Noise Abatemet

J

JOhnH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
14,391
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Right Seater
I will be attending our local City Aviation Advisory board tonight. Noise abatement is a big issue and I have a couple of ideas that I wanted to run by you guys before I voice them in public and look stupid in person.

One big stumbling point is that the City actually has no control over the airport because it is Federal. But irate citizens don't want to hear that.

Citizens also don't want to hear that the airport was here first and if they have a problem with noise, they shouldn't have bought near an airport. Of course, I am biased, but arguing doesn't change anything.

Idea one: Place some sort of very visible tower with a huge flag or a light that would indicate to pilots where they are to turn. A sign at the hold-short line could remind pilots when, which direction and at what altitude to turn.

How tall would such a tower have to be and would this be considered an aviation hazard.

Idea two: Ask tower controllers to "remind" pilots that are not following the noise abatement procedures. They could ask them to fly a tighter pattern, turn sooner (or later) etc. I wouldn't suggest they add this dialog for EVERY flight, but when they see someone violating the established (voluntary) noise abatement rules, a reminder might help. We have a lot of flight schools and a lot of students that cannot seem to remember these procedures. After all, students have a whole lot of things to remember as it is. They could even keep a log of tail numbers that they remind to provide to the schools.

I know the city has no authority over the controllers, but is it unreasonable to ask this? I am just trying to come up with ideas to help defuse a rather contentious situation. I live in one of the neighborhoods near the airport and I am reluctant to even let my neighbors know I have an airplane as that would make me the enemy.
 
Give examples of noise abatement procedures from other areas....?
 
JOhnH said:
Idea two: Ask tower controllers to "remind" pilots that are not following the noise abatement procedures. They could ask them to fly a tighter pattern, turn sooner (or later) etc. I wouldn't suggest they add this dialog for EVERY flight, but when they see someone violating the established (voluntary) noise abatement rules, a reminder might help. We have a lot of flight schools and a lot of students that cannot seem to remember these procedures. After all, students have a whole lot of things to remember as it is. They could even keep a log of tail numbers that they remind to provide to the schools.
Click to expand...


How congested is the tower frequency? If you have a lot of students flying around, is it really a good idea to add congestion chastising pilots?

Have you looked at any AOPA resources on this subject?

Can the flight school CFI's drill noise abatement procedures into the students and comply with the procedures themselves?
 
What I have seen the most at airports are signs at the runup area or right before the entrance to the runway, that followed by pamphlets or posters at the FBO. They are also sometimes noted in the A/FD (see KSMO example below). I've never heard a tower remind someone of noise abatement procedures.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/pdfs/sw_158_5MAY2011.pdf
 
The best defense is a good offense. Go in and complain about all of the noise from the multi engine penis extensions offshore boats with their over the transom exhaust systems running up and down the coast. It's a safety issue because it is a distraction when you are trying to preflight the aircraft.

I'm sure you hear them from the airport - right?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The best defense is a good offense. Go in and complain about all of the noise from the multi engine penis extensions offshore boats with their over the transom exhaust systems running up and down the coast. It's a safety issue because it is a distraction when you are trying to preflight the aircraft.

I'm sure you hear them from the airport - right?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it might be tough to hear them over the noise of 95 and rt 1 nearby.... (>-{
 
JOhnH said:
I will be attending our local City Aviation Advisory board tonight. Noise abatement is a big issue and I have a couple of ideas that I wanted to run by you guys before I voice them in public and look stupid in person.

One big stumbling point is that the City actually has no control over the airport because it is Federal. But irate citizens don't want to hear that.

Citizens also don't want to hear that the airport was here first and if they have a problem with noise, they shouldn't have bought near an airport. Of course, I am biased, but arguing doesn't change anything.

Idea one: Place some sort of very visible tower with a huge flag or a light that would indicate to pilots where they are to turn. A sign at the hold-short line could remind pilots when, which direction and at what altitude to turn.

