Benchmarking Heathrow

Operational Noise Abatement

Procedures
Final report

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
Document information

Document title Benchmarking Heathrow Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Author Mike Fairbanks, Alex Goman, Helios
Produced by Helios
29 Hercules Way
Aerospace Boulevard - AeroPark
Farnborough
Hampshire
GU14 6UU
UK
Produced for Katie Norton and Jane Dawes, HAL (Heathrow Airport Limited)
Helios contact Mike Fairbanks
Tel: +44 1252 451 651
Fax: +44 1252 451 652
Email: mike.fairbanks@askhelios.com
Produced under contract P1464 (P/O Ref. PO3612724)
Version V 4 00
th
Date of release 30 March 2012
Document reference P1464D002

P1464D002 HELIOS 1 of 154

Executive Summary
The Heathrow Noise Action plan underlines the importance of establishing a full
understanding of aircraft noise to inform priorities, strategies and targets. In pursuit of this
and in relation to action 5.1 of the Noise Action Plan, HAL (Heathrow Airport Limited)
commissioned a study to benchmark the operational noise abatement procedures specified in
the noise action plan against those used by other airports around the world. This document
reports on the results of this study which is the second of its kind to be commissioned by
Heathrow as part of its commitments to the Noise Action Plan.
A bespoke benchmarking methodology has been developed to establish a set of quantitative
performance scores for 40 airports from around the world, based on a capability scoring
system organised into seven Key Performance Areas (KPAs), namely:

Operating restrictions;

Fleet Monitoring;

Arrivals;

Runway operations;

Ground movements;

Gate operations; and;

Departures.
A wide set of comparator airports of various sizes and regulatory environments are
benchmarked against on the basis of the mechanisms used to manage airport noise at an
operational level. The best performing airports are found to score consistently well across all
KPAs compared with the remainder of the sample set. This initial ranking positions Heathrow
third out of forty after the airports of Amsterdam and Brussels. Other highly ranking airports
include Madrid, Stansted, Toronto, Gatwick, Manchester, Zurich and Chicago.
Little value can be gained from comparing inherently dissimilar airports as they are invariably
subject to different drivers outside their direct control (such as the local community
environment and the type of air traffic they serve). In order to ensure the comparisons made
between Heathrow and the other airports in sample set are as fair as possible a drivers of
difference analysis is performed on the sample set. This analysis results in an appropriate
weighting being given to the benchmarked scores of the comparator airports according to
their inherent similarity or difference to Heathrow in terms of their local regulatory and
physical environment. The structural characteristics such as scale, intensity of operations and
complexity are also taken into account as part of this drivers of difference analysis. As a
result of this analysis comparisons made against Brussels, Gatwick, Zurich, Geneva, Los
Angles, Prague, Barcelona and Oslo become more relevant. The resultant ranking is
summarised in the following exhibit.

P1464D002 HELIOS 2 of 154

While Heathrow performs well against its peers (the majority of the operational procedures
used by other airports to manage noise are either currently in operation or else in train at
Heathrow) there is potential room for improvement in some areas. This is illustrated through a
gap analysis from which specific recommendations on operating restrictions and reporting
procedures are drawn. It should be noted that that these recommendations, listed below
in order of appearance in this report, are drawn solely from a noise perspective and as
such their implementation is subject to a wider feasibility and impact assessment. It is
therefore recommended that Heathrow:

Explore the potential to attach fines to airlines that fail to adhere to the arrivals code of
practice (which is currently voluntary) by examining how similar schemes are
administered by other airports and how compatible introducing such a performance
scheme would be with the local legislative framework (in particular CAA, 2006)
(Recommendation 1);

Publish a clear breakdown of how noise fines relate to particular noise infringements
(Recommendation 2);

Implement a Fly Quiet performance scheme that incorporates a metric associated with
airline fleet noise quality (Recommendation 3);

Appraise noise infringement charges by examining equivalent penalties and fining
methodologies in use around the world (Recommendation 4);

P1464D002 HELIOS 3 of 154


Investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to administer
airspace changes around the world (particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on
volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports (Recommendation
5)1;

In addition to the Fly Quiet scheme construct a framework of league tables to benchmark
airline performance against the noise abatement procedures set out in the UK
aeronautical information publication (AIP) (Recommendation 6);

Reassess the climb out procedure for Heathrow (continuous climb departures [CCD] vs.
cutback), moving to implement definitive guidance in the AIP and benchmark airline
performance against an appropriate metric. This work will need to take due consideration
the ICAO standard Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2
(Recommendation 7);

Implement fines for non-adherence to noise abatement departure routes
(Recommendation 8);

Assess the duration and stringency of flight movement controls in place during the night-
time period relative to other major airports, noting that these periods and restrictions are
defined by the DfT (Department for Transport) (Recommendation 9.1 and 9.2);

Explore various means of reducing noise infringements, noting that departure noise limits
are set by the Department for Transport (Recommendation 9.3). This recommendation
originates from the finding that Heathrow experiences more noise infringements than
other airports of a comparable size; and;

Implement more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) from top of
descent without an extended period of level flight, supported by innovative technologies
and procedures as required. Such supporting technologies could include precision area
navigation (P-RNAV), required navigation performance navigation area navigation
(RNP-RNAV), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) supported segmented
approaches, point-merge, advanced flow management, airborne separation assurance
and arrivals management systems. It is recognised that this should be a long-term aim
and that implementation is a complex issue involving various factors such as the revision
of procedures and removal of stacks (Recommendation 9.4 and 9.5).
From a compilation of supportive case studies it is recommended that HAL consider:

Investigate various quota count (QC) systems used around the world to limit the noise
impact by amount of traffic and aircraft type, paying particular attention to the means of
determining QC value. It should be noted that the DfT is responsible for defining the QC
limits and values in use at UK airports (Recommendation 10.1).

Investigating how compliance with noise abatement restrictions on the airport surface may
be improved (such as those relating to the use of reverse thrust, reduced engine taxi,
auxiliary power units [APU], ground power units [GPU] and engine testing)
(Recommendation 10.2).

Reviewing the course of action followed by various airports against aircraft operators for
persistent breaches of noise preferential routes, including any fines levied, as appropriate
(Recommendation 10.2).

1
Note that other countries may have less formal procedures to administer airspace changes
depending on the traffic density and complexity in a given volume airspace.

P1464D002 HELIOS 4 of 154


How novel procedures such as continuous climb departures, steeper approaches, early
cutback procedures, collaborative decision making (CDM) and local specific noise limits
by aircraft type might reduce noise (Recommendation 10.3).
Research into this comparator set has also provided a list of notable best practices that,
although not directly related to the points of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan, (and so not
actively benchmarked against), remain highly relevant. These recommendations are that
Heathrow:

Review its flight performance reports in relation to similar reports produced by other
airports. In particular this review should consider how Heathrow breaks down and
presents runway utilisation, the causes of track deviations, aircraft noise events, noise
infringements and taxi performance (Recommendation 11.1); and;

Investigate blue sky operational noise abatement procedures and how they might be
monitored (such as segmented approaches and noise performance-based use of APUs
and GPUs) (Recommendation 11.2).

Consider the innovative use of social media and video to educate the public about flight
operations at the airport and current flight performance (Recommendation 11.3).
It must be remembered, however, that the above recommendations are drawn only
from the noise perspective. They do not consider the potential impact their
implementation could have on capacity, safety, connectivity, commercial aspects,
business relations or other environmental drivers (such as emissions output), should
they be implemented. These recommendations must therefore be considered in the context
of Heathrows local operating environment before they are taken further. The next step is
therefore to assess the feasibility of implementing the above recommendations in the broader
context of the Heathrow operating environment. This feasibility assessment should include an
examination of legal and technical barriers through comprehensive PESTLE (Political,
Environmental, Social, Technical, Legal and Economic) analysis. Such an analysis would
enable each recommendation to be assessed as to its suitability, with a roadmap drawn up
to move Heathrow towards best in class through a series of recommended actions and
timelines.

P1464D002 HELIOS 5 of 154

Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10
1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Motivation .................................................................................................................. 10
1.4 Approach ................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 Contents of this report ............................................................................................... 11
2 Approach and methodology ................................................................................... 12
2.1 Analysis framework ................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Data gathering ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Sources used ............................................................................................................ 14
2.2.2 Basis of airport selection ........................................................................................... 15
2.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 16
2.4 List of comparator airports ......................................................................................... 17
3 Basic Results ........................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Benchmarking scores ................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Summary explanation of high level scores................................................................. 21
3.3 Notable other best practices .................................................................................... 21
3.4 Initial ranking ............................................................................................................. 25
3.5 Performance of Heathrow against best in class ....................................................... 28
3.5.1 Gap analysis.............................................................................................................. 28
3.5.2 Analysing the performance of top ranked airports...................................................... 37
4 Normalised results .................................................................................................. 39
4.1 Determining the drivers ............................................................................................. 39
4.2 Establishing a fair comparison ................................................................................... 40
4.3 Weighting the KPI scores .......................................................................................... 40
4.4 Sensitivity testing ....................................................................................................... 45
5 Case studies ............................................................................................................ 48
5.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Case study 1: Brussels Airport .................................................................................. 49
5.2.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 49
5.2.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 51
5.2.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 55
5.3 Case study 2: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport ............................................................... 59
5.3.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 59
5.3.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 61
5.3.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 65
5.4 Case study 3: Manchester Airport.............................................................................. 69

P1464D002 HELIOS 6 of 154

5.4.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 69
5.4.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 71
5.4.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 74
5.5 Case study 4: Zurich Airport ...................................................................................... 76
5.5.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 76
5.5.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 78
5.5.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 82
5.6 Case study 5: London City Airport ............................................................................. 86
5.6.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 86
5.6.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 87
5.6.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 91
5.7 Case study 6: Chicago OHare Airport ....................................................................... 92
5.7.1 General description of the local situation ................................................................... 92
5.7.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures................................................................. 93
5.7.3 Enabling technology and procedures ......................................................................... 95
5.8 Summary and lessons learnt ..................................................................................... 96
6 Summary conclusions and recommendations ...................................................... 98
6.1 High level conclusions ............................................................................................... 98
6.2 Specific recommendations......................................................................................... 98
6.3 A note on communication mechanisms ................................................................... 100
6.4 An important caveat................................................................................................. 100
A Abbreviations and acronyms................................................................................ 101
B Report references .................................................................................................. 103
C Heathrow noise action plan - operational noise performance indicators.......... 104
D Benchmarking references..................................................................................... 108
E KPI Capabilities table ............................................................................................ 134
F Airport KPI scores ................................................................................................. 141
F.1 Operating restrictions .............................................................................................. 141
F.2 Fleet monitoring ....................................................................................................... 145
F.3 Arrivals .................................................................................................................... 147
F.4 Runway operations .................................................................................................. 150
F.5 Ground movements ................................................................................................. 151
F.6 Gate operations ....................................................................................................... 153
F.7 Departures .............................................................................................................. 154

List of figures
Figure 1 Trends in airport noise restrictions [12] ................................................................ 15

P1464D002 HELIOS 7 of 154

Figure 2 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 1 and 2) ............................................... 18
Figure 3 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 3, 4 and 5) ........................................... 19
Figure 4 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 5, 6 and 7) ........................................... 20
Figure 5 Graph ranking airport performance score against benchmarked competitors ....... 27
Figure 6 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA (1.1-1.4) ............ 29
Figure 7 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA (2.1-3.1) ............ 30
Figure 8 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA (3.2-7.2) ............ 31
Figure 9 Scores for inherent and structural drivers of difference across all the airports ...... 44
Figure 10 Influence of the weighting scheme on the scores and ranking of the airports ..... 46
Figure 11 Brussels airport layout [23] ................................................................................. 50
Figure 12 Local noise contours Brussels airport [23] .......................................................... 50
Figure 13 Diagram of runways at Brussels airport and common runway configurations ..... 53
Figure 14 Total arrival/departure at Brussels airport 2010 (2009 comparison in table) ....... 54
Figure 15 Position of the noise monitors around Brussels airport ....................................... 56
Figure 16 Schiphol runway layout ...................................................................................... 60
Figure 17 Schiphol local noise contours ............................................................................. 61
Figure 18 Schiphol Radar tracks of arrivals (red) and departures (blue)............................. 62
Figure 19 Representation of noise preferential runway system at Schiphol Airport ............ 64
Figure 20 Manchester airport noise contours (urban/sub-urban areas shown in pink) ........ 70
Figure 21 Manchester airport noise preferential departure routes ...................................... 70
Figure 22 Schematic of approach and departure routes Manchester airport ...................... 73
Figure 23 Zurich airport noise contours .............................................................................. 77
Figure 24 Zurich airport noise preferential arrival (green) and departure routes (red)......... 77
Figure 25 Zurich airport noise preferential routes ............................................................... 82
Figure 26 Local noise contours London City airport ........................................................... 87
Figure 27 Chicago airport departures (track colour indicates degree of adherence) ........... 93
Figure 28 Chicago airport average day noise events ......................................................... 95

List of tables
Table 1 Procedure and KPA category framework .............................................................. 13
Table 2 List of competence levels for the night time definition KPI ..................................... 16
Table 3 List of comparator airports and locations ............................................................... 17
Table 4 Notable procedures and metrics used by other airports......................................... 25
Table 5 Initial ranking table (not weighted or normalised)................................................... 26
Table 6 Ranking table for KPI 3.2.1, extracted from Annex F ............................................. 35
Table 7 Ranking table for the topped ranked airports. ........................................................ 38
Table 8 Example drivers of differences in procedure.......................................................... 39

P1464D002 HELIOS 8 of 154

Table 9 Driver scoring difference between a given airport and Heathrow ........................... 41
Table 10 Drivers of difference score table for inherent and structural drivers ..................... 43
Table 11 Scores, weighting and ranking for weighted airports .......................................... 45
Table 12 Scores, weighting and ranking for all airports ...................................................... 47
Table 13 The runway configuration scheme at Brussels airport ......................................... 54
Table 14 Environmental category and weighting value Brussels airport ............................. 57
Table 15 Criteria for classification into environmental category Brussels airport ................ 57
Table 16 Determining the day/night factor [D] Brussels Airport .......................................... 57
Table 17 Noise limits for Brussels airport noise zones ....................................................... 58
Table 18 Example arrival peak runway preference order for Schiphol airport ..................... 64
Table 19 Conservative classification of noise categories, Schiphol airport ......................... 68
Table 20 Quota count system at Manchester airport .......................................................... 71
Table 21 Zurich airport runway alternation concepts .......................................................... 80
Table 22 Noise surcharge by aircraft type Zurich airport .................................................... 84
Table 23 Night-time departures Zurich airport .................................................................... 85
Table 24 Night-time arrivals Zurich airport ......................................................................... 85
Table 25 London City hours of operation ........................................................................... 87
Table 26 London City aircraft noise classification ............................................................... 88
Table 27 Restrictions on number aircraft operated at London City ..................................... 89
Table 28 Track deviation classification ............................................................................... 93
Table 29 Chicago airport night-time runway preference ..................................................... 93

P1464D002 HELIOS 9 of 154

1 Introduction
1.1 General

This report has been prepared for the Flight Evaluation Unit (FEU) at Heathrow
Airport by Helios. It is the final report on a study to benchmark Heathrows
operational noise mitigation and abatement procedures.
1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to detail the results of benchmarking the procedures
used by Heathrow in the operational management of noise against other
comparable airports on a global basis. It defines the overall process and
methodology used in the analysis, sets out the operational procedures and
processes being benchmarked, analyses the drivers of difference and presents
conclusions. It also presents the results of five case studies of airports that
perform well in the benchmarking in order for more detailed comparisons to be
made.
1.3 Motivation

This analysis will help to fulfil Heathrows commitment to achieving a full

understanding of aircraft noise to inform priorities, strategies and targets with
reference to action 5.1 of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan [1] which states:
Action: Working with members of the NTKWG (Noise and Track Keeping
Working Group) we will commission research by independent consultants to
benchmark internationally our ranking in airport operational noise management
with other comparable airports in 2011 and 2013. We will publish the summary
results on our website.
Timescale: 2013.
Performance indicator: Benchmarking survey ranking results.
Target/goal: To be considered by independent consultants as the leading major
international airport in operational noise management by 2015.

In addition it also documents global best practice in the Airport industry for
managing noise at an operational level, identifying areas where Heathrow could
potentially develop its current processes and procedures towards best in class.
1.4 Approach

Our approach to this work follows a bespoke benchmarking methodology as

described in section 2. This report details the scores applied to the airports
benchmarked, provides an appropriate justification for the application of that score
(with references as required), and produces an overall ranking for the airports
considered.
Notable best practice that is not directly comparable to the points listed in the
Heathrow Noise Action plan is also noted for information although not used for
active benchmarking. Drivers of difference are determined according to a defined
framework, with a gap analysis performed between Heathrow and the comparator
airports.

P1464D002 HELIOS 10 of 154

1.5 Contents of this report

The remainder of this report is composed of four further sections and six
supporting annexes:

Section 2 approach and methodology;

Section 3 basic results;

Section 4 analysis of drivers and normalised results;

Section 5 case studies;

Section 6 summary and conclusions;

Annex A Abbreviations and Acronyms;

Annex B Report References (as referenced in main body text);

Annex C Heathrow Noise action plan action points;

Annex D Benchmarking references (referenced in section 2 and 3);

Annex E KPI Capabilities table; and;

Annex F Airport KPI scores.

P1464D002 HELIOS 11 of 154

2 Approach and methodology
2.1 Analysis framework

All the procedures to be assessed in this benchmarking exercise have been

categorised according to a three tier Key Performance Area (KPA) framework
(described in Table 1) to ensure a consistent comparison is applied. The primary
category of the framework is divided up into two categories of overarching metrics
(operating restrictions and aircraft fleet monitoring) or phase of flight (arrivals,
departures, gate holding etc.). The secondary and tertiary categories describe
the type of performance metrics used by airports when assessing operational
noise impact (e.g. movement count by day or by night).
Each tertiary category is decomposed into three further levels of classification in
order to benchmark different aspects of a noise abatement procedure, namely its:

Implementation: a category used to classify efforts associated with the
development and implementation of given noise abatement procedure. This
could include efforts by airports to consult with local communities to define a
set of optimal operating procedures to mitigate noise impact, for example.

Definition: Stringency of any definition used in association with a noise
abatement procedure (e.g. the amount of level flight allowed in a continuous
descent approach [CDA]).

Success rate: Compliance with the associated metrics by operational traffic
(as reported on at least a yearly basis through performance reports).
As this study is focused on benchmarking the operational noise management
procedures described in the Heathrow Noise action plan (provided for information
in Annex C and referenced in Table 1) a set of KPAs consistent with the measures
described in this plan have been defined (in Annex F) and referenced (in bold in
Table 1).
For each KPA a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and five-point
competence scale are defined to benchmark the relative level of performance. The
competence framework is effectively a maturity scale that takes into account the
best and worst practices observed during the benchmarking exercise.
This classification framework allows the benchmarking exercise to contextualise
procedures not currently applied at Heathrow but identified in the Heathrow noise
action plan (such as continuous climb departures [CCDs] and precision area radio
navigation [P-RNAV] amongst others).

