focus the use of noise monitor data on gathering information on community concerns
about aircraft noise.
Ref Potential new programmes and initiatives
NM1 Ensure that reporting on noise monitor data is understandable to local communities and is
focussed on identifying potential issues and tangible solutions.
93
NOVEMBER 2020
Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
Monthly Operations Summary Report
94
MSP COMPLAINTS NOVEMBER 2020
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS MOST FREQUENT
Total
8,498
Total
183
Hour
9:00 PM (12%)
Operations per Complaint
2.5
New Locations
24
Average Complaints
46
Median Complaints
3
Day
Sunday (1,639)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0
2k
4k
6k
8k
10k
12k
14k
16k
18k
20k
2018 2019 2020
COMPLAINT LOCATIONS
TOP 5 CITIESMINNEAPOLIS
2,916
Complaints
97
Locations
RICHFIELD
1,557
Complaints
10
Locations
INVER GROVE
HEIGHTS
1,145
Complaints
6
Locations
EAGAN
949
Complaints
22
Locations
EDINA
574
Complaints
7
Locations
Locations
1-3
4-5
6-10
11+
Leaflet
95
MSP OPERATIONS NOVEMBER 2020
20,884
Operations
801
Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM - 6:00 AM)
221,084
Year to Date Operations
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0
5k
10k
15k
20k
25k
30k
35k
40k
2018 2019 2020Operations
RUNWAY USE
12L
164712R
2269
30L
3753
30R
2678
35
38
17
65
Arrivals
12L
2033
12R
2000
30L
3138
30R
3242
17
16
Departures
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
N
E
S
W
1-5 MPH
5-10 MPH
10-15 MPH
15-20 MPH
>20 MPH
Calm or variable: 6.39%
TOTAL RUS USAGE
50.4%
NORTH FLOW SOUTH FLOW MIXED FLOW
53%34%2%
CARRIER JET FLEET MIX
49%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
CRJ9
E170
CRJ2
48%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
A321
B738
B739
2%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
B763
MD11
A300
TOP 3 BY CATEGORY96
MSP SOUND MONITORING NOVEMBER 2020
Time Above
TA(x)
46
TA per operation
s
65
268 2
TA
h m
65
5 45
TA
h m
80
1 51
TA
m s
90
0
TA
s
100
Count Above
N(x)
2.54
N per operation
65
53083
N65
5113
N80
45
N90
0
N100
COUNT ABOVE CARRIER JET CONTRIBUTION TIME ABOVE
30%
16092
28%
75 40h m
62%
32913
63%
170 9h m
4%
2040
5%
12 58h m
AIRCRAFT DNL BY SITE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 390
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Three Year Monthly Average Current Month
1 2
3
4
5 6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
DNL
Above Three Year Monthly Average
Below Three Year Monthly Average
Leaflet
97
MSP NOISE ABATEMENT NOVEMBER 2020
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
7
Runway 17 Departures
100%
Compliance Rate
2
Nighttime Departures
EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
3,779
Departures
94.3%
Compliance Rate
97
Departures North of the
Corridor
117
Departures South of the
Corridor
CROSSING-IN-THE-CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
DAY (6AM - 11PM)NIGHT (11PM - 6AM)
CROSSED
757
20.2%
DID NOT
CROSS
2,995
79.8%
CROSSED
18
66.7%
DID NOT
CROSS
9
33.3%
MSP RUNWAY USE SYSTEM (RUS)
ARRIVAL RUS USAGE
62%
TOTAL RUS USAGE
50.4%
DEPARTURE RUS USAGE
39%
Operations
31-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-2,000
2001+
Leaflet
Operations
31-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-2,000
2001+
Leaflet
98
NOTE: RMT 30 was out of service from 11/18/2020 through 11/27/2020.
99
2020 NOC Accomplishments and
2021 NOC Work Plan
Jeff Hart, NOC Co-Chair –Delta Air Lines
Dianne Miller, NOC Co-Chair –City of Eagan
December 7, 2020
Planning, Development and Environment Committee 1
100
NOC Mission •The NOC is an advisory board to bring industry and
community representatives together to make policy
recommendations to the MAC.
•Provide a balanced forum for the discussion and
evaluation of noise impacts around Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport through the following
functions:
•Identify, study, and analyze airport noise issues and
solutions
•Provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC
Planning, Development and Environment Committee and
full Commission regarding airport noise issues
•Monitor compliance with established noise policy at MSP
•Ensure the collection of information and dissemination to
the public.
2101
2020 Accomplishments
•Reporting and Education
-Received ongoing review of MSP monthly operations reports which
include aircraft noise complaints, operations, runway use, noise events,
and compliance with noise abatement procedures.
-Reviewed aviation-related research initiatives from FAA Center of
Excellence/ASCENT, TRB, and other researchers.
-Received an update on the FAA’s efforts to re-evaluate noise
measurement methods at U.S. airports.
-Completed the Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Assessment
-Completed the MSP Complaint Data Assessment.
-Completed the Runways 30L and 30R Departure Operations Report.
-Completed the Runways 12L and 12R Nighttime Arrivals Operations
Report.
•Communication Outreach
-Evaluated citizen input received during quarterly Listening Sessions. Ideas
collected during the Fall Listening Session were documented from
citizens who expressed what they would like the NOC to consider
specifically for its 2020 Work Plan.
-Received updates from MAC on on-going development of the MSP Long-
Term Plan and associated Stakeholder Engagement Program
-Heard from NOC Chief Pilots regarding standard departure
procedures, noise abatement training and missed approach
procedures.
-Reviewed Eagan City Council flight procedure change request response
from FAA. Considered proposed modifications to the request after
investigating the potential impact to noise exposure and airport capacity.
Communicated endorsement of one proposal to MAC Board.
3102
2020 Accomplishments
•Stakeholder Engagement
-Received regular updates from the FAA on Converging Runway
Operations (CRO).
-Received an overview from FAA on the VOR Minimum Operational
Network Project.
-Received a briefing from FAA on the agency’s policy for Community
Involvement in FAA NextGen projects.
-Received a briefing from FAA on the agency’s new Noise Complaint
Initiative.
-Reviewed and adopted Flight Procedure Change Request Guidelines.
-Heard from the MAC Executive Director and CEO, Bryan Ryks, on updates
regarding MSP and the MAC organization.
•2019 Annual Noise Contour Report and Residential Mitigation
Program
-Received a report to review the residential noise mitigation program
implementation status
-Reviewed the MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report. The report noted
that based on the 406,073 total operations at MSP in 2019, the actual 60
dB DNL contour is 29% smaller than the 2007 forecast contour, and the
65 dB DNL contour is 39% smaller.
4103
2021 NOC Work Plan
Residential Noise Mitigation Program
MSP Noise Program Specific Efforts
Continue Review of Public Input
5104
MSP Community Relations Specific Efforts
a)2020 Actual Noise Contour Report and the Consent Decree
Noise Mitigation Program Eligibility
b)MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Assessment
c)MSP Annual Aircraft Noise Complaint Data Assessment
d)Status of FAA Center of Excellence/ASCENT,TRB,and FICAN
Research Initiatives
e)Update on Converging Runway Operations at MSP
f)Update on the MSP Long Term Plan Update and Associated
Stakeholder Engagement
g)Update on the FAA’s Survey to Re -Evaluate Noise
Measurement Methods
h)Minnetonka Monitoring
i)Update on Eagan Request to FAA
j)Guest Speaker:Brian Ryks,MAC Executive Director /CEO
k)MSP Air Service Updates
6105
Action Requested
•Request that the full Commission approve the 2021 MSP Noise
Oversight Committee Work Plan
7106