How tall would such a tower have to be and would this be considered an aviation hazard.

Idea two: Ask tower controllers to "remind" pilots that are not following the noise abatement procedures. They could ask them to fly a tighter pattern, turn sooner (or later) etc. I wouldn't suggest they add this dialog for EVERY flight, but when they see someone violating the established (voluntary) noise abatement rules, a reminder might help. We have a lot of flight schools and a lot of students that cannot seem to remember these procedures. After all, students have a whole lot of things to remember as it is. They could even keep a log of tail numbers that they remind to provide to the schools.

I know the city has no authority over the controllers, but is it unreasonable to ask this? I am just trying to come up with ideas to help defuse a rather contentious situation. I live in one of the neighborhoods near the airport and I am reluctant to even let my neighbors know I have an airplane as that would make me the enemy.
Click to expand...

Is the problem that planes are not following the noise abatement after the tower closes? Otherwise it's a matter of having the tower controllers tell the planes when and where to turn inside the class D airspace.
 
We have noise abatement procedures at our airport (KOJC), it's a class-D.

There are signs at the ends of the rwy that say (paraphrasing): "Noise Abatement: No turns below 1600MSL" (TPA is 2100 - so they essentially are saying, don't start any turns below 500AGL). After hours, it's all left-traffic, but during tower operation anything goes.

We do get the occasional complaint, and the 2 FBOs will post those letters. Some are your basic complaints, and some are just people who just don't understand. One letter I saw was from a 'concerned citizen' that was wondering about the low-level flights over an elementary school - it was pretty polite, actually. The FBO wrote back explaining the traffic pattern and minimum altitude regulations, noise abatement, ...

Summers seem worse for complaints since more folks spend time outside and notice it more often, and more planes are flying, and it takes longer to get to TPA, ...
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm guessing it might be tough to hear them over the noise of 95 and rt 1 nearby.... (>-{
Click to expand...

Doubt it. I can hear them from my house a couple miles from the water. But I bet at least one of the people whining about airplane noise owns one. Put them on the defensive.
 
First and foremost, I'm certain that no matter what you do short of closing the airport and limiting area overflight to a minimum of 50,000 ft you will not satisfy most of the complainers. For every objection/problem you "solve" with a procedural change or pilot education effort there will be several new issues raised. I suspect that you are thinking logically about rational responses to the complaints but unfortunately the complaints have their roots in emotional and irrational behavior for which there is no rational/logical relief. Statistically your most effective course of action is to make the opposition so angry they move away (or become incapacitated due to the stress of their own emotions).

But getting back to useless (and very likely unappreciated) practical changes there are some things you can do:

1) Work out a few procedures, patterns and transition routes which put the traffic (especially takeoffs) over the least sensitive areas without concentrating it near any non-pilot residences.

2) Hold a couple meetings with local pilots and tower staff to discuss said routes and procedures.

3) Set up signs at departure points with simple recommendations for noise abatement for that runway.

4) Get all FBOs and flight schools at your airport and at nearby fields on board with the recommendations.

At my home base which is managed by the "Metro Airport Commission" a phone line + answering machine and website was set up to register complaints from area residents. Then someone on the MAC staff actually investigates the complaints to see if they can identify the "culprit" and suggest changes in their flight ops to minimize future complaints. Lacking such a large organization a pilot/controller group might be able to implement some of that, especially the website part. The tower might even be interested in putting in the phone line w/answer machine (seems like I remember someone offering a VOIP voice to email service that might work for this) so they don't have to answer calls from irate neighbors all day.

Of course it's likely that a response line isn't going to pacify your angry neighbors much once they realize their complaints don't result in pilots getting hanged or the airport getting closed but it might help a little by giving them a way to rant.
 