P1464D002 HELIOS 12 of 154

 Key Performance Area (KPA) Category Noise Action Plan Refs -
Primary Secondary Tertiary benchmark KPAs in bold
Operating Movement count Overall
restrictions Day
Evening
Night 1.2.12; 1.2.19 (KPA 1.1.)
Runway
Noise limits DEN
Day
Evening
Night
Noise monitoring Background noise levels
Aircraft noise levels 1.2.8 (KPA 1.2.)
Feedback, fines and punitive 1.2.6; 1.2.2; 1.2.7 (KPA 1.3)
measures
Contour and population 1.2.17 (KPA 1.4)
exposure
Fleet Differential Noise Overall 1.1.1; 1.1.2 (KPA 2.1)
monitoring charges
Banned types Aircraft types 1.1.3; 1.1.4 (KPA 2.2)
Future aircraft 1.2.16 (KPA 2.3)
Arrivals Noise Abatement CDA 1.2.11; 1.2.5; 1.2.9 (KPA
Procedures (NAPs) 3.1)
Airline adherence to AIP and 1.2.3 (KPA 3.2)
glideslope
LPLD
Defined arrivals routes and
adherence
Reduced flight delay Reduced stacking
Runway Noise Abatement Displaced threshold
Procedures (NAPs) Alternation 1.2.2 (KPA 4.1)
Segregation/mixed mode
Runway use timing restrictions
Ground Noise Abatement Reverse thrust 1.2.4 (KPA 5.1)
movements Procedures (NAPs) Engine test/run-up 1.2.14; 1.2.20 (KPA 5.2)
Start-up delay and on-stand 1.2.18 (KPA 5.3)
operating procedures
(FEGP/GPU/APU)
Reduced-engine taxiing and 1.2.18 (KPA 5.4)
tugging to/from runway
Reduced flight delay Reduced ground holding
Gate Reduced use of noise- Use of fixed electrical ground 1.2.15 (KPA 6.1)
operations generating airport power and pre-conditioned air
equipment
Departures Noise Abatement CCD 1.2.1 (KPA 7.1)
procedures (NAPs) De-rated thrust take offs
Increased take-off gradient
Defined departures routes and 1.2.8 (KPA 7.2)
adherence
Table 1 Procedure and KPA category framework

P1464D002 HELIOS 13 of 154

2.2 Data gathering

2.2.1 Sources used

The sources used in this benchmarking exercise are listed in Annex D. Nearly all
of these sources are drawn from public documents, namely aeronautical
information publications (AIPs), international standards [3], airport websites, online
web tracking software applications, local authority information and
directives/guidance from national governments and regulatory authorities.
Many of the noise-related restrictions in Europe have been developed under the
auspices of European Directives 2002/49/EC Assessment and Management of
Environmental Noise2 and 2002/30/EC Rules and Procedures for Introducing
Noise Related Operating Restrictions. While this latter Directive does not require
action to counter aircraft noise by airports it does establish principles for managing
noise through airport rules, procedures and operating restrictions at airports.
Similar legal instruments have been implemented at a Federal level in the United
States [9] and these sources have been reviewed to understand operating
environment of North American airports from a legal standpoint.
In addition to the Heathrow Noise Action Plan itself various sources have been
used to inform both the framework for this study and the benchmarked capability
levels. In particular this has included the European Commissions Study of
Optimisation procedURes for Decreasing the Impact of NoisE (SOURDINE) [7].
This was a long running study launched in May 2001 with the aim of
understanding perception about aircraft noise, the relationship between noise
levels and annoyance, or sleep disturbance at night, and how they would value
lower noise levels relative to other environmental factors. Other airport operational
noise performance sources have also been consulted as required including
ICAOs review of Noise Abatement Procedure development and implementation
[11] and a recent performance assessment on airport noise charge policies [10].
These studies provided a valuable source of information on airport noise
abatement approach and departure procedures and the impacts of these
mitigation measures on local communities.
Boeings database of Airport Noise and Emissions restrictions has been widely
consulted as a starting point for investigating the KPAs considered in this study. In
particular this database provided a first level indication of the maturity of local
noise management procedures prior to more detailed examination of local
sources. A feature that is immediately striking is the diversity of reporting being
tailored to reflect the particular needs of the local community. Nevertheless various
studies indicate that airports around the world are beginning to impose
progressively tougher noise restrictions [12] as illustrated below.

2
Also known as the European Noise Directive (END). The aim of the END is to define a common
approach across the European Union with the intention of avoiding, preventing or reducing on a
prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental
noise.

P1464D002 HELIOS 14 of 154

 Figure 1 Trends in airport noise restrictions [12]

While many of the larger airports do have a noise monitoring system (an
equivalent to Heathrows airport noise and operational management system
[ANOMS]) the quality of the local reporting varies dramatically. Some airports use
their system to facilitate the creation of highly sophisticated weekly, monthly or
quarterly reports while others only produce sporadic reports on an ad-hoc basis.
Worldwide, reported metrics typically include:

Movement total by runway;

Hourly movement average (broken down by arrivals and departures);

Breakdown of movement by aircraft type/noise classification chapter;

% CDA compliance or track keeping compliance (including instrument landing
system (ILS) joining point and adherence to noise abatement departure
procedures [NADPs]);

Engine run-ups relative to any restrictions;

Number of noise infringements; and;

Summary of noise measurements at remote monitoring sites.
2.2.2 Basis of airport selection

Key to the success of any benchmarking exercise is the need to avoid specifying a
comparator pool based on pre-conceived subjective judgement that biases the
results prior to the analysis. Specifically there is also a danger that, if the criteria
applied to the selection of comparators are too restrictive, then valuable lessons
that could be learnt from airports excluded from the peer group on that basis might
be missed.
To avoid introducing this bias as large a comparator pool as practicable has been
selected with the results analysed for differences to ensure a fair like-for-like
comparison is made and drivers of difference are accounted for. A variety of

P1464D002 HELIOS 15 of 154

 selection criteria have been chosen to ensure a wide pool of appropriate
comparators are included in this benchmarking exercise. Specifically this includes:

four other major UK airports, to provide a domestic comparison against
Heathrow. Such a comparison is advantageous as it provides a homogenous
regulatory environment against which performance can be compared;

eight major airports in EUROCONTROL member states, to provide a
comparison at European level noting that some airports within this category
operate under very stringent environmental legislation (e.g. Switzerland);

ten major airports that cover a diverse set of countries around the world to
contrast how differing political economic social and regulatory environments
can impact performance;

ten of the worlds twenty busiest airports (in terms of air traffic movements);
and;

seven of the worlds most mature airport in terms of operational noise
management from a brief survey of airport operating restrictions [4].
Thus the list of comparator airports has been selected according to overall
comparability with Heathrow in terms of air traffic movements and level of maturity
used in the operational management of noise. This list is provided in section 2.4.
2.3 Data analysis

For the purposes of this benchmarking exercise five capability levels have been
defined for each KPI ranging from 5 (highest capability level of set) down to 1
(lowest capability of set). Overall and average performance is then determined
based on the resulting total score (a summation of the scores over the sub-
competence levels).
The capability levels were initially defined based on a summary survey of
Heathrows own performance in these areas. However as benchmarking provides
a relative analysis between comparators the methodology used to score the
sample is dictated by the comparator sample set. Thus as the analysis progressed
so the capability levels defined for assessing each KPI were refined to reflect this
relative performance. The result is a five-point scale that reflects the spectrum of
poor to good practice, in relative terms.
The definition of the capability levels has been designed to be objective;
defendable by the use of published evidence. For example definition of night-time
is scored on a 5 point scale as shown below.
Competence Competence Competence Competence Competence
level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 5
5 hours 6 hours 7 hours 8 hours 9 hours
(e.g. 0000-0500) (e.g. 0000-0600) (e.g. 2300-0600) (e.g. 2300-0700) (e.g. 2200-0700)
Table 2 List of competence levels for the night time definition KPI

While subjective discretionary judgement may need to be used in some cases, it is

important to remember that the score applied is relative to the others in the sample
set and that all benchmarking scores are supported by appropriate evidence
referenced as appropriate. Details of all the KPIs and their competence levels are
defined in Annex E.

P1464D002 HELIOS 16 of 154

2.4 List of comparator airports

Airport Ref.# Airport Airport Reason for inclusion

1 LHR London (Heathrow)
2 LGW London (Gatwick) UK comparator
3 STN London (Stansted) UK comparator
4 MAN Manchester UK Comparator
5 LCY London (City) UK comparator
6 FAB Farnborough UK comparator
7 ZRH Zurich European comparator
8 BCN Barcelona European comparator
9 DUS Dusseldorf European comparator
10 CPH Copenhagen European comparator
11 MUC Munich European comparator
12 ORY Paris (Orly) European comparator
13 OSL Oslo European comparator
14 YYZ Toronto Worldwide comparator
15 SFO San Francisco Worldwide comparator
16 HKG Hong Kong Worldwide comparator
17 SYD Sydney Worldwide comparator
18 SIN Singapore Worldwide comparator
19 ORD Orlando Worldwide comparator
20 JFK New York (JFK) Worldwide comparator
21 DXB Dubai Worldwide comparator
22 DCA Washington National Worldwide comparator
23 LGA New York (LaGuardia) Worldwide comparator
24 HRD Tokyo International Worldwide comparator
25 ORD Chicago (O'Hare) High movement numbers
26 FRA Frankfurt High movement numbers
27 CDG Paris (Charles de Gaulle) High movement numbers
28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) High movement numbers
29 ATL Atlanta High movement numbers
30 LAX Los Angeles High movement numbers
31 PEK Beijing Capital High movement numbers
32 MAD Madrid (Barajas) High movement numbers
33 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul High movement numbers
34 ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) Noise management
35 BRU Brussels Noise management
36 AKL Auckland Noise management
37 SNA San Ana (John Wayne) Noise management
38 PRG Prague Noise management
39 SZG Salzburg Noise management
40 GVA Geneva Noise management
Table 3 List of comparator airports and locations

P1464D002 HELIOS 17 of 154

3 Basic Results
3.1 Benchmarking scores

The results below compare airports at the secondary level of the performance
framework (outlined in Table 1, section 2.2.1). These level charts are scored
according to the methodology of Section 2 relative to the capability levels of Annex
E. The scoring of the airports against the KPAs below is free from any weighting
scheme and is organised to have the best performing airports at the top of the
table.

Figure 2 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 1 and 2)

P1464D002 HELIOS 18 of 154

 Figure 3 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 3, 4 and 5)

P1464D002 HELIOS 19 of 154

 Figure 4 Procedure comparison level charts (KPA 5, 6 and 7)

More detailed scoring at the tertiary KPI level is provided in Annex F. The
background sources used to determine relative performance against the KPI
criteria listed are described and referenced in Annex D. As can generally be seen
from Figure 3 and Figure 4, the highest performing airports maintain consistently
good scores across all KPI areas. A general correlation can be seen as, reading
down the columns, the X levels move from right to left. While there is some
variation in the ranking between the levels on the three graphs (each are ranked
according to the overall performance of the airports against the KPIs listed) it can
be seen that, in general, the highest performing airports remain in the top half of
the table.

P1464D002 HELIOS 20 of 154

3.2 Summary explanation of high level scores

The level chart provides a broad indication of Heathrows performance relative to

the other airports sampled across the 7 KPAs of this benchmarking survey. As can
be seen Heathrow performs well overall however there are areas for potential
performance improvement relative to the peer group selected. While the specifics
of what others do and what this means for Heathrow are explored in the following
sections of this document some summary points can be drawn out, specifically:

Although a series of best practice documents have been developed by
Heathrow in collaboration with industry partners3 other airports go further in the
promotion of such schemes by introducing a supporting performance
framework. Similarly such initiatives could be developed further by imposing
targets to drive performance improvement, introducing financial incentives and
penalties that are tied to such performance schemes - balancing against any
legislative, operational and safety requirements; and;

There are opportunities for Heathrow to tighten up on some of the guidance it
uses in defining its performance metrics. For example while there are high
levels of CDA achievement at Heathrow, the definition of what constitutes a
CDA within the UK Arrivals Code of Practice (ACOP) is relatively lenient
compared to other airports around the world. More advanced operating
concepts (that would be accompanied by more stringent definitions of
performance) are in use around the world, supported by such technologies as
P-RNAV. Moreover there is a need for the airport to continue to work with its
industry partners to analyse the efficiency of the current operation and
formulate noise mitigation options.
3.3 Notable other best practices

The KPAs benchmarked above are consistent with the articles of the noise action
plan [1]. In the course of performing the benchmarking research numerous
activities allied to the operational management of aircraft noise, but with no direct
benchmarking KPA, have also been identified. These notable other best practices
are described here for future consideration by HAL.

3
For example the arrival, ground movement and departures codes of practice

P1464D002 HELIOS 21 of 154

 Description of reporting best
practice
Flight operations broken down
by hour of the day
Track-keeping performance
statistics
Quietest airline award linked to
the Fly Quiet Program which
currently consists of five
elements:
- the overall noise quality of
each airlines fleet operating at
SFO
- an evaluation of single over-
flight exceeding the noise level
(noise monitoring);
- A measure of how well each
airline complies with the night-
time preferred noise abatement
runways (adherence to
procedures);
- Assessment of how well each
airline adheres to the Gap
Departure (track keeping);
- Assessment of how well each
airline adheres to the Shoreline
Departure (track keeping);and;
- Assessment of how well each
airline adheres to the bay
approaches to runways 28L and
28R (track keeping).
Number of aircraft noise events
of 85dB or greater and 65 dB or
greater
Fleet noise quality; Assigns a
higher rating or grade to airlines
operating quieter, new
generation aircraft, while airlines
operating older, louder
technology aircraft would rate
lower.
FEGP stand equipage
(percentage equipage of stands)
P1464D002
Comments Airport Reference
Provides details on the Chicago 1
number of arrivals and
departures by hour of the
day, total operations by hour
and operations by runway.
Deviations by year; overall Gatwick 1
on-track performance of all
aircraft; on-track
performance by aircraft type
The overall goal of the Fly San 1
Quiet Program is to influence Francisco
airlines to operate as quietly
as possible in the San
Francisco Bay Area. A
successful Fly Quiet Program
is expected to reduce both
single event and total noise
levels around the airport.
It should be noted that
Heathrow is already pursuing
this aspect of operational
noise management through
the development of its Fly
Green report.
Statistics presented in Chicago 1
diagrammatic form alongside
noise contours
Evaluates noise contribution San 1
of each airline's fleet as Francisco
operated
Annual report Geneva 1
2
HELIOS 22 of 154
 Description of reporting best
practice
Marginally compliant aircraft and
the number of night slots
operated
Runway usage in absolute and
% terms by aircraft type
Summary of noise
measurements for every day of
monitoring period (max, min,
mean and mode) for every
monitoring station
Fly quiet awards; flight paths,
overall level and timing of
operation and ground runs.
Radar data plots
Ban on aircraft operators using
this airport if found to be
infringing noise restriction. Note
the airport supports both
commercial air traffic and
general aviation
In monitoring overall adherence
to departure flight routes the
following attributes are reported:
total number of 'registered
deviations', proportion
investigated, number of cautions
issued, number of discussions
with pilots and number of cases
reported to the regulator (FOCA)
Online training of WebTrack
software application. Drag and
drop game use to familiarise
users with the online version of
ANOMs.
P1464D002
Comments Airport Reference
Quota count system for night Brussels 1
flights operating over
different night time periods
based on a different
calculation regime to
Heathrow (see section 5.2)
Per day and per night; Chicago 1
Runway usage (% of flights,
number of VFR and IFR
flights), annual total number
of movements
Hourly noise level site report Chicago 1
for each day (Aircraft LEQ,
aircraft events; dBA noise
levels and frequency)
Quarterly report; monitoring Chicago 1
designated noise-abatement
flight routes and procedures
to reduce impact of aircraft
noise at night using Airport
Noise Management System
(ANMS)
Colouring of radar tracks Gatwick, 1
according to compliance with Chicago,
height or lateral restrictions Geneva
(red indicating non-
compliance, amber marginal
compliance and green full
compliance)
A three strikes and youre John Wayne 1
out policy. Note that the
airport caters for a multitude
of individual operators.
Significant deviations from Zurich 1
these paths are investigated
on an ad-hoc basis and a
caution issued following a
formal consultation with the
FOCA. Further details can be
found in section 5.5.2.
At Washington National Manchester 1
noise levels are visible on
NTK system permanently
and not just when monitors
are triggered by aircraft
movements (air scene
software by ITT). 'What if'
model used to see modelled
footprint from an imaginary
type.
HELIOS 23 of 154
 Description of reporting best
practice
Skytrack awards for good track
keeping; off track fined 750;
preferred runways used; noise
limits depend on Time of day -
departure and arrival noise
surcharge; type surcharge
(marginal chapter 3)
Point merge in operation; noise
blight highlighted in an
informative video describing
changing noise impact
emphasising noise reduction
rather than blight to a particular
area
Investigation by FAA/Congress
into developments in tracking
compliance with noise
abatement procedures
New NADP for Lufthansa Cargo
GNSS-assisted 'segmented
approach'
Trials to tug aircraft to runway
Green Fly system; to
encourage operators to use
quiet operating procedures,
minimise ground running with
punitive fines levied to minimise
noise from aircraft operations
and MRO (Maintenance, Repair
and Overhaul) activities.
Noise budget indicated on map
Stringent night noise controls
Innovate use of social media
P1464D002
Comments Airport Reference
Interesting diagram depicting Manchester 1
downward trend in aircraft
noise certification chapters.
Absolute reduction in number
of noisiest departures
New airspace noise Oslo 1
abatement procedures. No
interactive NTK website
available.
Report suggests the need to Washington 1
downlink information about National
thrust settings from FMS to
ground station to determine
compliance
Currently trial testing period Frankfurt 1
Ground movement best Prague, 1
practice guidelines Gatwick
introduced.
Greenfly scheme also limiting London City 1
use of APUs. Ground running
penalties and incentives also
introduced. Strict limits on
overall number of flights and
number of flights on
particular days throughout
year weighted by quota for
type.
Noise budget and Stockholm 1
infringements thereof are (Arlanda)
illustrated pictorially;
specifically an annual
equivalent noise level must
not exceed noise contours on
map specified in the AIP
Night-time noise limits in Washington 1
place and enforced. Fines of National
$5000; hours of operation
2200-0700
Social media page set up to Toronto 1
perform survey of community
needs inviting feedback and
voting on what improvement
is needed next.
HELIOS 24 of 154
 Description of reporting best Comments Airport Reference
practice
Innovative use of video to Video used to explain arrivals Oslo 1
convey message and departure procedure

Innovative use of aircraft ground Taxi noise level monitored by Copenhagen 1

movement data noise and track keeping
system

Innovative use of aircraft ground Use of taxi route Munich 1

movement data modifications to reduce noise

Noise protection scheme in APU restrictions on the Prague 1

operation ground and aircraft type
restrictions within given
volumes of airspace

Ban on aircraft operators Ban on operators whose Salzburg 1

aircraft trigger noise
correlated position
measurements above a
given noise threshold

Table 4 Notable procedures and metrics used by other airports

3.4 Initial ranking

The benchmarking scores of section 3.1 can be compiled to produce a global

ranking table of airport noise management competence. This semi-quantitative un-
normalised score is shown comparative purposes in Table 5. This ranking is
developed, through a systemised weighting system, in section 4 to create a
combination of KPA scores that take into account the influence of local drivers on
the performance of a particular airport.

P1464D002 HELIOS 25 of 154

 Ref No. Code Airport Score Rank
28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) 142 1
35 BRU Brussels 138 2
1 LHR Heathrow 137 3
32 MAD Madrid (Barajas) 135 4
3 STN Stansted 134 5
14 YYZ Toronto 129 6
2 LGW Gatwick 124 7
4 MAN Manchester 124 7
7 ZRH Zurich 119 9
25 ORD Chicago (O'Hare) 116 10
9 DUS Dusseldorf 116 10
40 GVA Geneva 114 12
10 CPH Copenhagen 112 13
5 LCY London City 110 14
26 FRA Frankfurt 110 14
17 SYD Sydney 110 14
37 SNA San Ana (John Wayne) 110 14
34 ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) 108 18
22 DCA Washington National 107 19
33 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul 105 20
39 SZG Salzburg 104 21
30 LAX Los Angeles 104 21
12 ORY Paris - Orly 103 23
38 PRG Prague 101 24
27 CDG Paris - Charles de Gaulle 99 25
11 MUC Munich 99 25
24 HRD Tokyo International 99 25
8 BCN Barcelona 95 28
15 SFO San Francisco 94 29
36 AKL Auckland 92 30
13 OSL Oslo 92 30
6 FAB Farnborough 91 32
23 LGA New York LaGuardia Airport 83 33
16 HKG Hong Kong 78 34
29 ATL Atlanta 74 35
18 SIN Singapore 71 36
20 JFK New York JFK 68 37
31 PEK Beijing Capital 64 38
19 MCO Orlando 58 39
21 DXB Dubai 44 40
Table 5 Initial ranking table (not weighted or normalised)

P1464D002 HELIOS 26 of 154

 This benchmarking exercise of 40 airports serves to demonstrate the comparable significance of local regulatory environment. As can
be seen from the top level ranking table the larger UK, European Union and Swiss airports score highly overall, followed by the major
airports in North America. It is notable that there is no obvious correlation between the size of the airport and the position in the initial
ranking scheme. This underlines that airports manage noise in relation to the influences of their local environments by developing
specific procedures and operational measures to mitigate the impact of airport noise. Thus those airports under greatest pressure to
reduce noise at all stages of the landing and take-off (LTO) cycle appear highest in this list.

Figure 5 Graph ranking airport performance score against benchmarked competitors

P1464D002 HELIOS 27 of 154

3.5 Performance of Heathrow against best in class

3.5.1 Gap analysis

While Heathrow performs well overall compared with the selected comparator set
the benchmarking exercise identifies relative areas of strength and weakness.
Examining Heathrows benchmarked scores against the full set of KPIs in Figure
6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 over the page reveals the range of competence levels
against the scoring criteria identifying areas for potential improvement. Overall
Heathrow is particularly strong in:

Fleet Monitoring (KPA 2);

Runway NAPs (KPA 4);

Ground Movement NAPs (KPA 5); and;

Gate operations (KPA 6).
Areas where Heathrow has a potential opportunity to improve performance include
the:

tightening up of general operating restrictions (KPA 1); and;

monitoring of arrival and departure movements (KPAs 3 and 7).
Potentially scope exists in these areas for Heathrow to improve its performance
through the development an airline noise performance scheme (which could be
linked to financial incentives such as fines) and improved communication activities.

P1464D002 HELIOS 28 of 154

 Figure 6 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA
(1.1-1.4)

P1464D002 HELIOS 29 of 154

 Figure 7 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA
(2.1-3.1)

P1464D002 HELIOS 30 of 154

 Figure 8 Heathrow scoring against the KPI competence framework KPA
(3.2-7.2)

P1464D002 HELIOS 31 of 154

 The following text provides descriptions of the KPAs recommended for Heathrow
to examine to understand if scope exists for competence improvement in those
areas. Note that an identified deficiency in the gap analysis does not equate to
poor performance but rather is generally symptomatic of particular airports
responding to local environmental pressures. Equally particular local
environmental pressures, concerns or debates may preclude Heathrow from
improving its capabilities in these areas. The assessment is made solely from
the noise perspective other factors such as capacity and commercial
implications are not considered at this stage but must be factored into the
analysis should the Airport act on any of the recommendations.
Regarding KPI 1.1.4 while it was noted that Heathrow has developed an arrivals
code of practice in collaboration with NATS and the airlines and that this was
being actively promoted amongst all stakeholders more pro-active engagement
could be encouraged . By comparison Zurich Airport has developed specific routes
and procedures for early morning arrivals; these are detailed in the monthly noise
reports with fines imposed for airlines not flying in compliance with defined arrival
routes [5][6]. The comparison suggests that this could be an area for operational
improvement subject to discussions between the airport, airlines and NATS
(National Air Traffic Services) (Recommendation 1).
Currently, through the FEU quarterly and annual report, Heathrow publishes
monthly totals of daytime and night-time noise infringements along with the total
raised over the course of the year. This data is subsequently compared to that
from the past 9 years of operations and a short commentary provided. There may
be scope to present this information in a more usable/understandable format; such
as that produced by the Airport Noise Management System of Zurich [13] or
Chicago airport [14]. It should also be noted that Heathrow does not levy the
highest noise charges of all the airports considered within this benchmarking
exercise (see KPI 1.3.4) (although these fining levels were reviewed in 2007). By
comparison with Heathrows fine limits of 500 (for 0.1 to 3.0 dBA infringement)
and 1000 (for an infringement in excess of 3.0 dBA), fines by other airports
include:

Sydney airport can, in theory, impose fines of up to 350,000 for unauthorised
aircraft operations outside airport curfew hours, failure to provide information
on an aircraft movement or providing false information[15][16]4; Orly and
Charles de Gaulle airport may impose fines of up to 8500 on airlines and
1000 on pilots that disregard noise abatement procedures5;

Frankfurt has seven noise categories for chapter 3 compliant aircraft with noise
taxes of up to 7000 per movement for the noisiest types [12];

San Francisco and Prague airports impose a 650 noise infringement
fines[16];

Stansted Airport fines 750 for night-noise infringement, as does Zurich [13];

4
The Sydney Curfew Act of 1995 restricts all aircraft movements between 2300 and 0600 local
with additional restrictions imposed between 2245-2300 and between 0600 and 0700 on
Saturday and Sunday mornings.
5 st
A draft bill was approved by the French Parliament July 1 1999 that set up an independent
group "Authorite de Control des Nuisances Sonores Aeroportuaires" to monitor noise levels at
French airports including abatement procedures on take-off, landing or engine run-ups. This law
also restricts helicopter operations over populated areas.

P1464D002 HELIOS 32 of 154


Barcelona Airport adds a noise-surcharge fine that is dependent on the time of
day and the degree of infringement [16];

Schiphol imposes a noise surcharge of 30% above the base landing charge for
the noisiest aircraft (i.e. those only marginally compliant with ICAO chapter 3
standards); and;

Arlanda levies a noise tax per aircraft movement weighted by the correlated
noise value.
With reference to KPI 1.3.2, while Heathrow collects a relatively high amount of
fines from noise infringements, scope exists for Heathrow to publish a clearer
breakdown of how fines relate to the infringements incurred. In addition Heathrow
may wish to investigate and benchmark its current fines against comparable
airports (Recommendation 2).
While Heathrow appears to perform relatively poorly against KPI 1.3.3 & 1.3.4 in
reality only two airports in the sample set were found to have an active noise
control scheme in place in the form of Fly Quiet programmes (Chicago and San
Francisco [17][18]). Note that this noise control scheme is in no way related to the
home insulation scheme. Activities are already in train to ensure that Heathrow
establishes its own Fly Quiet scheme [1]; however progress against this target
should be monitored closely (Recommendation 3).
Other unusual punitive measures may be imposed by smaller airports. At the
general and business aviation airport of San Ana (John Wayne) aircraft operators
are banned from operating if three separate noise infringements are detected (a
three strikes and youre out policy)[4]. While it should be remembered that this
airport differs significantly from the local situation at Heathrow, it may be of interest
to Heathrow to reassess its noise infringement scheme in this context
(Recommendation 4).
The legislative environment of some of Heathrows comparator airports provides
for more rigorous safeguarding of pre-existing quiet areas when they are affected
by airspace changes and consultation processes (Ref KPI 1.4.1). French national
legislation, for example, is particularly strong in this respect and this is reflected in
the high competence score of Paris Orly and Charles de Gaulle [4]. Specifically
the French system defines environmentally protected airspace (VPE); airspace
volumes by coordinates listed as an appendix attached to a ministerial order.
Deviations from set procedures in these VPE airspaces are only allowed for safety
reasons or due to direct air traffic control (ATC) interventions. Frankfurt, Los
Angeles, Washington National, Minneapolis St Paul, Toronto and Oslo airport also
score equally highly. The German restrictions have developed through a recent
tightening of legislation in response to airport development; specifically Frankfurt
airports new runway. In this instance the noise monitoring system became
enshrined in the air traffic and noise regulation and became active in October
2011. The recommendation is therefore to investigate and benchmark in greater
detail the legislative framework used to administer airspace changes around the
world (and particularly within Europe) with an emphasis on understanding how
volumes of airspace around high density operations at major airports are protected
(Recommendation 5) [4].
Examining the mechanisms used to ensure airlines adhere to various noise
abatement procedures, set out in the UK AIP (KPI 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), indicates a
capability gap between Heathrow and its benchmarking comparator set. Thus, in
addition to the Fly Green scheme, Heathrow could consider the feasibility of
constructing a framework to benchmark airline performance against the noise

P1464D002 HELIOS 33 of 154

 abatement procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP)
(Recommendation 6). However an extract from the detailed KPI score sheet from
Annex F, shown below in Table 6, indicates those airports that out perform
Heathrow in this area are London City and the Swiss airports of Zurich and
Geneva. Zurich airport, for example, publishes a full list of the airlines that deviate
from the departure routes along with details about when and where an
infringement took place. A small investigation is launched into every deviation to
examine the reasons for why it took place (e.g. weather avoidance or a direct
instruction from ATC). If no plausible reason for flight track deviation
(approximately 12% of cases) is provided by the airline the flight crew are
contacted and asked to provide an explanation; if necessary this is escalated to
the national regulator, the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) [19].
In the case of London City the airport enforces aircraft operator conformity with the
AIP through a system of punitive fines for track keeping, ground operations
(including maintenance) and maximum detected noise level [20].

P1464D002 HELIOS 34 of 154

Airport Airport Airport Name KPI 3.2.1: Noise abatement procedures
Ref. No. code Airline adherence to AIP: success rate
1 2 3 4 5
1 LHR Heathrow X
2 LGW Gatwick X
3 STN Stansted X
4 MAN Manchester X
5 LCY London City X
6 FAB Farnborough X
7 ZRH Zurich X
8 BCN Barcelona X
9 DUS Dusseldorf X
10 CPH Copenhagen X
11 MUC Munich X
12 ORY Paris - Orly X
13 OSL Oslo X
14 YYZ Toronto X
15 SFO San Francisco X
16 HKG Hong Kong X
17 SYD Sydney X
18 SIN Singapore X
19 MCO Orlando X
20 JFK New York JFK X
21 DXB Dubai X
22 DCA Washington National X
23 LGA LaGuardia Airport X
24 HRD Tokyo International X
25 ORD Chicago (O'Hare) X
26 FRA Frankfurt X
27 CDG Paris - Charles de Gaulle X
28 AMS Amsterdam (Schiphol) X
29 ATL Atlanta X
30 LAX Los Angeles X
31 PEK Beijing Capital X
32 MAD Madrid (Barajas) X
33 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul X
34 ARN Stockholm (Arlanda) X
35 BRU Brussels X
36 AKL Auckland X
37 SNA San Ana (John Wayne) X
38 PRG Prague X
39 SZG Salzburg X
40 GVA Geneva X
Table 6 Ranking table for KPI 3.2.1, extracted from Annex F

The ranking of Heathrows competence level in the development of best practice

noise abatement procedures for departures (CCD, cutback etc.), KPI 7.1.1 invites
closer examination. Specifically Heathrow is out performed in this KPI by Brussels,
Amsterdam, Manchester and Stansted airports. While these airports have a
minimum climb gradient specified in their AIP (e.g. at Brussels this is 7%), as
Heathrow does (4%) the other airports report infringements at a greater level of
detail and have initiatives in place to tackle non-compliant airlines. In addition

P1464D002 HELIOS 35 of 154

 Manchester is currently looking to trial CCD procedures. By comparison
discussions on the various merits of CCDs and cut-back climbs have been on-
going at Heathrow for a number of years and are still the subject of research [21].
It is recommended that this research is reviewed periodically to understand the
merits of the two different scenarios with Heathrow continuing to work with the
airlines, ICAO and the CAA in relation to developing departure procedures with
due reference to ICAOs defined NADP1 and NADP2 (Recommendation 7).
In relation to the development of NAP departure routes (KPI 7.2.1 and 7.2.2)
Heathrow is out performed by the Swiss airports of Zurich and Geneva. This is
specifically because fines are not levied for non-adherence to set departure routes
and because Heathrow could potentially publish details of infringements at a
greater level of granularity (Recommendation 8).
The analysis also identified numerous areas where Heathrow has a small
capability gap relative to the airports it has been benchmarked against. This
capability gap could potentially be closed through implementation of the minor
recommendations listed below:

Recommendation 9.1 Revising the definition of the night-time period (Ref KPI
1.1.1). A selection of airports in the benchmarking study define a 9 hour night-
time period including Geneva, Chicago, San Ana (John Wayne, VA, USA), Los
Angeles and Tokyo International. This can be compared to Heathrows 8 hour
night period defined by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) that runs from
23:00 to 07:00.

Recommendation 9.2 Reviewing the stringency of controls during night time
period (Ref KPI 1.1.2), relating to restrictions on the number of movements, the
types operated (either through a direct specific ban or a quota count system) or
an outright ban of movements. Here Heathrow scores relatively highly due to
its operation of a quota count system however it does remain open to night
movements and this marks Heathrow down relative to the airports within the
benchmarked set. While it is recognised that Heathrow may need to run its
operations into the night, particularly when recovering from disruption due to
fog or snow, other large airports such as Frankfurt and Madrid do operate a
night curfew. Zurich, by comparison, publishes details of night-time noise
movements by hour of the night [13] and Heathrow could look to move its
reporting towards this level of detail

Recommendation 9.3 Examine means of reducing the relatively high number
of noise infringements (KPI Ref 1.3.1). Heathrow experienced more recorded
correlated noise infringements then Frankfurt, Paris Charles de Gaulle,
Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels, Barcelona, Sydney, Copenhagen, Paris Orly,
Washington National, Los Angeles, New York LaGuardia and Toronto during
Q1 2011. It should be remembered that this infringement level depends on the
threshold level of the noise monitor and is therefore subject to the limits
imposed by the UK government in addition to local metrological and
environmental conditions.

Recommendation 9.4 Implement P-RNAV as called for in the Heathrow noise
action plan (KPI Ref 3.1.2); by comparison several other airports in the
benchmarking sample set have implemented this technology in support of
arrival operations.

Recommendation 9.5 Appraising the sophistication of the design of approach
procedure (KPI 3.1.2 and 3.1.4). It is noted that while Heathrow operates a
relatively high proportion of CDAs, as a percentage of total arrivals, the

P1464D002 HELIOS 36 of 154

 definition of a CDA at Heathrow is set out in the arrivals code of practice and
includes all approaches with no more than 2 NM of level flight from 6000ft [22].
Other airports in the benchmarking study are beginning to initiate more
continuous decent approaches by comparison utilising RNP technology and
point-merge procedures to perform CDAs from top of decent.
3.5.2 Analysing the performance of top ranked airports

The top ranked airports perform consistently well across all KPAs while typically
displaying particular strengths in one area. The best in class for each KPA are
highlighted in the table below.
Toronto scores particularly well against KPA 1 (Operating restrictions) due in part
to the strict legal guidelines that protect quiet areas and high fining levels for
aircraft that are older, noisier and generate more noise infringements. Specific
procedures have also been defined for early morning arrivals.
Heathrow performs particularly well under KPA 2, Fleet monitoring, due in part to
the use of the quota count system. The QC system is a feature shared with the
other UK airports including Stansted, Gatwick and Manchester according to a
standard model outlined in the UK AIP supplement [3]. Other international airports
operating a quota count system include Zurich, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt,
New York (JFK), Paris (Orly), Prague, Washington National and Toronto. By
comparison the airports of San Francisco and Chicago operate a noise control
scheme through their respective Fly Quiet programmes however a similar
scheme is now also in train at Heathrow [1]. The regular publication of noise
contours and the operation of a relatively modern fleet of aircraft are
characteristics shared by other airports that performed well under KPA 2; including
Stansted, Gatwick, Zurich and Geneva. A good performance is also demonstrated
by Heathrow in relation to KPAs 5 and 6 which relate to the management of
ground noise.
Brussels airport performs well against KPA 3, the development of noise abatement
procedures for arrivals. This airport operates a high proportion of stringently-
defined CDAs supported by P-RNAV. In addition a performance framework
quantifies the performance of different airlines against given CDA targets. The
airports that manage noise through runway alternation schemes also score well
against those that do not under KPA 3; this includes Heathrow, Brussels, Schiphol,
Zurich and Geneva.
Under KPA 7, the management of departure noise, the airports of Schiphol and
Brussels perform well due to the implementation of CCD procedures and good
adherence to noise preferential departure routes.

P1464D002 HELIOS 37 of 154

# Name KPA 1 KPA 2 KPA 3 KPA 4 KPA 5 KPA 6 KPA 7 Total
1 Amsterdam-Schiphol 37 24 33 5 23 5 15 142
2 Brussels 36 22 36 5 20 4 15 138
3 Heathrow 33 30 29 5 25 5 9 137
4 Madrid (Barajas) 38 29 30 4 19 3 12 135
5 Stansted 33 30 30 1 20 5 12 134
6 Toronto 39 29 34 1 15 1 10 129
7 Manchester 29 29 26 1 20 5 14 124
8 Gatwick 33 30 31 1 17 4 8 124
9 Zurich 32 30 20 5 16 3 13 119
10 Dusseldorf 36 23 28 2 17 2 8 116
11 Chicago (O'Hare) 28 14 33 3 22 2 14 116
12 Geneva 26 30 21 5 16 3 13 114
13 Copenhagen 32 11 31 4 16 4 14 112
14 Frankfurt 37 27 16 3 19 4 4 110
15 London City 28 29 23 1 14 2 13 110
NB Highlights show best performance in class for a given KPA
Table 7 Ranking table for the topped ranked airports.

P1464D002 HELIOS 38 of 154

4 Normalised results
4.1 Determining the drivers

When differences in the KPI scores of various airports are considered in their local
geographical context, factors outside the airports direct control may be identified.
To account for these drivers of difference and to remove some of the subjectivity
of selecting the peer group, a structured framework has been applied to
understand them and account for the degree to which they can be controlled. This
framework, described in Table 8 below, is then developed to re-normalise the
basic results presented in chapter 3.
While some systemic drivers will be common to all airports (for example the impact
of disruptive weather) others, relating to corporate businesses processes being
undertaken to manage noise (e.g. community engagement schemes) are
inherently local. This latter driver is classified according to the level of activity
undertaken by the airport itself to mitigate aircraft noise through operational means
and is essentially the noise abatement procedures being benchmarked.
These drivers are classified under the headings: inherent, structural, systemic and
realised (ISSR) and are listed in a spectrum of drivers from strategic (at the top of
the table) through to the tactical/operational level (bottom of the table).

Category Description Impacts include:

Inherent drivers Are mostly extraneous (beyond
unilateral influence of the airport;
these tend to be long term and
strategic in nature).
Structural drivers Long term strategic implications
more readily within the influence
of the airport.
Regulatory/institutional maturity &
community awareness/sensitivity
Type of surrounding environment/land use
planning (geographical positioning)
Infrastructure layout; structure of terminals,
buildings etc. (landside/airside layout sound
deflection) and number of runways, layout
& associated equipment
Customer requirements type of
airport/traffic type (business jets, CAT, etc.)
Scale
Intensity of operations (utilisation of
infrastructure); capacity utilisation and
resilience
Operational complexity/concentration
(airside ground and airspace)

Systemic drivers Are within the day to day control
of the airports management to
mitigate the impact of noise.
They include actions such as the
compilation of action plans,
supporting community
engagement activities. It is
these metrics which are being
benchmarked.
Realised Executional out-turn impacts of
the above. These are focused
on overall impact of noise
mitigation and are not
considered in this benchmarking
exercise.
Table 8 Example drivers of differences in procedure
Operational (procedures and practices;
including hours of operation)
Business processes/incentives e.g.
financial incentives for airlines (fines and
landing charges)
Investigation of specific noise infringements
NTK and noise management equipment
capability
Noise action plan/community engagement
These drivers are usually expressed in
terms of costs (excluded from this study)

P1464D002 HELIOS 39 of 154

4.2 Establishing a fair comparison

As this report is benchmarking airport performance against that of Heathrow the

airports being considered must be assessed to determine how different they are
relative to Heathrow. This allows the analysis to produce a ranking system
reflective of individual airport performance against the backdrop of the drivers in its
local environment - thereby ensuring that no bias is introduced into the analysis.
This methodology also allows identification of those airports in the benchmarking
set that are out-performing their peers relative to their local situation; i.e. they are
performing better then would be expected for an airport of a given size.
To analyse these differences they must first be quantified. For this purpose a
weighting score is derived for each airport in the sample set according to the
ISSR driver classification scheme. This weighting scheme is documented and
sensitivity tested below.
4.3 Weighting the KPI scores

When differences in the KPI scores of various airports are considered in their local
geographical context, factors outside the direct control of the airport, but
influencing its operation, may be identified. Using the classification scheme of
Table 9, Table 10 summarises the severity of some of the key drivers of difference
for each airport considered. The scores are derived by assigning a quantitative
value for each airport against the broad description of the drivers as set out in
Table 9, drawing on the qualitative sources listed in Annex D.
The two tables below weight the drivers on the basis of their degree of difference
to the local environmental situation at Heathrow. The larger the difference the
higher the weighting score applied. Thus the airports with the highest score are
those operating in the environments that are most dissimilar to Heathrow.

P1464D002 HELIOS 40 of 154

 Inherent drivers Description/ weighting score
1. Regulatory High stringency (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
maturity/stringency Medium-high (1)
Stringent (2)
Low-medium stringency (3)
Low stringency (4)
2. Geographical Urban/suburban (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
positioning Coastal (4)
City centre/urban (4)
Suburban (4)
Rural (4)
3. Number of 2 (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
runways (score = number of runways at airport 2)
4. Type of airport Intercontinental Hub Airport (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
(based on mixture of International Airport (1)
air traffic) Metropolitan Airport (2)
City Airport (3)
Business Airport (4)
Structural requirement drivers
5. Number of Air >400,000 ATMs p.a. (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
Traffic Movements >300,000 ATMs p.a. (1)
(ATMs) >200,000 ATMs p.a. (2)
>100,000 ATMs p.a. (3)
<100,000 ATMs p.a. (4)
6. Capacity operating Very High (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
level High (1)
Medium (2)
Low (3)
Very Low (4)
7. Airspace High complexity- Metroplex (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
complexity Medium complexity (1)
Low complexity (2)
8. Runway/surface Parallel, dependant (0) (most similar to Heathrow)
layout complexity Single, high density (1)
Dependant, intersecting (2)
Parallel, independent (3)
Table 9 Driver scoring difference between a given airport and Heathrow

P1464D002 HELIOS 41 of 154

 Inherent Structural I S S-I

Number of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs)

Score (structural) Score (inherent)

Runway/surface layout complexity

Total for structural score

Geographical positioning

Total for inherent score

Capacity operating level

Airspace complexity
Regulatory maturity

Number of runways

Mixture of air traffic

Heathrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frankfurt 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 -1
JFK, NY 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0
Brussels 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 3 1
Manchester 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 2 7 5
Zurich 0 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 9 7
CdG, Paris 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 -1
Beijing Capital 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 0
Geneva 0 0 1 2 3 2 4 2 3 11 8
Minn. St. Paul 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 -3
Amsterdam Schiphol 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 4 3 -1
Orly, Paris 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 3 -1
Los Angeles 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 -4
LaGuardia, NY 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 2 -3
Toronto 1 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 5 2 -3
Sydney 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 5 3 -2
Tokyo Int 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 -1
Stockholm 0 4 0 1 3 2 0 0 5 5 0
Dusseldorf 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 5 9 4
Gatwick 0 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 6 3 -3
Washington National 0 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 6 3 -3
San Francisco 0 4 2 0 2 0 1 1 6 4 -2
Stansted 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 1 6 5 -1
Hong Kong 2 4 0 0 2 2 1 1 6 6 0
Munich 1 4 0 1 1 1 2 2 6 6 0
Barcelona 1 4 0 1 2 2 3 2 6 9 3
Oslo 1 4 0 2 2 2 1 0 7 5 -2
Madrid (Barajas) 1 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 7 2 -5
Singapore 2 4 0 1 2 1 1 1 7 5 -2
Prague 1 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 7 9 2
Auckland 1 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 7 12 5
Orlando 1 4 2 1 1 1 0 2 8 4 -4
London City 0 4 1 3 4 1 0 1 8 6 -2
Dubai 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 1 8 7 -1
Copenhagen 1 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 8 9 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 42 of 154

P1464D002
Atlanta
Salzburg

Farnborough

drivers
Chicago (OHare)

San Ana (John Wayne)

1
2
2
1
0
Regulatory maturity

4
4
4
4
4
Geographical positioning

HELIOS
1
1
1
3
4

Number of runways
4
3
2
1
1

Mixture of air traffic

4
2
4
0
0

Number of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs)

2
1
2
0
0

Capacity operating level

3
2
4
0
0

Airspace complexity
3
3
3
1
1

Runway/surface layout complexity

9
9
9

Total for inherent score

10
10

Table 10 Drivers of difference score table for inherent and structural

8
1
1

Total for structural score

12
13

2
4
-2
-8
-8

Score (inherent) Score (structural)

43 of 154
 Ordering Table 10 by total for inherent drivers and plotting the progression of the two sets of scores reveals an interesting
correlation. In general the score for the structural drivers increases in line with the score for the inherent drivers; i.e. as the airports
inherently become more different from Heathrow the structural drivers alter accordingly.
However there are deviations from this general trend, as can be seen from both the graph of Figure 9 and the right hand column of
Table 10. Specifically instances where the structural driver score exceeds that for the inherent drivers (highlighted yellow in Table 10)
identifies airports that are inherently similar to Heathrow but are more different in structure then might be expected. It is these airports
that are inherently similar to Heathrow, but only structurally different, whose scores will be weighted to ensure Heathrow is compared
as closely as possible to them.