Here's a survey that was used in Madison, WI

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SXWBEadehqfFmHGqOU0ZyQ_3d_3d

By taking a proactive approach by involving the residents in developing solutions you'll find they will tend to be more tolerant of the situation (shades of the Hawthorne experiment http://www.learnmanagement2.com/eltonmayo.htm )

It might be worth it for the airport management to conduct a noise level survey and counter residents' assertions with cold hard facts about the source and magnitude of the ambient noise in their area as well as having a basis for focused efforts on mitigating the problem.
 
Providing kudos and other attention can improve morale in the workplace, especially among workers who start with at least some appreciation of their employment but IME taking surveys and making concessions doesn't do diddly squat WRT quieting/satisfying unhappy airport neighbors.

And here's the most likely response to the survey you linked from a non-pilot airport neighbor who's been complaining about noise:
 

Attachments

  • NoiseSurvey.doc
    327 KB · Views: 30
gismo said:
Providing kudos and other attention can improve morale in the workplace, especially among workers who start with at least some appreciation of their employment but IME taking surveys and making concessions doesn't do diddly squat WRT quieting/satisfying unhappy airport neighbors.

And here's the most likely response to the survey you linked from a non-pilot airport neighbor who's been complaining about noise:
Click to expand...


and so the divisiveness is nutured through inaction...
 
In addition to the signs at the ends of the rwy, the A/FD has this in the Airport Remarks:

>>
Upon takeoff for Rwys 18 and 36 maintain rwy heading until passing
1,600 MSL.
<<

Note: TPA starts at 2,100 MSL.

That's pretty much all there is to our airport's noise abatement program.
 
There is a story (that I have not been able to verify) that a representative from a homeowners association adjacent to ONZ insisted that the airport put up a berm to reduce the noise from aircraft on the runway. The airport started hauling in wholesale quantities of dirt to build said berm. Then the phone rang –
"What are you going to do with all that dirt?"
"Build a berm to block the noise from the runway."
"But that will block my view."
"Your homeowners association asked for the berm."
"What homeowners association?"

Turned out it was just one person who claimed to be a homowners association.

The dirt was hauled away.

Just because there is a complaint, doesn't mean that there is a problem.
 
I have very little tolerance for noise complaints from people that bought near an airport. At least if the airport existed before the current owner bought the house. That's like buying near to a hospital and complaining about the ambulance sirens. We actually had a prick and his wife complain about the helo using the hospital pad. I actually went up and asked the guy and his wife if they somehow failed to notice the 100 year old hospital with a trauma center (that takes up a block) when they bought their house. (I was far more diplomatic) Self-absorbed pricks.

Don't get me wrong, we should try to limit noise as much as feasible with safety, but odds are the airport was there before they were.
 
I second Jesse's feeling on this. The same day the AN-225 came into EWR, my dad was on the phone with a whiner from Elizabeth. FAA gave them his number, although aircraft noise was not one of the responsibilities his position was responsible for. No matter what is done, people will always complain, whether they or the airport came first. Personally, I feel that appeasement only goes so far, and almost sets a precedent to non-aviation types to do all they can to close the airport.
 
JOhnH said:
Idea one: Place some sort of very visible tower with a huge flag or a light that would indicate to pilots where they are to turn. A sign at the hold-short line could remind pilots when, which direction and at what altitude to turn.

How tall would such a tower have to be and would this be considered an aviation hazard.
Click to expand...

South Lake Tahoe (KTVL) has something very similar. They have large arrow north of the airport that indicates when and which direction to turn when departing to the north for noise abatement. Here is a link to Sky Vector where you can read the AFD entry.

http://skyvector.com/airport/TVL/Lake-Tahoe-Airport

Here is a Runwayfinder link that shows the satellite view of the arrow. Zoom out and you get an idea of where it is in relation to the airport

http://runwayfinder.com/?x=-119.99004185199737&y=38.916297541998794&z=18&view=sat
 
Steve said:
and so the divisiveness is nutured through inaction...
Click to expand...
Don.t get me wrong here. I'm all for making an concerted effort to appease the anti airport crowd, I'm just saying one shouldn't expect to sway the opinions of the vocal minority. Probably the most beneficial efforts would be those aimed at the general public and the elected officials extolling the community benefits of the airport. And getting as many pilots as possible to reduce their noise footprint as much as possible can't hurt either.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know how big your airport is or what they have done already but this is the noise abatement page with quite a few links from a fairly busy GA airport.

http://www.centennialairport.com/Noise-FAQ
Click to expand...