Figure 9 Scores for inherent and structural drivers of difference across all the airports

P1464D002 HELIOS 44 of 154

4.4 Sensitivity testing

Figure 9 demonstrates that Brussels, Manchester, Zurich, Geneva, Dusseldorf,

Barcelona, Prague, Auckland, Copenhagen and Salzburg airports must have their
noise benchmarking scores positively weighted to ensure a fair benchmarking
comparison is made between them and Heathrow. These airports correlate with
the peaks of the red-line above the blue in Figure 9. A suitable scheme to increase
the weighting of the scores of these airports was derived by multiplying the
normalised scores by a linearly decreasing multiplier according to the relevance
(inherent score) of the airports being benchmarked (i.e. the order that they appear
in Table 11). A factor of 0.1 decreasing to 0.01 in steps of 0.01 was chosen to
apply this qualitative factor of difference.
Difference
Normalised (number of
Basic score (score x New ranking positions
Name score Weighting weighting) Rank ascended)
Brussels 138 1.10 151.80 1 1
Manchester 124 1.09 135.16 4 3
Zurich 119 1.08 128.52 8 1
Geneva 114 1.07 121.98 11 1
Dusseldorf 116 1.06 122.96 10 0
Barcelona 95 1.05 99.75 25 3
Prague 101 1.04 105.04 20 4
Auckland 92 1.03 94.76 29 1
Copenhagen 112 1.02 114.24 13 0
Salzburg 104 1.01 105.04 20 1
Table 11 Scores, weighting and ranking for weighted airports

This weighting methodology impacts upon the relative ranking and scores of the
whole set of benchmarked airports, to produce the final set of normalised results,
as shown in Figure 10. Overall this weighting mechanism resulted in 32 places
being exchanged between different airports (as either promotions or demotions).
By comparison a weighting of 10 random airports in the sample set resulted in 47
places in the league table being exchanged; this similarity suggesting that the
weighting scheme used is statically suitable.

P1464D002 HELIOS 45 of 154

 Figure 10 Influence of the weighting scheme on the scores and ranking of the airports

P1464D002 HELIOS 46 of 154

 The final normalised ranking table is shown in Table 12. Overall it places
Heathrow third against the thirty nine other airports it has been benchmarked
against. Of particular interest is both Brussels and Amsterdam airport, both of
which rank higher then Heathrow. It is also perhaps worth noting the relatively
strong performance of the Swiss airports (Zurich and Geneva) as well as that of
the UK domestic comparator airports Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester. The
operational noise performance of a selection of these airports is analysed in
greater detail through a set of case studies.
Original Weighting Normalised Revised
Airport
score applied score Rank
Brussels 138 1.10 152 1
Amsterdam (Schiphol) 142 1.00 142 2
Heathrow 137 1.00 137 3
Gatwick 124 1.00 135 4
Madrid (Barajas) 135 1.00 135 5
Stansted 134 1.00 134 6
Toronto 129 1.00 129 7
Zurich 119 1.08 129 8
Manchester 124 1.09 124 9
Dusseldorf 116 1.06 123 10
Geneva 114 1.07 122 11
Chicago (O'Hare) 116 1.00 116 12
Copenhagen 112 1.02 114 13
London City 110 1.00 110 14
Sydney 110 1.00 110 14
Frankfurt 110 1.00 110 14
San Ana (John Wayne) 110 1.00 110 14
Stockholm (Arlanda) 108 1.00 108 18
Washington National 107 1.00 107 19
Los Angeles 104 1.00 105 20
Prague 101 1.04 105 20
Minneapolis-St. Paul 105 1.00 105 22
Salzburg 104 1.01 104 23
Paris Orly 103 1.00 103 24
Barcelona 95 1.05 100 25
Munich 99 1.00 99 26
Tokyo International 99 1.00 99 26
Paris - Charles de Gaulle 99 1.00 99 26
Oslo 92 1.00 95 29
San Francisco 94 1.00 94 30
Auckland 92 1.03 92 31
Farnborough 91 1.00 91 32
New York LaGuardia Airport 83 1.00 83 33
Hong Kong 78 1.00 78 34
Atlanta 74 1.00 74 35
Singapore 71 1.00 71 36
New York JFK 68 1.00 68 37
Beijing Capital 64 1.00 64 38
Orlando 58 1.00 58 39
Dubai 44 1.00 44 40
Table 12 Scores, weighting and ranking for all airports

P1464D002 HELIOS 47 of 154

5 Case studies
5.1 General

This benchmarking analysis is finalised by a set of case studies. Based on the

results of the above findings, the following case studies of particularly relevant
airport operations are included in this section:

Brussels Airport an airport of particular interest given its similarity to
Heathrow in terms of both its structural and inherent drivers;

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to understand how an airport with a highly
complex runway layout can operate with noise sensitivity;

Manchester Airport specifically providing a domestic comparison against
Heathrow: in particular examining how the noise control and fining system is
administered;

Zurich Airport examining specifically how a ban on night flights is managed
and the influence of stringent and mature regulator on infringement
investigation and airspace change;

London City Airport providing comparison with an airport using a stringent
noise control scheme;

Chicago Airport providing a comparison to a North American airport which
will contrast to Heathrow both in how noise and flight operations are managed.
Establishing these case studies yields an insight into best practice in the
operational management of noise at an individual airport level. As such it should
be noted that each case study tends to represent a regional solution to a specific
problem. The following sections are included in each case study; a general
introduction to airport and the local situation/noise sensitivities, a close
assessment of airport performance (in line with the framework of Section 2.1) and
a brief description of the infrastructure used to manage noise on an operational
level that includes:

Track keeping systems used to monitor aircraft position and noise;

Stakeholder communication mechanisms (including any Noise abatement
guidance provided to airport/airspace users);

Fines associated with a noise infringement;

Any novel approaches to reducing noise impact at an operational level
(including involvement in research and development programmes); and;

Any perceived benefits from the implementation of noise control measures.

P1464D002 HELIOS 48 of 154

5.2 Case study 1: Brussels Airport

5.2.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Similar to Heathrow in that Brussels airport operates in a highly stringent regulatory
environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local (Flemish/Wallonian) and
Federal legislation in accordance with European directives.
2) Geographical positioning
Similarly to Heathrow Brussels airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt
surrounding the major conurbation that it serves.
3) Number of runways
Three runways are in operation (two in parallel and one cross-wind) according to a
well-defined noise abatement alternation scheme.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
International airport operating approximately 225,500 air traffic movements each
year close to its overall capacity level within a complex airspace used by aircraft
operating into and out of other airfields. Arrivals sequence is facilitated by the use of
P-RNAV arrival routes and an arrivals management system.

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

Belgium is a federal state comprising three autonomous areas: the Flemish, the
Brussels and the Walloon Region. The Federal Government is responsible for the
general transport policy and for the operations at Brussels National Airport. The
regions are responsible for environmental policy and each operates their own
noise regulations.
Due to a prevailing W-SW wind most of the take-off movements route over the city
of Brussels6. Legislation (the National Environment Permit) limits the number of
night movements to 25000/year. Night flights are mostly performed by express
freight/integrator services (they currently represent approximately 10% of the
yearly movements). Since the beginning of 2000 Brussels airport has fined airlines
that breach noise abatement limits, with the result that since then several political
agreements between the Federal and the two Regional Governments have been
brokered to establish a sustainable noise framework for the night-time period [24].

6
The south-westerly wind at Brussels airport prevails for 90% of daytime hours (6 am till 11 pm)
and for 97% of the night-time hours (11 pm till 6 am)

P1464D002 HELIOS 49 of 154

 Figure 11 Brussels airport layout [23]

Figure 12 Local noise contours Brussels airport [23]

P1464D002 HELIOS 50 of 154

5.2.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

Key to the noise management policy at Brussels airport is a set of strict aircraft
movement operating restrictions, rigorously imposed by the airport and its
regulators (at both a regional and national level).
The QC) system is core to noise management. It is used to impose restrictions on
the movements of particular aircraft at set times of day through a curfew system in
addition to being used to account against noise budgets run over 12 month
periods.
Specifically airport curfews are in force for movements with a maximum take-off
weight (MTOW) > 34T:

take-off or landing with QC > 8 is forbidden between 2200 and 04597;

take-off or landing with QC > 12 is forbidden between 0500 and 0559;

take-off with QC > 48 is forbidden between 0600 and 1959;

landing with QC > 24 is forbidden between 0600 and 1959;

take-off with QC > 24 is forbidden between 2000 and 2159;

landing with QC > 12 is forbidden between 2000 and 2159.
In relation to noise budgets

At night (between 2300 and 0600) the single movement QC limit is 8 with an
annual maximum of 300 landings between 2200 and 0459;

In the early morning (between 0600 and 0700) the single QC movement limit is
12;

In the evening take-offs between 2000 and 2159 for QC<26 aircraft is limited to
3% of total number of take offs per year;

Note that there are no annual noise budgets with respect to QC value.
QC is defined as 10[(G-85)/10], where G equals:

for take-off: half the sum of the certified fly-over and sideline noise levels in
EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), of the aircraft at its MTOW;

for landing: the certified approach noise level in EPNdB of the aircraft at its
maximum landing weight, minus 9 EPNdB.
EPNdB values are defined in the individual aircrafts noise certificate. Additionally
Brussels airport has number of noise-related restrictions imposed on its distribution
of aircraft movement slots:

16,000 night-time slots can be allocated annually (5,000 of which can be
departures) to movements between 2300-0600 (the 7 hour defined night
period);

7
Note all timing in this report are local

P1464D002 HELIOS 51 of 154


No night-time slots can be allocated on Saturday and Sunday mornings
between 0100-0600 and Saturday nights between 2200-0600.
Fleet monitoring

In addition to the QC system;

A ban is in place on aircraft only compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1
Chapter 2 noise restrictions;

Take-off or landing of aircraft that are only marginally compliant with ICAO
Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 3 noise restrictions are forbidden between 2200
and 0459 (although exceptions may be granted for diplomatic or emergency
reasons). In practice this means that aircraft types as e.g. A300 and MD11 are
still allowed, but that the (hushkitted) B727 is forbidden.
Also all aircraft fleets are monitored through a noise and track keeping system with
complaints investigated and aircraft operators notified of any noise infringement as
detected.
Arrivals restrictions

Arrivals procedures are defined according to minimum heights over given

waypoints on approach. While the AIP instructs pilots to use Noise abatement
descend and approach procedures using continuous descent and reduced power /
reduced drag techniques no systemic definition of a CDA is yet in use at the
airport and as such the of compliance the CDA standard it is not reported. Instead
low and late infringements (deviations from the glide path) are recorded.
Notably Brussels airport suffers from frequent cross-wind conditions on the
runways and as such noise abatement procedures are only expected to be flown
when:

the ILS is available;

the runway is clear and dry and breaking action is not impeded;

visibility exceeds 1900m;

the cloud ceiling is higher than 500 ft above airfield elevation;

the cross wind component lower than 15 kt (including gusts);

the tail wind component lower than 5 kt (including gusts);

no adverse weather conditions that may affect the approach (wind shear,
thunderstorms, etc) are forecast;

alternative runways are not successively requested by pilots for safety
reasons;

pilots do not report excessive wind at higher altitudes.
Numerous other methods of noise mitigation have been pursued at an operational
level. These have included attempting to concentrate the aircraft noise away from
the general populous by routing arriving and departing air traffic along narrow
corridors. A different scheme, which took the opposite approach by attempting to
distribute the traffic across a wide area (and thereby share the noise load), has
also been trialled (although found to be less successful).

P1464D002 HELIOS 52 of 154

 Runway usage restrictions

A stringent runway preference system is in force at Brussels airport depending on

time of day and day of the week. This scheme is surmised in the figure and table
below.

1 2

3 4

Figure 13 Diagram of runways at Brussels airport and common runway

configurations

P1464D002 HELIOS 53 of 154

Applicability of scheme Times over which scheme X is applicable
0500 to 1459 1500 to 2159 2200 to 0459
Mon 0500 to Tue 0459 2 2 1
Tue 0500 to Weds 0459 2 2 1
Weds 0500 to Thurs 0459 2 2 1
Thurs 0500 to Fri 0459 2 2 1
Friday 0500 to Sat 0459 2 2 3
Sat 0500 to Sunday 0459 2 1* 4
Sun 0500 to Monday 0459 1 2** 5
* RWY 25R for traffic routing via ELSIK, NIK ELEN, DENUT, KOK and CIV. RWY 20 for traffic via
LNO, SPI, SOPOK, PITES and ROUSY (waypoint designators)
** Arrival on RWY 25L at ATC Discretion only
Table 13 The runway configuration scheme at Brussels airport

Figure 14 Total arrival/departure at Brussels airport 2010 (2009 comparison

in table)

In addition to the quota count system the total amount of noise from all departure
movements at night is limited by the runway in use. This mode of operation has
only been adopted relatively recently and has followed many years of intense
debate at a national level about the fairest way to distribute the aircraft noise
burden across the residents surrounding the airport.
Exceptions to the above runway preference scheme may occur when the wind
components exceed the indicated values; in such cases a runway more into wind
will be assigned. However, runway 07L/R will not be used for landing, except when
no other suitable runway is available. This is because it is preferred, from a safety
point of view, to have aircraft landing and take-off operations into the wind,
although exceptions can be made to this general rule.

P1464D002 HELIOS 54 of 154

 Ground movements

A number of noise abatement restrictions are imposed on aircraft surface

operations:

Use of reverse thrust is restricted except in emergency situations;

Engine test/run-up is banned at night and restricted during the daytime (0600-
2100). Engine test runs and idle checks in the open air and without silencers
must be restricted to the very minimum and require prior permission from the
Airport Authority. Specifically they can only take place on the crossing of TWY
F3, Y, W1 and W2. If this crossing is not available due to infrastructural
reasons, holding platform P7 may be used instead. Engine run-up is not
allowed at the holding position, except for run-up tests performed immediately
before take-off as part of the take-off procedure;

Restrictions are imposed on the number off aircraft that may taxi at any one
time. Specifically a maximum four aircraft are authorized to taxi simultaneously
to the holding position(s) of the runway(s)-in-use. Additionally, only three
aircraft are allowed to await take-off clearance at the holding position at the
same time. The demand for taxiing is optimised through the use of a CDM
system (the second certified in Europe).
Gate operations

Fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) and pre-conditioned air (PCA) is provided at
a number of stands and reduces the requirement for on-gate running of the
aircrafts APU. Details of stand equipage with FEGP and PCA is published
annually.
The aircraft parking positions 140 to 172, 201 to 240 and 680 to 699 are equipped
with 400Hz FEGP and pre-conditioned air (PCA). As soon as possible after arrival
at one of these positions (5 minutes after docking maximum), the 400Hz FEGP
must be connected and the APU switched off. Upon departure (15 min before
estimated time of departure), the APU can be started and 400Hz FEGP can be
disconnected. When 400Hz FEGP or PCA is not available, the APU may be used.
When no PCA is available and an authorisation from the duty manager has been
obtained, the use of the APU is allowed during periods of extreme high or low
temperatures for aircraft docked for more than 1 hour at the aircraft parking
position.
Departures

A steep 7% minimum climb gradient is defined on all standard instrument

departures (SIDs) until 3200 ft (QNH) with subsequent cutback procedures defined
in the local AIP. The SIDs in particular follows a narrow and curved flight path.
Departures of heavy aircraft with a MTOW >200t must use runway 25R for
departure.
5.2.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

A noise reporting system is available online using a similar system to Heathrows

ANOMS platform. This system integrates: reported noise levels from 52 noise
monitors (shown below; Red stations managed by the airport Blue stations
managed by Brussels Institute for the Environment and Green stations managed

P1464D002 HELIOS 55 of 154

 by the Flemish Environment agency), positional information derived from a radar
data surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure.

Figure 15 Position of the noise monitors around Brussels airport

Stakeholder communication mechanisms

The airport has established an ISO 140001 compliant environmental management

system; controlling and improving environmental performance in compliance with
local regulatory drivers and continuous improvement. The airport is audited
annually to ensure its environmental policy statement and environmental
management programme is in compliance with international standards. As part of
this work noise abatement procedural guidance is provided to the airlines
operating from the airport. In addition the airport publishes an annual
environmental management report [25], a monthly noise measurement report (for
each monitoring station, delineating the proportion of the number of noise events
of different dB category levels [26]) and participates in consultations with local
communities.
Fines associated with noise infringement and noise surcharges

No fines are levied for noise infringements at Brussels airport however an airport
usage charge is in force, calculated according to the following formula
Charge to aircraft operator = U x W x E x D where:
U = Unit rate; 2.12 Euros;
W = Weight factor (metric tonnes), with 20t<W<175T;
E = Environment factor, where E depends on the category of the aircraft;
D = Time of day weighting.

P1464D002 HELIOS 56 of 154

 Aircraft that do not have any noise certification documentation are automatically
assigned to category F. The noise category of an aircraft depends on cumulative
reductions and individual reductions at the three measurement points (fly over,
side-line and approach noise) as defined in ICAO standards. The E-factor is
determined as follows. The aircraft categorisation is determined according the
criteria set out below. D= day/night factor depends on time of movement and QC
value. Time used to determine if an aircraft movement is a day/night movement is
weight on/off wheels.
E-Factor
Aircraft category
From 04/2011 From 04/2013 From 04/2015
A 0.85 0.85 0.80
B 0.90 0.90 0.85
C 0.95 0.95 0.95
D 1.05 1.05 1.05
E 1.20 1.30 1.50
F 1.70 1.70 2.00
Table 14 Environmental category and weighting value Brussels airport

Category
Criteria to be met concurrently
F E D C B A
Cumulative EPNdB reduction Less
0 or 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or
(from ICAO Chapter 3 standard) than
more more more more more
of at least 0
Individual EPNdB reduction
(from ICAO Chapter 3 standard)
N/A 0 1 2 3 4
in each noise measurement point
of at least
Table 15 Criteria for classification into environmental category Brussels
airport

.Local Time QC Movement [D]

QC<12 Departure & Arrival 1.00
2.50
0600-0759 QC 12 Departure 2.75 (from 4/2013)
3.00 (from 4/2015)
QC 12 Arrival 1.00
0800-2059 Any QC Departure & Arrival 1.00
QC<12 Departure & Arrival 1.00
2.50
2100-2259 QC 12 Departure 2.75 (from 4/2013)
3.00 (from 4/2015)
QC 12 Arrival 2.00
All Arrival 2.25
2.50
2300-0559
All Departure 2.75 (from 4/2013)
3.00 (from 4/2015)
Table 16 Determining the day/night factor [D] Brussels Airport

Helicopters incur a minimum landing charge of 13.71 however, Helicopter

operations are restricted from using conventional approach or departure routes
between 0600-2259.

P1464D002 HELIOS 57 of 154

 Novel approaches to operational noise management

Noise level limits are set down for given zones around Brussels airport;
compliance with these limits is recorded through the collection of noise monitor
recordings. This noise level limit region is located west of the airport.For the
Brussels Region, three zones are determined each with their own limits:

the limits are not set for individual noise monitors, but for zones;
- Zone 2 : area located north-east situated in between the borders of the
regional territory and the radius central point fixed by co-ordinates
50'54.2'N - 004'32.4'E with a radius length of 10,000 meters;
- Zone 1 : area located north-east situated in between the borders of the
regional territory the limits of zone 2 and the radius central point fixed by
co-ordinates 50'54.2'N - 004'32.4'E with a radius length of 12,000 meters;
- Zone 0 : a zone of the regional territory which is not covered by zones 1
and 2;

within these zones, the limits are more stringent further away from the airport;

separate limits exist for day and night.
Noise limits are expressed in limits per individual movement (SEL) where:
SEL= Laeq,t + 10 X log 10 (t) / 1sec
Where Laeq,t is the local area equivalent level of acoustic pressure expressed in
dB(A). Each noise event itself is correlated to an overflight of an aeroplane that
produces more then 70 dB(A) measured in Laeq,t; LEVT is defined as the SEL
value calculated for the event under consideration. LSP aeroplane is defined the
Laeq,t value specific to noise produced by a source of ambient noise, generated by
aeroplanes and calculated for a defined period of observation.
LEVT in dB(A) LSP aeroplane in dB(A)
Zone
Day Night Day Night
0 80 70 55 45
1 90 80 60 50
2 100 90 65 55
Table 17 Noise limits for Brussels airport noise zones

P1464D002 HELIOS 58 of 154

5.3 Case study 2: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport

5.3.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Similar to Heathrow in that Schipol airport operates within a highly stringent
regulatory environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local and national
legislation in accordance with European directives.
2) Geographical positioning
Similarly to Heathrow, Schipol airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt
surrounding the major conurbation it serves.
3) Number of runways
A major difference to Heathrow is the number of runways in operation (six) and very
high degree of complexity in the layout of the airport surface.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
As a major intercontinental hub airport for long and short-haul flights operating close
to capacity and serving approximately 386,000 air traffic movements within a
complex airspace structure, Schipol is highly similar to Heathrow in this respect. A
notable difference however is that Schipol does not operate within asystem of
airports. The arrivals sequence is facilitated by ATC issuing vectors during periods
of high traffic density. During quieter periods P-RNAV arrival routes facilitate the
flow of arrivals.

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

Schiphol airport has five main runways available for its operations (plus a sixth,
shorter runway, runway 04/22, currently typically used for general aviation). The
geographical layout of these runways is presented in below.
Daily operations at Schiphol airport take place using the concept of alternating
peak periods - periods in which either arriving or departing traffic is predominant.
This concept is driven by the business model of the main carrier operating at the
airport, KLM. Schiphol is KLMs hub airport and approximately 70% of KLM
passengers are connecting rather than point-to-point. This explains why a model
of inbound peaks, transfer and outbound peaks is so critical (i.e. many inbound
flights connecting under minimum connect times to many outbound flights to
maximise the number of destinations and frequencies that can be offered to a wide
market).High reliability is needed to minimise missed connections.

P1464D002 HELIOS 59 of 154

 Figure 16 Schiphol runway layout

Applying the alternating peak concept to runway use means that the airport
alternates between periods of requirement for higher arrivals capacity or higher
departures capacity. During these peak periods, a so-called 2+1 runway use
concept is applied: during arrivals peaks two dedicated arrivals runways and one
dedicated departures runway are in use, during departures peaks this situation is
reversed. In transitions between peaks, a limited period of 2+1+1 runway use is
acceptable, where the additional runway can be used to process part of the
remaining traffic flow of the previous peak, until that traffic flow can be handled by
a single runway only.
Schiphol airport operates within strict noise regulations. These regulations have
been defined through the use of handhavingspunten - points around the airport
for which a maximum annual noise quota is defined. The location and quotas of
these points have been defined in such a way that more noise can be allowed in
areas with low density of population and less noise allowed in densely populated
areas. Two sets of points exist: one monitoring operations during the whole, 24-
hour day, and one for night hours only (2300-0600).

P1464D002 HELIOS 60 of 154

 Figure 17 Schiphol local noise contours

5.3.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

Although the total number of runways is high compared to other airports, there are
a number of factors limiting runway use:

Due to their relative position and orientation, simultaneous operations on
combinations of runways can be dependent (limiting the available capacity) or
even impossible. Examples are dependent operations on converging landing
runways 06 and 36R, and incompatible landing runways 06 and 36C;

Noise restrictions (which also affect the preferred runway use, as will be
discussed below) prohibit or severely limit use of runways in certain directions.
The most obvious example of this is runway 18R/36L, which can not be used
for arrivals from and departures towards the south. Other examples are runway
06/24 (very limited use from/towards the northeast) and RWY 18L/36R (not
used from/towards the north).
In 2001 there was a maximum of 440,000 commercial air traffic movements; in
2002 this was extended to a maximum of 460,000. In 2003 these operating quota
were replaced by another system with no specific limit on the annual number of
movements but instead specifying a total noise volume (TVG) for LDEN and LNight
and maximum noise levels in 35 enforcement points for LDEN and 25 points for
LNight. Thus the amount of available airport capacity varies according to the amount
of noise budget used by operations to date. This limited environmental capacity is
enforced by noise budget restrictions effectively imposed by slot coordination
measures.

P1464D002 HELIOS 61 of 154

 Schiphol has a limited number of slots during the night period and airlines are not
allowed to operate between 2200-0600 (2100-0500) without a slot applicable to
this period.
Fleet monitoring

Chapter 2 aircraft are banned and the use of marginally compliant Chapter 3
aircraft is restricted with no new operations being permitted and existing
operations currently being phased out. No specific noise budget (i.e. airport slots)
is currently defined for distribution between operators however it is anticipated that
this may come into force in the future. Note that should Chapter 2 aircraft operate
from Schiphol despite the ban then a noise surcharge is added to each aircraft
movement.
Arrivals restrictions

The Amsterdam TMA - like Dutch airspace as a whole - is of limited dimensions

(flight time from FIR boundary to TMA boundary is only in the order of 10 minutes)
and covers some very complex routes: currently, for arrivals, there are three Initial
Approach Fixes (IAF) at the TMA boundary, SUGOL in the west, ARTIP in the east
and RIVER in the southwest, and arrival routes exist from all three IAFs to all
relevant runway ends.
The figure below shows tracks for all flights for a period of a number of hours.
Arriving aircraft are highlighted in red and departures in blue. During the period
covered by the figure, RWY 18R was used as primary arrivals runway, with RWY
18C as secondary arrivals runway. Departures runways were 24 and 18L.

Figure 18 Schiphol Radar tracks of arrivals (red) and departures (blue)

The figure clearly shows two important characteristics:

P1464D002 HELIOS 62 of 154


the vectoring of aircraft (and hence dispersion of noise) is currently taking
place to ensure efficient operations. It can also be seen that there is some
flexibility in this vectoring: most arrivals coming through the RIVER IAF (to the
southwest of the map) are vectored via the west side of the airport and merged
with traffic coming through the SUGOL IAF (to the west of the map), whereas
some flights from RIVER are vectored via the east side of the airport;

the complex network of arrival and departure routes and the often acute angles
at which these cross, leading to a requirement for clear vertical separation.
The option to use holding stacks at the IAFs is available, but this procedure is
currently avoided as much as possible. The complexity of operations in the TMA is
further increased by flights to and from the airports of Rotterdam and Lelystad.
In the specific Schiphol context, LVNL defines a CDA as a P-RNAV supporting
noise reduction approach where both the vertical and lateral path has been
defined as a fixed route. The vertical path is continuous (without horizontal flight)8.
This is a much more prescriptive and less flexible definition of a CDA than that
promulgated by EUROCONTROL. In addition the AIP specifies that CDAs are
flown in a low power/low drag configuration with delayed deployment of speed
brakes, landing gear and flaps.
Currently, CDAs are used during the night hours (2300-0600) however options for
extending their use have been analysed and are currently being trialled. The
procedures used during this period have been specifically designed for the night
time operations. The intention is to develop new RNAV CDA routes and
procedures which can be used outside the night hours.
Runway usage restrictions

Runway use during the day is determined based on the three factors; runway
infrastructure, traffic distribution and noise regulations, in combination with
weather conditions (in particular wind conditions) and runway availability.
A preferential runway system is in place with highest preference put towards
operations on runways that lead to noise nuisance in the less densely populated
areas. In practice this leads to preferred use of arrivals runways 06 (Kaagbaan)
and 18R (Polderbaan). However, the order of preference is re-evaluated on a
weekly basis to ensure all points stay within the quotas at each of the
handhavingspunten for the operational year (1 November - 31 October).
An example of the order of runway combinations for an arrivals peak period (two
arrivals runways, one departures runway) according to the noise preferential
runway use system is provided in Table 18. Similar orders of preference for
possible runway combinations exist for departures peaks, off-peak periods and
night time. The high preference for runways 06 and 18R can easily be recognised
from this overview. Typically, combinations with preference 1, 2 or 3 account for
close to 90% of arrivals peak times during the year.

8
Request for proposal for the current project, Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) Schiphol -
Assignment second opinion, 26 June 2008

P1464D002 HELIOS 63 of 154

 Order of Secondary arrivals
Main arrivals RWY Departures RWY
preference RWY
1 06 36R 36L
2 18R 18C 24
3 18R 18C 18L
4 36R 36C 36L
5 27 18R 24
6 18R 22 24
7 18R 22 18L
8 06 09 09
Table 18 Example arrival peak runway preference order9 for Schiphol
airport

These combinations are represented in graphical form as follows:

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Figure 19 Representation of noise preferential runway system at Schiphol

Airport

During daytime 0600-2200 (0500-2100) hours and after landing, the use of idle
reverse thrust is advised on all runways except runway 04/22, safety permitting to
achieve the highest possible runway capacity by runway occupancy times are
reduced to a minimum. During nighttime 2200-0600 (2100-0500) however reverse
thrust above idle is not be used on any runway, safety permitting.

9
http://www.luchtverkeersleiding.nl/

P1464D002 HELIOS 64 of 154

 Ground movements

To reduce the noise impact of arrivals, aircraft equipped with 3 or 4 engines are
advised to operate reduced engine taxi. Pilots are allowed to deviate from this
restriction if the procedure is considered an unsafe operation or would hinder the
normal operation of the aircraft. In addition Engine test running is only allowed on
dedicated locations on the airport and reverse thrust above idle shall not be used
(safety permitting) from 2200 0600.
Gate operations

There are various APU operating restrictions in place at Schiphol airport.

Specifically the use of APU and ground power units (GPU) is strictly controlled at
all F and G aircraft stands and aircraft stands B16, B20, B24, B28, B32, B36 to
reduce noise impact.
At these stands (fixed) 400 Hz FEGP units are used while for cooling and heating
purposes, pre-conditioned air units (PCA) is used. The APU should be shut down
as soon as practicable following arrival (but not later than 5 minutes after parking
brakes set) and not restarted until 10 minutes prior to departure in order to start
the engines. At all other aircraft stands, aircraft are requested not to use APU and
external power supplies, such as 400 Hz power units, GPU and PCA, should be
used instead, where available.
The only exceptions made to this general rule are when:

it is necessary to use an APU to diagnose and/or rectify aircraft faults (for
technical/maintenance reasons), however prior permission must be obtained
from the Airside Operations office before this is put into practice;

400 Hz power units and/or PCA units are not operative or not available. Prior
permission must be obtained from the Airside Operations office; and;

the outside temperature is below -5C or above +25C (according to
Mtorologique aviation rgulire (METAR)).
Departures

Continuous climb departure (CCDs) are implemented at Schipol airport, with climb
power settings specified to be used after climbing past 1500ft. These CCDs are
flown in accordance with closely defined noise sensitive departure routes with
infringements accounted for though flight performance evaluation reports.
5.3.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

A noise reporting and track keeping system is available online using a similar
system to Heathrows ANOMS platform. This system integrates reported noise
levels from 35 noise monitors (shown in Figure 17), positional information derived
from a radar data surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure.

P1464D002 HELIOS 65 of 154

 Stakeholder communication mechanisms

The LVNL (Dutch ATC) website informs the community of the runway combination
currently in use, in addition to providing historical runway use information10 and
noise abatement guidance provided to the airport/airspace users through the AIP.
In addition the airport publishes an annual environmental management report, a
monthly noise measurement report (for each monitoring station, delineating the
proportion of the number of noise events of different dB category levels [26]) and
participates in consultations with local communities.
Fines associated with noise infringement and noise surcharges

No noise infringement fines are imposed by Schiphol airport, instead a landing and
take-off surcharge is levied against operators of noisier aircraft. There are
currently two noise charges in effect at the airport - one charged by the airport and
the other by the government. The airport charges reflect the costs of handling the
aircraft while the government charges relate to noise impact around the airport.
Both charging regimes are incorporated into a single system with the revenue
apportioned as appropriate.
Landing charge depends upon:

The aircraft weight;

Noise certification;

Time of arrival and departure;

Type of flights (Commercial Air Transport point-to-point flights, cargo,
local/instructional flights).
The basic government charges, which accounts for the noise levy calculation, is
set at 75.25 as of 1 January 201111 with noise surcharges are added on top of
this, specifically:

Take-offs between 2300 and 0600 all charges are increased by 50%, and
landings over the same period increased by 27%;

Aircraft marginally compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Chapter 3
restrictions have landing and take-off charges increased by 60% over the basic
rate; and;

The basic rate is increased by 40% for noise category A aircraft and reduced
by 20% by noise category C aircraft.
The usage charge applicable depends to the amount of noise generated by a
given aircraft movement, specifically the extent to which operators use the
available noise capacity within Schiphol's noise contours. The basis of aircraft
noise category banding is the EPNdB values per aircraft, defined by the ICAO
certification values for Chapter 3 compliant aircraft. The EPNdB is calculated by
subtracting the sum of the three Chapter 3 limit values (in accordance with ICAO
Annex 16, Volume 1) from the product of the three EPNdB noise certification
values. From this the following noise categories are defined:

10
http://www.lvnl.nl/
11
These airport charges and conditions are due to be revised after 1 November 2011.

P1464D002 HELIOS 66 of 154


noise category MCC3: 0 EPNdB > -5 (marginally Compliant Chapter 3);

noise category A: -5 EPNdB > -9 (relatively noisy aircraft);

noise category B: -9 EPNdB > -18 (average noise producing aircraft); and;

noise category C: EPNdB -18 (relatively-low-noise aircraft).
For aircraft, which are not Chapter 3 certified, the following is applicable:

Chapter 2 aircraft are noise category MCC3 (and are banned from operating);

all helicopters are noise category B; and;

all aircraft < 6 tonnes MTOW and all (turbo)prop aircraft 9 tonnes MTOW are
noise category C.

P1464D002 HELIOS 67 of 154

 If the noise certification values of an aircraft are not available (or not provided by
the operator) the charges according to noise will be based on a worst case
configuration of that aircraft type shown in the table below.

Noise category
Noise category A Noise category B Noise category C
MCC 3
Basic charge + 60% Basic charge + 40% Basic charge Basic charge 20%
Airbus A300 Airbus A310 Airbus A319 Airbus A318
Airbus A340-
Airbus A321 Airbus A320
200/300/500/600
Airbus A330 Airbus A380
B737-
B707 B737-300/500 B717
600/700/800/900
B727 B747-400 B757-200/300
B737-110/200/400 B767-400
B767- 200/300 B777-200/300er
B747-
100/200/300/SP
BAe types not
Antonov all types ATR42 BAe ATP
mentioned
BAC 1-11 Fokker 27 ATR72 BAe Jetstream
BAe 146/AVRO RJ Bombardier Global
DC-8 Lockheed all types
series Express
DC-9 MD-81/82/83/87/88 Bombardier 900 Canadair CL601/604
DC-10 Tristar all types Canadier CL600 Canadair RJ 100/200
Canadair RJ Dornier
Ilyushin all types
700/900 328/JET/prop
Embraer EMB-120
Tupolev all types Dash all types
(Brasilia)
Embraer
Yak 42 Embraer 135/145
170/175/190/195
Fokker 50 Fokker 70
Fokker 100 MD-90
MD-11 Saab all types
Short 360
Cessna 500 other
Gulfstream II/III
types
Hawker 700 (HS Falcon
125-700) 200/900/2000/7x
Hawker 800 (BAe
125-800)
IAI other types
Learjet
31/35/36/45/55/60
All other aircraft not Alle aircraft < 6t
mentioned in noise MTOW
All helicopters
categories MCC3, Alle (turbo-)props <
A, B and C 9t MTOW
Table 19 Conservative classification of noise categories, Schiphol airport

P1464D002 HELIOS 68 of 154

5.4 Case study 3: Manchester Airport

5.4.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Similar to Heathrow in that Manchester airport operates under the same specific
national noise controls enshrined in National legislation as Heathrow. However as a
non-designated airport under CAA act 1982 (only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted
are designated airports) noise amelioration is not the responsibility of the
Government. Instead the noise regime is negotiated and agreed with the local
planning authority and enshrined in a planning agreement under section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2) Geographical positioning
Similarly to Heathrow Manchester airport is positioned in the urban/suburban belt
surrounding the major conurbation that it serves.
3) Number of runways
Two; when both are in operation; one is dependent on the other.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
As a metropolitan airport, Manchester operates both long and short-haul flights
(serving approximately 150,000 movements each year) with a relatively simple
aerodrome and airspace layout. While relatively dissimilar to Heathrow in terms of
layout, surroundings and airport type it does however operate in a noise sensitive
location and in accordance with the same regulations as used by Heathrow.

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

Manchester Airport has two runways, Runway 1 (23R/05L) and the new Runway
2 (23L/05R) which became operational on 5 February 2001. A very stringent night
noise policy is in place at Manchester with only Runway 1 operated between 2200
and 0600. The runways are typically operated in segregated mode (one used for
take-offs the other for landings); predominantly in a westerly orientation (which
takes place for 80% of all operations).
Aircraft are flown in accordance with noise sensitive Standard Arrival Routes
(STARS) and noise preferential departure routes (NPDR) until the release altitude
is reached unless operational or safety considerations preclude this. The release
altitude form the NPR depends on the departure route flown; for some routes this
is as low as 3000ft while for others it is as high as 5000ft. Non-standard
departures are also used as appropriate; these include instances where early turn
instructions have been issued to aircraft to reduce larger jet noise. Early turns
account for around 2% of all departures; these routings help to mitigate the impact
of aircraft noise on the communities in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

P1464D002 HELIOS 69 of 154

 Figure 20 Manchester airport noise contours (urban/sub-urban areas
shown in pink)

Figure 21 Manchester airport noise preferential departure routes

P1464D002 HELIOS 70 of 154

5.4.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

A quota count system is in operation at Manchester airport to budget out the

impact of aircraft noise. Certification noise levels (EPNLs), as defined in ICAO
Annex 16, are used for determining the QC category.
Takeoff QC value = (Takeoff + Sideline)/2 for chapter 3 compliant aircraft
Takeoff QC value = ((Takeoff + Sideline)/2)+1.75 for chapter 2 compliant aircraft

Certificated Noise Level (EPNdB) Quota Count

Greater than 101.9 16.00

99-101.9 8.00
96-98.9 4.00
93-95.9 2.00
90-92.9 1.00
87-89.0 0.50
84-86.9 0.25
Table 20 Quota count system at Manchester airport12

The following specific limitations relating to the quota count system have been
imposed:

aircraft with a quota count of QC 8 or QC 16 must not take off or land between
11pm and 7am;

aircraft with a quota count of QC 4 cannot be scheduled to take off between
11.30pm and 6am;

during the night-time period (2300-0700) specific quota count budgets are set;
8750 QC points for summer, 3900 QC points for winter within the seasonal
movement limits of 10150 for Summer and 3895 for Winter (these figures are
due for review in the Autumn of Summer 2011).
The penalty scheme for infringements on the above restrictions is administered by
a panel set up under the auspices of the Scheduling Committee which includes the
airlines and the Airport authority.
A variety of targets have been set with the aim of achieving continuous
improvement through a system of rolling averages, specifically:

number of aircraft marginally compliant with ICAO chapter 3 is no greater than
in 2006;

the average noise level of the noisiest 100 departures between 2300 and 0700
will stay below the level for 2001;

the average noise level of the 100 noisiest departures between 2330 and 0600
will remain lower than the average recorded in 2001 (this average is recorded
in the annual flight evaluation report);

12
Defined in accordance with the UK AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication)

P1464D002 HELIOS 71 of 154


the average noise level of the 10% of noisiest departures will remain lower
than that recorded in 2001; and;

an annual report on the average noise level of the top 100 noisiest departures
between 2300 and 0659.
Specific night-time movement targets have been set up to limit noise nuisance
from night flights, specifically:

Night-time movement limits do not exceed 7% of airport total;

Between 2330 and 0559 (local) QC4 aircraft will not be scheduled to depart;

Between 2300 and 0659 (local) QC16 and QC8 aircraft will not be allowed to
arrive or depart, except in case of emergency or where exempt.
Fleet monitoring

Manchester airport operates a sky track award scheme to reward and publicise
those airlines with good track keeping and overall environmentally efficient
operations. Equally details of the top 100 noisiest arrivals are published quarterly
(calculated for night-time arrivals and night-time departures); these too are used to
incentivise airlines to improve performance.
Arrivals restrictions

P-RNAV supported CDAs / LPLD approaches are operated between 2200-0559 to

runway 23L with the airport monitoring compliance through the number of lows
and lates recorded for ILS glidepath intercept (not descending below 2000ft).
CDAs are implemented during the daytime when traffic conditions permit.
Specifically while visual approaches to Runway 23R/23L are permitted outside the
hours of operation between 2300 and 0600 Manchester airport has imposed the
following additional limitations:

Jet aircraft shall not join the final approach at a height of less than 1500 ft aal;

Propeller driven aircraft with a maximum total weight authorised (MTWA)
exceeds 5700 kg shall not join the final approach at a distance of less than
3NM from the landing threshold and at a height of no less than 1000 ft above
aerodrome level (aa)l; and;

ATC will seek to position visual approaches, by radar, to join the final approach
at a distance of 7NM. After intercepting the glidepath all aircraft not fly below it.
An aircraft approaching without assistance from the ILS or radar shall follow a
descent path that will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach
path that would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath
In addition to these specific procedures Manchester airport supported the
development of the arrivals code of practice alongside Heathrow airport.