I think they should combine the following two statements...

  • 4) Complaints containing threats to aircraft will be reported to the FBI and local authorities.
  • 5) If you would like a return call, be sure to leave your name and telephone number on the recording, and the Noise & Environmental Specialist will return your call as soon as possible.
...into this:


  • 4) If you make complaints containing threats to aircraft, be sure to leave your name and telephone number on the recording, and someone will return your call as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
At my home base which is managed by the "Metro Airport Commission" a phone line + answering machine and website was set up to register complaints from area residents.
Click to expand...

I have heard from numerous sources that KAPA had a "noise hotline" answering machine in the 90s until something interesting happened...

A lawyer pilot filed for release of the taped transcripts every month under FOIA. He took any addresses given and filed "Defective Property" notices against the complainer's houses.

Their property value was instantly cut $10-$20K because those notices are required to be given to any prospective purchaser of the property. They'd be handed a warning that was worded to say, "The airplane noise at this location is so bad, the current owner called the noise hotline 22 times in the month they moved into the home."

The suits and counter-suits had basically just started to hit the Court when a wise Judge "recommended" to the County Commissioners that the answering machine be immediately unplugged and the phone line disconnected, for he didn't feel like having the Arapahoe County Docket filled for years to come with the ridiculous suits that would inevitably ensue due to their lack of foresight.

You gotta hand it to the lawyer, great tactic. "If the airplane noise is so bad here, let me help you make sure the next consumer is protected from your folly. Think of the children!"

I'm not condoning starting a war but there were rumblings in the 90s of KAPA getting draconian Noise Abatement procedures.

Since then, the powers that be have really done a great job with the PR for the airport as a base of jobs and commerce for the County and City of Centennial. There's still a regularly scheduled noise committee meeting.

Oh, that's another common tactic. Form a Committee and request the loudest and most vocal complainer to actually *work* on the problem, and give the committee only the authority to "recommend" solutions. Then ignore or implement as deemed fit.
 
Unless the owner personally lived there before the airport was built their complaints should not be considered. Building an additional runway or expanding it to allow commercial scheduled flights is a little different. When you get a flight briefing they usually include the noise abatement in the notam's.
 
Have only been flying 4-5 years. When I built my current home, I had never given a thought to ever being a pilot. My house is right at a 5 mile final to our airport. An old DC-3 used to come in every night (called him 8:00 Charlie), and if we were in the backyard he would give us a "wing wave". That plane on approach with landing lights blazing and motors growling was an AWESOME sight! My complaint being a non-pilot then was that it'd be nice if he'd come in a little LOWER:lol:
 
John this is a tough one and I understand completely everything that you are dealing with. It is a tough situation and you summed up what you can and can't do. Telling folks the airport was there 20 years before their house was ever built may make you feel good but won't get you anywhere. Telling the neighbors to go pound sand won't help either because then the FBOs, legislatures, FAA and state aviation agecny will get 40 calls a day and they will make life miserable for the pilots.

In my experience noise abatement procedures at least show the airport neighbors that the field is trying to do something. Keep in mind that you will NEVER convince or please everyone. The procedures are VERY easy to follow and really don't add much inconvience at all. For example at my field KLOM the AWOS states the noise abatement procedures Pistons fly a TPA of approx 1200' AGL and Turbines 1400' AGL We also don't fly over the school on approach to 24. Now keep in mind if you are flying over the school you are not at all on final for 24 you are way off but folks think the planes do fly over the field so they put that in the AWOS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top