P1464D002 HELIOS 72 of 154

 Runway usage restrictions

Figure 22 Schematic of approach and departure routes Manchester airport

Manchester airport has specified its preferred runway direction as westerly, (that
is, aircraft approaching to land from the east and taking off to the west: right to left
in the above picture), to reduce the number of departing aircraft flying over the
more densely -populated areas to the north and east of the airport.
Manchester airport has particular noise sensitivities surrounding its use of the
second runway. Consequently the airport continually reviews opportunities to use
just runway one and impose specific restrictions around its use. Only one runway
is used during the quieter period of the day (1200-1500, extending to 1030-1600 if
traffic allows) and during the night (2200-0600 extending to 2000-0630 Monday-
Friday if traffic allows). In addition runway 2 is closed between 1030am and 1600
on Sunday.
To minimise disturbance in areas adjacent to the airport, Manchester airport
requests aircraft operators to avoid the use of reverse thrust on the runway after
landing while consistent with safe operation of the aircraft, especially during the
night-time period between 2300 and 0700.
Ground movements

Taxiing instructions are partly issued on basis of noise abatement, particularly at

night. Specifically preferential taxiways are defined for jet aircraft and all large
propeller-driven aircraft departing from Runway 05L; subject to operational
restrictions and requirements.
ATC approves idle ground engine runs after permission has been granted by the
Airfield Duty Manager. Engine testing on the open airfield is only allowed for
Chapter 2 aircraft between 0900 and 1700 with Chapter 3 (and propeller driven)
aircraft tested between 0600 and 2300.
Engine testing at night (i.e. between 2200-0600) is restricted to 20 incidents a
year, all of which must take place inside the engine test bay. All engine tests
requiring power levels above idle must take place in the engine test bay.

P1464D002 HELIOS 73 of 154

 Gate operations

A code of best practice has been developed for noise-sensitive ground

movements including aircraft towing and restrictions on APU use where alternative
fixed electrical ground power is available. Currently a framework is being
developed to assess the feasibility of more consistent use of reduced-engine
taxiing.
Departures

The departure movement strategy at Manchester aims to concentrate aircraft

noise along the lowest possible number of noise abatement departure routes,
away from densely populated areas. Further after take-off or go-around every jet
aircraft must maintain a height of not less than 1000ft aal above at the point
nearest to the relevant noise monitoring terminal with a rate of climb of at least
500ft per minute at power settings which ensure progressively decreasing noise
levels at points on the ground under the flight path beyond the monitoring point.
Performance indicators show that 95% of annual departure movements adhere to
defined track-keeping routes. Repeat offender airlines who persistently fail to
adhere to the track keeping requirements have fines imposed upon them (500
per daytime infringement, 750 per night-time infringement), however no such
fines have been used to date.
Continuous Climb Departures are currently being trialled, when traffic conditions
permit, to understand their potential impact on noise and emission reductions.
Noise Preferential Routes specified are flown by all departing aircraft except for:

Aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed 5700 kg;

Aircraft instructed by ATC to make early turns in order to expedite traffic flow,
(such instructions may be issued during the period 0700-2300 local time, to
propeller aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed 23000 kg, including, for
example, such aircraft types as BAe 146 [Avro RJ Series], Canadair Regional
Jet, Embraer EMB-135/145); and;

Instances instructed by ATC, including deviations required in the interests of
safety.
5.4.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

Manchesters Noise and track keeping system, MANTIS, is used to correlate

noise complaints with overflights, provide a public portal to interrogate flight
operations, as well as being used to produce data populating quarterly flight
evaluation reports and the annual noise/track-keeping statistics. The public version
of this system is supported by the use of an online drag and drop training game13.
Stakeholder communication mechanisms

Specific and detailed noise abatement guidance is provided to the users of the
airport and airspace. Annual noise monitoring reports use diagrams to illustrate the

13
http://www.magworld.co.uk/eduweb.nsf/Content/Mantis2

P1464D002 HELIOS 74 of 154

 trend in aircraft noise certification chapter number and the absolute reduction in
the number of noisiest departures.
Fines associated with noise infringement

The airport charging system is based on airline adherence to CDA defined routes
(through low/late infringements), aircraft type (chapter number), track keeping
ability, recorded noise levels, time of arrival/departure, weight of aircraft and any
engine ground runs that take place at night.
Manchester Airport levies a surcharge against aircraft operators that persistently
break the limits (equivalent to 5% or more departures in any one month) along the
Preferred Noise Routes (PRNs), as prescribed by the Company and recorded and
monitored by the Companys noise and tracking monitoring system. The surcharge
levied is set out below:

During the period 07.00 hours and 22.59 hours (local) 500 per failure; and;

During the period 23.00 hours and 06.59 hours (local) 750 per failure.
A further 150 is added for each decibel in excess of the noise limit.
Prior to this surcharge being the levied the airport consults with the operator to
establish steps that the operator can take to avoid further failures.
Novel approaches to operational noise management

MANTIS, Manchester airports noise and track-keeping monitoring system

provides a constant display of the noise levels recorded at each of the noise
monitors, rather than just noise events correlated with aircraft movements.

P1464D002 HELIOS 75 of 154

5.5 Case study 4: Zurich Airport

5.5.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Similar to Heathrow in that Zurich airport operates in a highly stringent regulatory
environment with specific noise controls enshrined in local and national legislation.
2) Geographical positioning
Similarly to Heathrow, Zurich airport is positioned within the urban/suburban belt
surrounding the major conurbation that it serves.
3) Number of runways
Three runways are in operation, according to a defined alternation period, however
all three are dependant.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
A metropolitan airport supporting both long and short-haul flights (around 128,912
movements each year) with a relatively simple layout of airport Zurich airport differs
significantly from Heathrow although it does operate within a noise sensitive location
and close to German airspace. P-RNAV routings are used to improve track-keeping
performance of airlines when traffic conditions permit

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

Zurich airport is the largest international airport in Switzerland. It operates about

260,000 arrivals and departures each year over three runways.
The location of Zurich airport results in noise generated by arriving and departing
aircraft being distributed across the German/Swiss border. In 2003 Germany
imposed airspace restrictions affecting in-bound flights to Zurich arriving through
German airspace due to noise concerns. This resulted in an increase of flights
over the most populated areas of Zurich, including the prosperous suburbs, and
hence an increase in political pressure to reduce noise impact. In response Swiss
diplomats have sought concessions from their German counterparts on the local
flight restrictions however negotiations are currently ongoing.
As a result of these pressures Zurich airport operates a complex system of noise
restrictions as part of its ISO 140001 accredited Environmental Management
System (EMS).

P1464D002 HELIOS 76 of 154

 Figure 23 Zurich airport noise contours

Figure 24 Zurich airport noise preferential arrival (green) and departure

routes (red)

P1464D002 HELIOS 77 of 154

5.5.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

Zurich airport is only accessible to aircraft with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 chapter
3 compliant noise certificate; chapter 2 compliant aircraft are prohibited from
operating. Noise preferential arrival and departure routes are defined to minimise
noise nuisance and infringements of these regulations are investigated by the
airport and the national civil aviation regulator, FOCA.
A runway alternation scheme is in place, with runway 34 typically used in the
morning/early afternoon (to 1500) and runway 28 after that. Exceptions may occur
however if aircraft are unable to land on runway 28 due to performance limitations;
in this case traffic may be vectored onto runway 34.
Particular runway restrictions are in place to ensure no aircraft arriving at or
departing from Zurich enter German airspace; these operate between 0000-0700
Monday-Friday and 2200-0900 Saturday, Sunday and on German public holidays.
These arrivals affect approaches to runways 14 and 16. At all times aircraft
arriving or departing Zurich are prohibited from using a flight level (FL) lower that
FL120 in German airspace.
Hours of operation are tightly controlled with the eight-hour night-time period
starting at 2200 and ending at 0600. Arrivals before 0600 are not generally
allowed and movements after 2100 are tightly controlled. Specifically Zurich airport
is required by local law to exercise restraint when granting authorization for take-
off and landing at night between 2100 and 0500 UTC. Consequently
authorisations for night flight movements are not granted systematically to aircraft
operators. A specific Zurich noise index (arithmetic average of chapter 3 aircraft
certificated flyover and lateral certification levels) governs eligibility to operate in
the night shoulder period between 2100-2330. To depart between 2100 - 2330, the
Zurich Noise index value must be less than 96 EPNL unless aircraft are flying non-
stop distances greater than 5000 km; (in these cases the aircraft are permitted to
depart if their noise index is less than 98 EPNL). Note that these noise restrictions
also apply to Geneva airport. In 2010 250 non-scheduled night-time departures
took place outside the quota amount due to the exceptional circumstances of the
ash crisis.
For Scheduled CAT (Commercial Air Traffic): On departure the pilot can only
expect to receive a departure clearance if ready to start the engines at 2245 or
earlier. Departures are not permitted between 2330 and 0500. Equally for aircraft
on approach the pilot can only expect to receive a clearance for approach if the
aircraft is over specific reporting points on the approach paths by 2215 at the
latest.
For non-scheduled CAT (Commercial Air Traffic): On departure a pilot can only
expect to receive a departure clearance if ready to start a turbojet or turboprop
engine (or, in the case of piston engine aircraft, if ready to taxi) by 2045 at the
latest. Such aircraft on approach will only be granted permission to land if over
specific reporting flights by 2030.
For private traffic: On departure a pilot can only expect to receive a departure
clearance if ready to start the engine by 2045. Aircraft on approach will only be
granted permission to land if above specific reporting flights by 2030.

P1464D002 HELIOS 78 of 154

 Fleet monitoring

No specific metrics are defined for monitoring the noise efficiency of particular
aircraft fleets. However air carriers are investigated on a case by case basis on the
basis of significant non-compliance with track keeping restrictions.
Arrivals restrictions

Specific early morning arrivals procedures specify the runway in use depending on
the mode of operation i.e. Northerly, Westerly or Southern approaches.
While no specific CDA procedures are in place at Zurich the AIP advises pilots to
use LPLD procedures including delayed deployment of flaps, maintenance of the
cruise configuration for as long as possible and a six degree steep approach for
turboprops. Adherence to the ILS intercept point is monitored through an
automatic noise and track keeping system and aircraft are instructed that an
approach angle of not less than 3 degrees is to be maintained on finals.
Airborne holding is typically not required at Zurich airport. This is mainly because
the airport is relatively unconstrained in terms of capacity and partly through the
smoothing of arrivals peaks by coordination with EUROCONTROLs Central Flow
Management Unit (CFMU). Accurate departure and required time of arrival times
at the airport are relayed directly through the Airports CDM system to the CFMU
in real-time through a series of Flight Update Messages (FUM). The airport
benefits from this data exchange through more accurate control of operations at a
tactical level and this provides a more predictable flow of arrivals and departures
[27]. During periods of peak traffic aircraft are sequenced and vectored onto ILS
final approach; at other times P-RNAV supported guidance routes are used.
Runway usage restrictions

Runway usage is primarily restricted by German airspace operating regulations

and prevailing weather conditions. These two factors are generally the principal
factor in determining the runway usage plan although key meteorological criteria
are used evaluated to determine which runway to use in a given situation
according to a runway prioritisation plan.
Under this plan the operating restrictions stipulate that the priority runway for early
morning departures is runway 28 with aircraft arriving on runway 14. The following
table illustrates the runway configuration typically used during various modes of
operations.

P1464D002 HELIOS 79 of 154

 Northerly approaches Westerly approaches Southern approaches

Arrivals from the North, Arrivals from the South

Arrivals from East,
departures from West,
departures from North
South and East
Arrival runways: Arrival runways:
14 and 16 28*
Departure runways: Departure runways:
28*, 16 and 10 32 and 34
Time of operation: Time of operation:
0700-2100 M-F 2100-2330 M-F
0900-2000 Sat/Sun 2000-2330 Sat/Sun
(and in the daytime during
including national holidays)
westerly wind conditions)
*Note arrivals on runway 28 are usually limited to no more than 12 per day.
and departures to the
North and West
Arrival runways:
34
Departure runways:
32, 34 and 28*
Time of operation:
0600-0700 M-F
0600-0900 Sat/Sun
(and in the evening when
westerly approaches are
not possible)

Table 21 Zurich airport runway alternation concepts

Ground movements

Run-up engine tests at power settings above idle revolutions per minute (RPM),
are controlled for noise abatement purposes. No run-ups are permitted between
2100 and 0500 while outside these hours both the duration and power setting for
such run-ups are requested to be kept to a minimum.
On the Apron, Taxiway and Runway all engine run-ups require permission from
the Airport Authority. No run-ups are permitted between 2100*-0500* UTC.
Outside these hours both duration and power setting for such run-ups shall be
kept to a minimum.
On the aprons of the maintenance base, run-ups of jet engines are only performed
when using silencers. Run-ups of turbo-propeller or piston-driven aircraft engines
are not permitted between 2100 and 0500.

P1464D002 HELIOS 80 of 154

 Gate operations

The use of FEGP and PCA is encouraged where available to reduce the use of
APUs where possible. The use of local stationary pneumatic and electrical service
units is used where available on gates; with mobile units used as an alternative.
Otherwise outside these restrictions the APU may only be used:

to start engines, but no earlier than 5 minutes before off-block time;

if maintenance work on the aircraft means that APU use is unavoidable (in all
cases the service period shall be kept as short as possible);

if stationary or mobile units are not available or are unserviceable for specific
aircraft types (in this case APUs must not be started earlier than 60 minutes
before off block time and kept in operation up to 20 minutes after on block
time). Exceptions to this rule may only be permitted by the airport manager.
Departures

The local noise abatement procedures specify that, as far as possible, a rolling
take-off is to be executed with engine power only increased after the aircraft enters
the take-off runway. Continous climb departures are in operation at Zurich airport
(in line with NADP 2 procedures). After lift-off aircraft are required to climb with the
maximum possible climb gradient considering flight safety. For jet aircraft the climb
shall be carried out as follows; maintain take-off power and flap settings climbing
at V2 + 10Kts (as limited by body angle) until 2900ft. After 2900ft the thrust is
reduced to climb power and the climb to 4500ft is continued at V2 + 10 Kts.
Beyond 4500ft a normal speed and en-route climb configuration is adopted.
Deviation from Standard Instrument Departure Routes (SID), as published in AIP
Switzerland (and illustrated graphically below), are only permitted above altitudes
above 5000'amsl between 2100-0500 (although higher altitude restrictions are in
place on some routes). Details of any unplanned deviations are published through
a monthly noise bulletin newsletter; in 2010 there were 1636 deviations recorded
of which 286 were investigated. In 280 of these cases a caution was issued to the
operator; in 9 instances a discussion was held between the airport and the pilot
and 1 case the breach of the SID routes was reported to the national regulator,
FOCA. Exceptions to these track keeping restrictions may be allowed in low traffic
conditions during the daytime to facilitate a shorter arrivals time and generate fuel
savings. Automatic flight measuring equipment is used to monitor adherence to
the procedure with infringements reported regularly to a flight operations
evaluation committee.

P1464D002 HELIOS 81 of 154

 Figure 25 Zurich airport noise preferential routes

5.5.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

A noise reporting and track keeping system is available online using a similar
system to Heathrows ANOMS platform. This system integrates reported noise
levels from 14 noise monitors, positional information derived from a radar data
surveillance feed and the complaint management procedure. The system is also
used to publish the monthly noise bulletin14.
Stakeholder communication mechanisms

Detailed noise abatement guidance is provided to the airports airline customers

The noise bulletin provides a highly detailed numerical breakdown of flight
movements and the noise preferential routes used, however this means of
presentation does make it difficult to detect trends or underlying patterns. Statistics
published in the noise bulletin include:

The number of early and late landers;

The maximum noise level recorded at the various noise monitors;

Radar track plots by month and for typical average days for given modes of
operation (e.g. easterly, westerly, etc.) ;

Latest noise contours (land planning/use restrictions are, in part, dictated by
the location and size of the noise contours);

The noise related KPIs;

Zurich aircraft noise index monitoring value;

Average daytime aircraft noise levels;

Number of flight path deviations;

14
Laerm bulletin, Zurich airport, http://www.zurich-airport.com/

P1464D002 HELIOS 82 of 154


Number of night flight movements.
Fines associated with noise infringement

A flat-rate fining scheme is in place against particular noise infringements detected

at the dispersed network of noise monitors around the airport. In addition a noise
surcharge is levied according to the classification of aircraft types as shown in the
noise pollution index of Table 22.
If a flight departs or arrives during the night-time (i.e. between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.),
additional night noise charges are levied, as shown in Table 23 and Table 24.
These charges are graduated in line with the lateness of the flight.

P1464D002 HELIOS 83 of 154

 Class Aircraft types
I B-707 (100/300B/300C) DC-9 (40[JT8D-11])
B-720 (B) DC-9 (40 ADV[JT8D-11])
Charge B-727 (100/200[JT8D-11]) DC-9 (40/-50)
1000 CHF B-727 (200/ADV) Fokker F-28 (1-1600)
15
( 697) B-737 (100/200) IL-62 (M)
B-737 (200/ADV[JT8D-15/-17]) IL-76 (M/T/TD)
B-747 (100/200) IL-86
B-747 SP SE-210 (10B/10R/11R/12)
B-747 (300) TU-134 (A)
BAC 1-11 (200/300/400/500/539) TU-154/A/B/B1/B2
DC-8 (50/61/62/63) GULFSTREAM II
DC-9 (20/30) HS-125 (400/600 [RR Viper])
II B-727 (200/ADV[Hushkit]) MD (80/81/82/83)
B-737 (200/ADV[Mixer]) DC-10 (30/30ER)
Charge B-737 (200/ADV[Hushkit]) MD-11
600 CHF B-747 (400) Tristar L-1011 (500)
( 418) DC-8 (70) Yak-42
DC-9 (10/20[Hushkit]) Gulfstream III
III A-300 (B2/B4) Tristar L-1011 (100/200)
A-300 (600) TU-154 M (Soloviev D-30)
Charge A-310 (300) Fokker VFW-614
400 CHF A-340 (200/300/500/600) Morane MS-760
( 279) B767 (200/200ER/300/300ER) Piaggio PD-808
DC-9 (40 [Hushkit JT8D-11]) Yak-40
DC-10 (10/40)
IV A-310 (200) Falcon 200 Mystere
A-330 (200/300) Jeststar L-1329/II (TFE 731)
Charge B-777 (200/200ER/300/300ER) Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond 1/BE40
200 CHF MD-87 Sabreliner NA-265 (65/80[TFE])
( 140) IL-96 (M/300) Westwind (IAI-1124/1125/AJ25[TFE])
Falcon (20/50/900)
V A-319 Embraer EMB-145/ER/170/190
A-320 (100/200) Fokker F70/F100
Charge A-321 TU-204 (100)
N/A CHF Antontov AN-218 (200/300) TU-330 Freighter
( N/A) AVRO (RJ-70/85/100) Yak-242
B-717 (200/300) Canadair CL-600 (ALF 502)/CL-601 (GE-CF)
B-737 (300-900) Cessna C500/C525/C550/C560/C650/C750
B-757 (200/300) Corvette CN-601 (100)
BEA BA-146 (100/200) Falcon (10/2000)
Canadair RJ100ER (700) Gulfstream (IV/V)
Dornier DO328 (300) HS-125 (400-1000)
MD-90 Learjet LR (30/45/50/60)
Note that no additional landing charge noise supplement is levied on propeller driven aircraft.
Table 22 Noise surcharge by aircraft type Zurich airport

15
CHF/ Pound sterling c2231-2300onversion rate as of 7/10/2011 with 1 CHF = 0.697

P1464D002 HELIOS 84 of 154

 Time of Classification/charge rates (CHF/)
day V IV III II I
2200-2230 800 (556) 400 (278) 200 (139) 100 (69) 50 (34)
2231-2300 1500 (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278) 200 (139) 100 (69)
2301-2330 3000 (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278) 200 (139)
2301-0000 6000 (4176) 3000 (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556) 400 (278)
0001-later 9000 (6263) 6000 (4176) 3000 (2088) 1500 (1044) 800 (556)
Table 23 Night-time departures Zurich airport

Time of day Charge rates (all classifications of aircraft) (CHF/)

200-2230 50 (34)
2231-2300 100 (69)
2301-2330 200 (139)
2331-0000 400 (278)
0001-0530 800 (556)
0530-0600 400 (278)
Table 24 Night-time arrivals Zurich airport

P1464D002 HELIOS 85 of 154

5.6 Case study 5: London City Airport

5.6.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Similar to Heathrow in that City airport operates under the same specific noise
controls enshrined in national legislation as Heathrow. However as a non-
designated airport under CAA act 1982 (only Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are
designated airports) noise amelioration is not the responsibility of the Government.
Instead the noise regime is negotiated and agreed with the local planning authority
and enshrined in a planning agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2) Geographical positioning
Unlike Heathrow London City airport is positioned in the centre of urban London.
3) Number of runways
A single runway is in operation with movements constrained by a lack of taxiway
facilities and overall length of runway.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
An urban airport serving predominantly short-haul routes and business aviation
(approximately 75,000 air traffic movements each year) London City is very different
airport from Heathrow. However its location, in the heart of Docklands, places some
very stringent requirements on the airport including the use of very steep approach
and departure procedures.

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

London City Airport is particularly constrained by its limited surroundings;

principally high-rise commercial developments and densely populated urban
areas. The Airport predominantly serves European short-haul destinations.
The limited length of runway available at London City places constraints on the
size of aircraft that can operate from the airport. Particularly steep arrivals are in
place for obstacle avoidance reasons. The limited runway length also dictates that
aircraft are frequently required, for safety reasons, to commence take-off roll by
running engines up to full power and holding on the brakes prior to release.
Similarly reverse thrust is usually deployed on landing. Airspace constraints from
the other London airports mean that extended CDAs from top of descent are not
currently employed and as such no CDA procedures are defined for altitudes
above 3000ft. The 5.5 degree glide-slope intercept generally occurs at 1500ft.

P1464D002 HELIOS 86 of 154

 Figure 26 Local noise contours London City airport

5.6.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

The airport is permitted to operate flights during the hours set out in Table 25. An
8.5 hour night is defined for London City airport.
Condition Hours of operation
0630-2200 Weekdays
0630-1230 Saturdays
1230-2200 Sundays
0900-2200 Public holidays
Closed Christmas day
Table 25 London City hours of operation

Only six aircraft movements are permitted between 06.30 and 06.59 hours, (with
only two movements allowed between 06.30 and 06.45). Aircraft are permitted to
take off or land during the period of 30 minutes after the Airport closes to traffic
where they have suffered unavoidable operational delays (however these flights
are not allowed exceed 400 in any calendar year or 150 in any consecutive period
of three months). Helicopters, light general aircraft (with a MTOW of less than

P1464D002 HELIOS 87 of 154

 5.67t) and single engine aircraft are prohibited from operating at London City
Airport although business aviation and air taxi services may operate from the
airport.
These restrictions on the hours of flight operations refer to all aircraft movements,
i.e. the take-off or landing of an aircraft at the Airport except those engaged in
training or aircraft testing. City airport cannot be used for training or test flying
except where this is essential for the safe operation of aircraft authorised to use
the Airport.
Aircraft are not permitted to use the Airport unless they operate within the following
noise categories. The noise factors are used to calculate the number of aircraft
movements allowed within a given reporting period.
Cat. Noise reference level (PNdB) Noise factor Example aircraft types
BAe 146, Avro RJ85, Fokker
70, Dassault Falcon
DA10/50/900B/900EX, DHC
A 91.6-94.5 1.26
6, Embraer 135*, Piper
Navajo, Citation II & V and
the Citation Bravo
ATR 42, Fokker 50, DHC-8
(100), DHC-8 (300), Dornier
B 88.6-91.5 0.63 328, Saab 340, Piper Navajo
31, Piper Seneca 34, Beech
90 & B200, Mitsubishi MU2.
C 85.6-88.5 0.31 Saab 2000, Shorts 360
D 82.6-85.5 0.16 Dornier 228, DHC-7
E <82.6 0.08
*Provisional. Note that all aircraft categories are due for review in January 2012
Table 26 London City aircraft noise classification16

Aircraft are only allowed to operate from London City if they are capable of
completing an approach of 5.5 degrees or steeper - this compares with the
conventional 3 degrees ILS angle of approach used at most other airports. All
pilots must hold a Commercial or Air Transport Pilots Licence and have previously
completed at least three approaches at 5.5 degrees or steeper.
All aircraft types must be approved by the airports operation and control
department prior to their operation at London City. This approval is generated by
the type first completing a trial flight into London city airport with its noise footprint
actively monitored by the airports microphones. The results of this trial flight are
discussed between the airport operator and the local authority and permission
granted or denied to type depending on whether or not it meet the noise
standards. A list of currently approved types is as follows. All these aircraft adhere
to ICAO Annex 16 Volume I Chapter 3 noise standards.

Airbus A318;

BAe 146/Avro RJ;

BAe 4100 Jetstream;

ATR 42;

ATR 72;

DHC Dash 7;

16
Note these aircraft noise classifications are due to be reviewed in January 2012.

P1464D002 HELIOS 88 of 154


Bombarider Q series/DHC Dash 8;

Dornier Fairchild 228;

Dornier Fairchild Do328;

Dornier Fairchild Do328 Jet;

Embraer 135;

Embraer E170;

Embraer E190;

Fokker 50;

Fokker 70;

Saab 340;

Saab 2000;

Shorts 360-300.
Local planning law also places restrictions on the overall factored number of
aircraft movements, as shown below. The airport is permitted to operate flights
during the hours set out in the following table.
Limitation on movement numbers (noise
Condition
factor count see Table 26)
Saturdays 100
Sundays 200
Consecutive Saturdays and Sundays Not to exceed 280 movements
st
New Years Day (1 January) 132
Good Friday 164
Easter Monday 198
Early May Day Holiday 248
Late May Day Holiday 230
Late August Holiday 230
26 December 100
Any other bank holiday 330-396
All other days 592
Up to a limit of 120,000 noise factor count per calendar year
Table 27 Restrictions on number aircraft operated at London City

The number of factored movements must not exceed 25% of the permitted
number of movements in any one week or 120,000 per calendar year. In
calculating the number of aircraft movements account is taken of the category of
the aircraft and its noise factor.
Fleet monitoring

Aircraft new to the Airport are allocated a provisional category following a series of
monitored trial flights at the Airport although this has to be approved by the local
planning authority prior to any commercial operations of the type. All flights from
the Airport are monitored and the category of each aircraft type is reviewed
annually (between March and May) in the light of data from the noise monitors.
Depending on the results of the review the category allocated to an aircraft may be
changed. As shown above in Table 26 the aircraft categories are linked to Noise
Factors which are used to calculate the number of flights against the permitted
numbers. All aircraft operating at LCA are required to demonstrate their ability to
operate within the five departure Noise Categories of Table 26.
The Noise Reference Level used in Table 26 is the departure noise level as
measured at the four Noise Categorisation Points (NCPs) at the runway ends at
London City. It is expressed in PNdB and calculated using an established

P1464D002 HELIOS 89 of 154

 procedure described land planning legislative agreement between London City
Council and the local authority (the London Borough of Newham).
Plans are currently being established to monitor adherence of aircraft operators to
the UK AIP procedures and restrictions on APU use and MRO (Maintenance,
Repair and Overhaul) activities taking place at London City; ranking operators in a
Greenfly league table system
Arrivals restrictions

No circling above London City airport is allowed prior to landing; arriving aircraft
are instead vectored to intercept the 5.5 degree decent calibrated ILS system by
2000ft. Aircraft that make approaches to the airport without assistance from the
ILS are required to follow a descent path that does not result in the aircraft being
at any time lower than the approach path that would be followed by an aircraft
using the ILS glide path.
Runway usage restrictions

The aerodrome itself is located adjacent to the Royal Albert Dock which places
severe physical constraints on runway movements. Principal amongst these is the
lack of a taxiway parallel to the main runway which results in the number of
movements that can be accommodated on the runway being limited as aircraft are
often required to backtrack. The runway is predominantly used in a westerly
orientation due to the prevailing wind direction, however no specific preferential
runway scheme is in use.
Ground movements

Ground movement activities are highly controlled, including strict noise limits
attached to the ground running of engines and specific noise limits for all airport
activities. Specifically:

The ground running of aircraft engines at London City must not exceed the
equivalent of 60 dB LAeqT noise level as measured outside and at distance of
1 metre from any residential property in the area. The approved location for
ground running is the eastern end of the apron extension. Each year the
Airport reports the number, duration and power settings of each instance of
ground running in the previous calendar year along with measurements and
calculations to show whether the ground running noise limit has been
exceeded. Where the limit has been exceeded the Airport is expected to
suggest remedial measures and also from time to time suggest changes to the
place where ground running is carried out.

The ground running of engines for testing or maintenance purposes is only
permitted during the opening hours of the Airport (on Bank Holidays, however,
ground running for these purposes may not start until 09.00 hours). No specific
APU/PCA operating restrictions are currently in place at London City however
this is due to be revised when a noise management scheme enters into effect.
Gate operations

Strict restrictions have been placed on the MRO (Maintenance, Repair and
Overhaul) activities that can take place on the apron and the stands during airport
operating hours. MRO work is allowed at the airport outside these hours providing
that the noise generated cannot be discerned outside the boundaries of the
airport.

P1464D002 HELIOS 90 of 154

 Departures

Noise abatement procedures for aircraft departing London/City and joining

Controlled Airspace are included in the appropriate Standard Instrument Departure
(SID) instructions in the UK AIP. Aircraft departing London City aircraft to climb
straight ahead to a minimum of 1000 ft aal before turning on a given departure
track unless otherwise instructed by ATC.
No specific noise surcharge or infringement fine for departures is in operation at
London City. However conformity with SIDs is assessed and particular incidences
of track deviations are discussed with operators.
5.6.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

The airport has implemented the NOMMS (Noise and Operations Monitoring and
Management Scheme) supported by flight tracking software and inputs from the 7
noise monitors positioned around the airport; 3 at the Westerly end of the runway
and 4 at the Easterly end.
The airport noise monitors are used to establish the provisional noise category of
new aircraft using the Airport, for the annual review of aircraft noise categories and
to produce each year the 57 LAeq 16hour noise contour
The combined monitoring of noise and track-keeping is used to identify any
deviations from the standard routes that should be followed by aircraft using the
airport and to verify the noise contours.
Stakeholder communication mechanisms

Noise abatement guidance is currently provided to the airspace users at the airport
through the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Monthly statistics
demonstrating the total number of aircraft movements and passengers handled,
and performance to date against specific restrictions and annual limits, are
published each month on the airports website. The airport also maintains a record
of the numbers and types of aircraft using the airport the Airport each day; a
summary of these figures is published quarterly on the airports statistics page
along with an annual environmental performance report.
Novel approaches to operational noise management

The airport has cooperated closely with a number of noise reduction initiatives
including the UK Governments ANASE (Attitudes to Aircraft Noise in the South
East) study and the London Mayors Sounder City noise abatement scheme.

P1464D002 HELIOS 91 of 154

5.7 Case study 6: Chicago OHare Airport

5.7.1 General description of the local situation

Notable differences to Heathrow

1) Regulatory maturity/stringency
Distinct to Heathrow in that Chicago airport operates under US noise controls
enshrined in national legislation administered by the FAA (Federal Aviation
Authority) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
2) Geographical positioning
Similarly to Heathrow, Chicago airport is positioned in the urban/sub-urban
conurbations surrounding the main city centre.
3) Number of runways
The current seven runway layout (to be extended to nine) provides the airport with
multiple direction of operation options (similarly to Schipol). As a result a preferential
runway use scheme has been defined and is carefully adhered to.
4) Type of airport (traffic type, aircraft mixture, destinations serviced and number of
air traffic movements)
An intercontinental hub OHare is the primary airport serving the Chicago area, for
both international and domestic flights. A major hub for United and American it is the
worlds second busiest airport in terms of ATMs after Atlanta. Scheduled airline
services dominate the traffic mix followed by air taxi, cargo and general aviation.
The airport is operated by the City of Chicago Department of Aviation.

Local environment and particular noise sensitivities

Chicago OHare is a large airport with multiple runways surrounded by numerous

noise sensitive residential communities. As the main international hub for Chicago
OHare has connectivity to sixty different countries (Chicago Midway airport acts
as the secondary airport for the area, mainly serving the low cost and domestic
markets).
Noise preferential routes are positioned to guide aircraft away from local
communities as far as possible, however the orientation of some of the runways
necessitates the over-flight of downtown Chicago. Night-time noise sensitivity is
particularly acute and certain runways are designated on a rotating basis as the
night-use runway.

P1464D002 HELIOS 92 of 154

 Figure 27 Chicago airport departures (track colour indicates degree of
adherence)

Classification of track Degree of track deviation

Green < 1NM
Orange 0.5 > x > 1 NM
Red > 1 NM
Table 28 Track deviation classification

5.7.2 Operational Noise Abatement Procedures

Operating restrictions

The Fly Quiet program at OHare is the primary noise-abatement programme in

place at the airport run by the OHare Noise compatibility commission (equivalent
of consultative committee). This describes, in detail, the preferential runway and
noise preferential routes programme in use. Specific noise abatement procedures
are listed in the airport operations manual, including guidance on how to fly the
NPRs, details of the local community noise monitors, reduced use of reverse
thrust, limitations on descent heights and the position/procedures for use in the
ground run-up enclosure. O'Hare has a voluntary nighttime (22000700) noise
abatement program in place, as described in the table below. There is no cap or
quota restriction on the number of movements.
Departures First Departures
Pref. Arrivals
runway Second runway
1 14R 27L 14R
2 32L 27L 32L
3 27R 27L 32L
4 22R 27L 22R
5 9R 9L 9R
These procedures shall be implemented before 2200 and extended beyond 0700
Table 29 Chicago airport night-time runway preference

P1464D002 HELIOS 93 of 154

 Fleet monitoring

Each individual aircraft movement is evaluated on its average deviation (in NM)
from the noise preferential routes specified in the AIP. Each airline is then ranked
according to the overall compliance of its flights to the noise preferential routes.
Relative performance year to year and quarter to quarter is compared so that
routinely under-performing airlines may be identified and corrective action taken.
Overall airline performance is described in terms of both statistics by airline and
visualisation of flight route adherence with awards presented to top performing
operators.
Arrivals restrictions

Turbojet aircraft are vectored onto the ILS approach path above 4000ft. This
restriction is more rigorously enforced during the night when the procedure is
extended to include turbojet, turboproper and large commercial aircraft types flying
IFR. For VFR traffic the restriction is lowered to 3500ft. Adherence to the CDA
procedures in use at Chicago have been incorporated into the Fly Quiet noise
control flight performance scheme.
The airport has also been involved in trials of advanced CDA techniques by the
FAA using performance-based navigation (PBN), arrivals management and self-
separation techniques (as used at other North American Airports including San
Francisco, California and Louisville, Kentucky).
Runway usage restrictions

In order to distribute aircraft noise as fairly as possible a comprehensive

preferential runway system has been put in place; as indicated above. These
noise abatement procedures are used if the runways are clear and dry and
crosswind conditions allow their use. Within the constraints of safety the use of
reverse thrust is limited where possible through a voluntary scheme. Similarly
during extended periods of holding pad delays unnecessary use of engines is
discouraged.
Ground movements

Engine run-ups are required to take place in noise pens positioned near to the
centre of the airport to reduce noise exposure to as low a level as possible outside
the airside boundary. Exceptions are only made when the ground run-up
enclosure is unavailable (in which case particular aprons are designated for run-
up) in all cases airside operational management must be contacted prior to run-up.
Gate operations

As part of the noise mitigation measures the airport has developed a sustainable
airport manual in collaboration with other airports from across the US,
stakeholders from pressure groups, industry partners, academia and government.
This has included the promotion of environmentally efficient and noise reducing
gate operations, including greater use of FEGP and PCA, efficient de-icing and
maintenance procedures.
Departures

Aircraft are requested to climb to 3000ft as quickly and quietly as possible while
flying the noise preferential routes.

P1464D002 HELIOS 94 of 154

5.7.3 Enabling technology and procedures

Supporting technology

Comprehensive noise and track-keeping system is in use at Chicago OHare

utilising 31 permanent noise monitors, 13 portable noise monitors and an air traffic
surveillance feed.
Stakeholder communication mechanisms

As the airport authority is an agency of the local government the airport manages
noise impact through the Fly Quiet project which acts as both a noise control
scheme monitoring the performance of various airlines relative to each other.
Quarterly reports provide an update on relative airline track-keeping performance,
a summary of the type of complaints, their location and number of ground run-ups
(including location and aircraft type). Summary reports describing aircraft noise by
type, runway use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft operations by hour and noise reports
from portable noise monitors are also included. Additionally the results of a
modelling study forecasting overall change in noise impact as a result of building
new runways is also available. A particularly innovative visualisation of airport
noise is provided by the average aircraft noise events.

Figure 28 Chicago airport average day noise events

Novel approaches to operational noise management

Fly Quiet program provides pilots with a suite of night-time environmentally

sensitive operating procedures (in place between 22:00-19:00) and monitoring
compliance relative to that scheme. It is primarily designed to route aircraft away
from local areas of particular noise sensitivity.

P1464D002 HELIOS 95 of 154

5.8 Summary and lessons learnt

From a summary assessment of the information gathered through examining the

case study airports a few general trends can be discerned. It appears as though
the case study airports are in general very good on:

Implementing a variety of novel mechanisms to limit the number of aircraft
operating from the airport over a given time interval (whether that monitoring
period is a day, month, quarter or year). While many such mechanisms
typically include a movement or quota count limit, a wide variety of methods
exist to determine a given QC (quota count) value. These QC calculations are
generally inconsistent with one another as they have been generated bottom
up to control noise in a particular airport environment. A specific benchmarking
analysis examining the various means used to determine a given QC value is
potentially a subject for future investigation. In particular this would help HAL
understand the severity of the system in place at Heathrow relative to other QC
systems in use around the world. It should be noted, however, that such
constraints are not controlled independently by Heathrow but are set by the
DfT;

Applying a surcharge to noisier aircraft, in general (although not exclusively)
with reference to the ICAO noise standards;

Applying runway alternation strategies to provide predictable periods of noise
mitigation to the areas directly under the flight path that are most affected by
noise;

Limiting noise from airport surface operations such as reverse thrust, use of
APU, reduced engine taxiing, operating aircraft engine tests within noise pens,
etc. However while many specific noise abatement procedures have been
implemented in this respect it is far from clear how compliance with these
procedures is monitored, either by the airport or particular aircraft operators;

Defining given climb out departure procedures along well defined SID routes
and bringing various punitive measures into play if an aircraft operator is found
to be persistently breaching these procedures. However, as with the definition
of the QC system, the punitive measures exercised by different airports are
highly disparate while some impose fines for track deviation others
investigate on a case-by-case basis with the pilot in question;

Imposing fines on correlated noise events that breach local noise limits using
sophisticated track keeping and noise monitoring systems. While the level of
these fines varies considerably, they are generally of the order of 500-1000
per infringement;

Banning aircraft that are non-compliant with ICAO Chapter 3 noise restrictions
and imposing special restrictions on aircraft marginally compliant with these
standards17.

17
ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 Part 2 Chapter 3; Aircraft are marginally chapter 3 compliant if their
noise certification value does not have cumulative margin of more than 5EPNdB (Effective
Perceived Noise in decibels), obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences
between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three
reference noise measurement points as defined

P1464D002 HELIOS 96 of 154

 Equally the case studies reveal that, in general terms, airports may not be quite as
competent in other areas of operational noise mitigation, in particular:

While these often disparate systems do occasionally refer to international
standards they are all highly diverse and are typically generated bottom up;

The potential of using gate holding to reduce airport surface queues and
associated noise, as is presently used at Heathrow (only one case study
airport had implemented an active CDM system for example);

The possible noise saving that might be achieved by increasing stand
equipage with FEGP and PCA;

A lack of investigation associated with the benefits and drawbacks of either
continuous climb departures (CCDs) or cutback procedures and how this might
affect various communities under local flight paths;

Addressing operational noise management within a fully integrated, accredited
and ISO140001 compliant environmental management system; and;

Communicating the work being done at the airport to monitor and mitigate
noise from aircraft operations through airline noise performance schemes
(such as FlyGreen).
However no single airport operates all these mechanisms coherently or
concurrently; perhaps is symptomatic of the fact that noise abatement schemes
are not a one size fits all but tailored to mitigate noise in a given area. Bearing
this in mind, it is recommended that HAL assess the net benefits and feasibility of
pursuing the individual noise abatement mechanisms in use at other airports within
the context of its own operations. This will help the Airport to understand any
barriers to, or potential repercussions from, their implementation.

P1464D002 HELIOS 97 of 154

6 Summary conclusions and recommendations
6.1 High level conclusions

From the above analysis it is possible to draw two high level conclusions:

Heathrow is a relatively mature airport in the procedures it uses to manage
noise at an operational level. The majority of the processes identified at other
airports are either currently in operation at Heathrow or otherwise in-train
(reference section 3.4). This relative maturity is partly due to the stringent
regulatory context Heathrow operates within, being subject to close
environmental scrutiny by local, national and international pressure groups
(reference section 4.1);

From the gap analysis (reference section 3.5.1) and observation of best
practice elsewhere (reference section 3.2) a number of points for improvement
have been noted. These identified opportunities mainly focus on improving
communication and reporting procedures, particularly in relation to operational
restrictions imposed by Heathrow and the fines associated with breaking such
restrictions. These recommendations apply to both the communications issued
to operational business partners (airlines, ATC, etc.) and stakeholders in the
local community.
6.2 Specific recommendations

Specifically the results of this benchmarking exercise indicate that if Heathrow

wishes to move towards being best in class the airport should examine the
possibility of:

Exploring the potential to attach fines to non-compliance by airlines with the
arrivals code of practice (which is currently voluntary) by examining how similar
schemes are administered by other airports and how compatible introducing
such a performance scheme would be with the local legislative framework (in
particular the CAA act of 2006 [Recommendation 1]);

Publish a clearer breakdown of how the noise fines relate to the infringements
incurred (Recommendation 2);

Implement a Fly Quiet programme (Recommendation 3);

Revise noise infringement charges by examining penalty levels and fining
methodologies in use around the world (Recommendation 4);

Investigate and benchmark in greater detail the legislative framework used to
administer airspace changes around the world (particularly within Europe) with
an emphasis on volumes of airspace around high density operations at major
airports (Recommendation 5)18;

In addition to the Fly Green scheme, construct a framework set of league
tables to benchmark airline performance against the noise abatement
procedures set out in the UK aeronautical information publication (AIP)
(Recommendation 6);

18
Note that other countries may have less formal procedures to administer airspace changes
depending on the traffic density and complexity in a given volume airspace.

P1464D002 HELIOS 98 of 154


Reassess the optimal climb out procedure (continuous climb departures (CCD)
or cutback) for Heathrow, moving to implement definitive guidance in the AIP
and benchmark airline performance against an appropriate metric. This work
will need to take due consideration the ICAO standard Noise Abatement
Departure Procedures (NADP) 1 and 2 and the various limitations surrounding
the use of these procedures (Recommendation 7);

Implement fines for non-adherence to noise abatement departure routes
(Recommendation 8);

Assess the stringency of flight movement controls in place during the night-
time period relative to other major airports (Recommendation 9.1 and 9.2);

It was noted in the course of the benchmarking study that Heathrow
experiences more noise infringements than other airports of a comparable
size. It is therefore recommended that, in addition to work already being done
and by building on existing initiatives (such as the development of departures
best practice guidelines), HAL continue to explore various means of reducing
noise infringements. It is noted that the departure noise limits themselves are
set by the Department for Transport(Recommendation 9.3); and;

Implementing more sophisticated continuous descent approaches (CDAs) from
top of descent, and without an extended period of level flight, supported by
innovative technologies and procedures such as precision area navigation (P-
RNAV), required navigation performance navigation area navigation (RNP-
RNAV), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) segmented approaches,
point-merge and arrivals management/metering systems. It is recognised that
this should be a long-term aim and that implementation should proceed in
stages, not initially including the removal of the stacks (Recommendation 9.4
and 9.5).
From a compilation of a selection of supportive case studies it is possible to draw a final
recommendation (Recommendation 10), which HAL may wish to consider:

Investigating in greater detail various quota count (QC) systems used around
the world to limit the noise impact by amount of traffic and aircraft type paying
particular attention to the means of determining QC value noting that the DfT is
responsible for defining the QC limits and values in use at UK airports.

Investigating further how compliance with specific noise abatement restrictions
on the airport surface may be improved (such as the use of reverse thrust,
reduced use of auxiliary power unit (APU) and stand equipage with fixed
electrical ground power (FEGP)).

Reviewing the course of action followed by various airports against aircraft
operators for persistent breaches of noise preferential routes and poor track
keeping including any fines levied, as appropriate.

How novel procedures such as continuous climb departures, steeper
approaches (particularly for turboprops), early cutback procedures,
collaborative decision making (CDM) and local specific noise limits by aircraft
type might reduce noise. The feasibility and potential benefits specific to
Heathrow of implementing such operational changes will also require
investigation.
Research into this comparator set has also provided a list of notable best practices that,
although not directly related to the points of the Heathrow Noise Action Plan (and so not
actively benchmarked against), remain highly relevant. This includes the implementation of

P1464D002 HELIOS 99 of 154

more noise stringent controls, closer monitoring of aircraft performance and more effective
communication with the general public (Recommendation 11).
6.3 A note on communication mechanisms

Although strictly out-of-scope of this benchmarking exercise, some lessons have

also been learnt concerning how to communicate operational noise issues
effectively with the public, including the use of:

Diagrams to illustrate the trend in aircraft noise certification chapter number
and the absolute reduction in the number of noisiest departures (as used at
Manchester);

A suitable annual performance metric to report track deviations by type;

A pictorial representation of the number of loud aircraft noise events alongside
noise contours and summary of noise measurements for every monitoring
period (minimum, maximum & mean average) and every monitoring station (as
used at Chicago);

A metric describing FEGP stand equipage (i.e. the % of stands equipped), as
provided in the annual environmental report by Geneva airport;

Coloured radar plots according to their compliance with track keeping
restrictions (as used at San Francisco);

A web-based video to illustrate current and future aircraft operations covering
impact on noise hot spots (as used at Oslo);

Social media to engage with community and perform surveys, (currently used
by Toronto);

A pictorial illustration of noise budget (as used at Arlanda).
6.4 An important caveat

It must be remembered, that the above recommendations are drawn only from
the noise perspective; they do not consider the potential impact their
implementation could have on other important factors such as capacity,
connectivity, commercial aspects, business relations or other environmental
drivers (such as emissions output), should they be implemented. Before they are
developed further a full feasibility study examining the possible mechanisms and
ramifications of their implementation at Heathrow should be executed.

P1464D002 HELIOS 100 of 154

A Abbreviations and acronyms
Acronym Expansion

ACOP Arrivals Code Of Practice

Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation in

ACARE
Europe

AIP Aeronautical Information Publication

APU Auxiliary Power Unit

ATC Air Traffic Control

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CCD Continuous Climb Departures (ICAO NADP2 procedures)

CDA Continuous Descent Arrivals

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

DCOP Departures Code Of Practice

DEN Day-Evening-Night

DfT Department for Transport (UK Government)

EMS Environmental Management System

EPNdB Effective Perceived Noise in decibels

FCOA Federal Office of Civil Aviation (Swiss Aviation Regulator)

FEU Flight Evaluation Unit

FEGP Fixed Electrical Ground Power

FLOPC Flight Operations Performance Committee

HAL Heathrow Airport Limited

HACC Heathrow Airport Consultative Comittee

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation (UN oversight body)

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ISSR Inherent, Structural, Systemic and Realised (Drivers)

KPA Key Performance Area

KPI Key Performance Indicator

NADP Noise Abatement Departure Procedures

NAAP Noise Abatement Arrival Procedures

NAP Noise Abatement Procedures

NATS National Air Traffic Services

NM Nautical Miles

MRO Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul

P1464D002 HELIOS 101 of 154

 OSI Operational Safety Improvements

PCA Pre-conditioned Air

P-RNAV Precision Area Navigation

QC Quota Count

RNP Required Navigational Performance

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VOR Very High Frequency Omni directional radio range

P1464D002 HELIOS 102 of 154

B Report references
1 Heathrow Airport, Environmental Noise Directive, Draft Noise Action Plan 2010-2015 (for
public consultation), June 2009
2 ICAO PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations, Fifth
Edition (Doc 8168)
3 Supplements to the UK AIP QC, SUP: 006/2011, UK CAA, 24 March 2011
4 Airport Noise and Emission regulation database, Boeing Commercial Aviation Group, La
Nea M. Conner, Seattle http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/
5 Zurich Airport Noise Bulletin, June 2011, http://www.zurich-airport.com/
6 Zurich Airport Noise Mitigation fund, January 2011, http://www.zurich-airport.com/
7 Decreasing the Impact of NoisE Study of Optimisation procedURes for Decreasing the
Impact of NoisE, www.sourdine.org/
8 UK study Attitudes to Noise from Aircraft Sources in England (ANASE), UK CAA
9 US airport noise law, http://www.airportnoiselaw.org/
10 Survey and review of noise abatement procedure research, development and
implementation results, Approved by the Secretary General and published under his
authority, Preliminary edition, 2007, ICAO, http://www.icao.int/env/
11 Performance assessment for airport noise charge policies and airline network adjustment
response, Chaug-Ing Hsu , Pei-Hui Lin, Department of Transportation Technology and
Management, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 30010,
Taiwan, ROC, http://www.aseanenvironment.info/
12 Noise abatement and mitigation strategies, R. Girvin, Journal of Air Transport
Management 15 (2009), 14-22.
13 Zurich Airport Noise Bulletin, Page 8, http://www.zurich-airport.com/
14 Airport Noise Management System, Chicago OHare, Chicago Department of Aviation,
June 2011, http://www.oharenoise.org/
15 JetStar fined 150k for a late arrival at airport, Australian News Daily,
http://www.news.com.au/
16 Boeing Noise and Emissions Airport database update sheets
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/
17 San Francisco Noise Abatement office, Fly Quiet programme,
http://www.flyquietsfo.com/
18 Chicago Department of Aviation, Fly Quiet programme, http://www.ohare.com/
19 Zurich Monthly Noise Report, Zurich Airport, Unique, http://www.zurich-airport.com/
20 London City Noise Action plan (page 24), http://www.londoncityairport.com/
21 Review of the Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports: Effects
of take-off weight and operating procedures on noise displace, JB Ollerhead, DP Rhodes,
DJ Monkman, R&D Report 9841, www.caa.co.uk/
22 Airspace change proposal, Environmental Assessment of an airspace change, Draft CAP
725, Part B, April 2006 www.caa.co.uk/
23 Noise Contours, Brussels Airport, http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/
24 Attempt at night noise criteria for Brussels Airport, http://www.actie-noordrand.be/
25 Noise Measurement Report, July 2011, Brussels Airport, http://www.brusselsairport.be/
26 Environmental Annual Report, 2010, Brussels Airport, http://www.brusselsairport.be/
27 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM), http://www.eurocontrol.int/

P1464D002 HELIOS 103 of 154

C Heathrow noise action plan - operational noise performance
indicators
NAP Ref. # Action [1]
Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and
report to track progress towards a quieter
1.1.1 fleet
Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and
report to track progress towards a quieter
1.1.1 fleet
Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and
report to track progress towards a quieter
1.1.1 fleet
Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and
report to track progress towards a quieter
1.1.1 fleet
Monitor the fleet profile at Heathrow and
report to track progress towards a quieter
1.1.1 fleet
Noise related landing charges to encourage
airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible
1.1.2 and review on an annual basis
Noise related landing charges to encourage
airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible
1.1.2 and review on an annual basis
Noise related landing charges to encourage
airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible
1.1.2 and review on an annual basis
Noise related landing charges to encourage
airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible
1.1.2 and review on an annual basis
Noise related landing charges to encourage
airlines to use the quietest aircraft possible
1.1.2 and review on an annual basis
Phase out marginally Chapter 3 compliant
1.1.3 (Chapter 3 high) aircraft at Heathrow
Phase out marginally Chapter 3 compliant
1.1.3 (Chapter 3 high) aircraft at Heathrow
For all new aircraft types entering scheduled
operation undertake comparative noise
studies relative to older equivalent aircraft
1.1.4 types to show improvements
Together with partners in Sustainable
aviation develop a best practice guide for
departures by end of 2012 to optimise
operational performance of departing aircraft
with regard to noise, (balanced with
1.2.1 emissions)
Work with airline customers to agree the
introduction of a noise control scheme to
1.2.2 penalise operators that breach noise controls
Work with DfT, NATS and CAA to identify
and assess the changes necessary to end
the Cranford Agreement and allow the
introduction of alternation on easterlies.
1.2.2 Publicise key dates and changes
P1464D002 HELIOS
Performance indicator
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 equivalent
in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 High in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 Minus in FEU report
Publish annual noise contours (55
Lden)
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 equivalent
in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 High in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 in FEU report
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 Minus in FEU report
Publish annual noise contours (55
Lden)
Publish annual percentages of
Chapter 3 High in FEU report
Publish annual noise contours (55
Lden)
Publication of reports (A380 in 2010)
Publication of DCOP
Publication of noise control scheme
Publication of a schedule for these
work to inform local residents about
timescales
104 of 154
NAP Ref. # Action Performance indicator

Continue to promote adherence with our

voluntary agreement on reverse thrust Publication of a schedule for these
through forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable work to inform local residents about
1.2.4 Aviation and other communication events. timescales

Continue to promote adherence to the

arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in
particular the achievement of CDAs through
forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation % CDA achievement published in
1.2.5 and other communication events. annual FEU report

Continue to promote adherence to the

arrivals code of practice (ACOP) and in
particular the achievement of CDAs through
forums such as FLOPC, Sustainable Aviation % meeting joining point criteria
1.2.5 and other communication events. published in annual FEU report
Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT
1.2.6 departure noise limits Number of noise infringements
Continue to fine aircraft in breach of DfT
1.2.6 departure noise limits Amount of fine money raised
Review the fining levels set for breaches of
the departure noise limits in 2010 and at least
1.2.7 every three years Number of noise infringements

Review the fining levels set for breaches of

the departure noise limits in 2010 and at least
1.2.7 every three years Amount of fine money raised

Implement the operational Noise Policy set

out by the DfT by continuing to promote,
monitor and seek to improve and report on Monitor relevant statistics - noise
adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement infringements - and publish figures in
1.2.8 procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP the FEU report

Implement the operational Noise Policy set

out by the DfT by continuing to promote,
monitor and seek to improve and report on Monitor relevant statistics - track
adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement keeping - and publish figures in the
1.2.8 procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP FEU report

Implement the operational Noise Policy set

out by the DfT by continuing to promote,
monitor and seek to improve and report on
adherence to the Departure Noise Abatement Monitor relevant statistics - 1000ft -
1.2.8 procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP and publish figures in the FEU report

Implement the operational Noise Policy set

out by the DfT by continuing to promote,
monitor and seek to improve and report on
adherence to the Arrival Noise Abatement Monitor relevant statistics - CDA -
1.2.9 procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP and publish figures in the FEU report
Implement the operational Noise Policy set
out by the DfT by continuing to promote,
monitor and seek to improve and report on Monitor relevant statistics - Joining
adherence to the Arrival Noise Abatement point - and publish figures in the FEU
1.2.9 procedures detailed in the Heathrow AIP report

P1464D002 HELIOS 105 of 154

NAP Ref. # Action Performance indicator
Work with partners in sustainable aviation to
develop and promote low noise fight
procedures through evaluation of future
operational methods and implementation of
best practice, for example: evaluating the
feasibility of implementing steeper
approaches. We will report on these bi-
annually through our contribution to the
1.2.10 Sustainable Aviation Report Evaluate steeper approaches
Work with airline customers and NATS to
identify trial and evaluate costs and benefits
of future operational methods which may
have the potential to enhance noise Results reported in Sustainable
management opportunities. For example Aviation report and FEU annual
1.2.11 trials of P-RNAV arrivals and departures. report
Continue to administer DfT night restrictions
regime and take steps as required to ensure
the number of operations at night is within the Publish in FEU annual report and
1.2.12 limits prescribed seasonally at HACC

We will continue to engage with our aviation

partners through FLOPC and other
communication opportunities to seek to
improve adherence to the AIP noise
1.2.13 abatement procedures Publish in FEU quarterly report
In order to manage ground noise continue to
work with airline customers and ground
handling agents to ensure engine
maintenance activity is conducted within the Number, location and duration of
terms of the appropriate operational safety engine runs published in FEU
1.2.14 instructions (OSI) quarterly report

In order to manage ground noise continue to

work with airline customers and ground
handling agents to ensure aircraft turnaround
activity is conducted within the terms of the Number of APU compliance checks
1.2.15 operational Safety Instructions and number not compliant

In conjunction with partners in Sustainable

Aviation continue to lobby for and seek to
support continual improvements in
technology and operations towards the
ACARE goal of 50% reduction in perceived
external noise by 2020 based on new aircraft
of 2020 relative to equivalent new aircraft in Publish in sustainable aviation bi-
1.2.16 2000. annual report

Protect quiet areas in any airspace change

process that impacts Heathrow where it does
not conflict with the governments' stated
policy of not adding to the burden of more
1.2.17 densely populated areas.

In conjunction with airline customers and

NATS investigate improvements to the stand
utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in Publish a report on optimisation
1.2.18 order to reduce ground noise opportunities for taxiing

P1464D002 HELIOS 106 of 154

NAP Ref. # Action
In conjunction with airline customers and
NATS investigate improvements to the stand
utilisation and taxi procedures at Heathrow in
1.2.18 order to reduce ground noise
Continue to promote adherence to the airline
voluntary agreement regarding the operation
of cargo flights and early morning arrivals
1.2.19 during the night period
Continue to administer engine ground
running restrictions to ensure the number of
minutes of high power engine testing limits
1.2.20 are not exceeded.
P1464D002 HELIOS
Performance indicator
Publish a report on optimisation
opportunities for stand utilisation
Publish details of number of aircraft,
and the details of those aircraft in
FEU annual report
Monitor engine running statistics and
publish figures in annual FEU report
107 of 154
D Benchmarking references

Relevant benchmarking KPA Heathrow NAP

Ref. No. Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Annual flight movements by
flight type (charter,
1.1 Hong-Kong N/A scheduled, cargo, etc). HK CAA 1
Colour historic radar tracks Also Chicago, Geneva,
1.1 Gatwick N/A according to height Zurich 1
By type, average
movements per day and
1.1 Gatwick N/A modal split and go-arounds Flight evaluation report 1
Number of flight arriving or
departing of a given aircraft According to ICAO noise
1.1 Zurich N/A noise classification classification 1
Aircraft certified with respect
Total number of aircraft of a to international standards.
given noise classification Noisiest aircraft (chapters 1
1.1 Geneva N/A (chapter number). and 2) are banned 1
Annual % change in flight
movements by flight path
('occupancy of landing and Presented in diagrammatic
1.1 Zurich N/A take-off routes') form. 1 2
Annual % changes in flight
1.1 Zurich N/A movements by runway 1 2
Annual flight movements by
1.1 Zurich N/A runway 1

Annual flight movements for

1.1 Zurich N/A IFR and VFR air traffic 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 108 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Provides details on the
number of arrivals and
departures by hour of the
Flight operations by hour of day, total operations by hour
1.1 Chicago N/A the day and operations by runway. 1
Average number of
operations per day and per In both absolute values and
1.1 Chicago N/A night by type percentages 1
Reduced night-time
movements. Average
number of flights operating Noise and track keeping
each hour reported on a system used to record the
1.1 Hong-Kong N/A quarterly basis. number of night-time flights 1
Continue to administer DfT
night restrictions regime and
take steps as required to
ensure the number of
operations at night is within Publish in FEU annual report
1.1 Heathrow 1.2.12 the limits prescribed and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP
Continue to administer DfT
night restrictions regime and
take steps as required to
ensure the number of
operations at night is within Publish in FEU annual report
1.1 Heathrow 1.2.12 the limits prescribed and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP

Continue to administer DfT

night restrictions regime and
take steps as required to
ensure the number of
operations at night is within Publish in FEU annual report
1.1 Heathrow 1.2.12 the limits prescribed and seasonally at HACC NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 109 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Continue to promote
adherence to the airline
voluntary agreement
regarding the operation of Publish details of number of
cargo flights and early aircraft, and the details of
morning arrivals during the those aircraft in FEU annual
1.1 Heathrow 1.2.19 night period report NAP AIP
Percentage of flights
operated in night period
1.1 Zurich N/A Number of night flights 22:00-06:00 1
Late night Woodside VOR
crossing altitude; flight
number and altitude for each
aircraft that uses the
Woodside VOR on approach
to SFO International Airport
1.1 SFO N/A Woodside VOR between 22:30-06:30 1
Shown for given percentage
Runway usage in absolute of arrivals and departures
1.1 Chicago N/A and percentage terms diagrammatically 1
Overall ranking of airlines by
the most-used departure
runway according to the Green <0.5 miles, amber 0.5-
1.1 Chicago N/A resultant deviation of flights 1 miles and red >1 mile. 1
Runway usage (% of flights,
number of VFR and IFR
flights), annual total number
1.1 Geneva N/A of movements 1 2

Runway usage (% of flights, Average daily runway use

number of VFR and IFR and percentage of use for
flights), annual total number each runway and for
1.1 Chicago N/A of movements arrivals/departures. 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 110 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Absolute figures and
percentage in diagrammatic
1.1 Chicago N/A Monthly runway use form 1
Number of aircraft noise
events of 85dB or greater Diagrammatic form alongside
1.2 Chicago N/A and 65 dB or greater noise contours 1
Summary of noise
measurements for every
day of monitoring period
(max, min, mean and
mode); hourly noise level
site report for each day
(Aircraft LEQ, aircraft
events; dBA noise levels
1.2 Chicago N/A and frequency) 1
Summary of noise
measurements for every
day of monitoring period
(max, min, mean and
mode); hourly noise level
site report for each day
(Aircraft LEQ, aircraft
events; dBA noise levels
1.2 Chicago N/A and frequency) 1
Noise levels recorded by
day and aircraft noise
1.2 Hong-Kong N/A events 1
Compared to previous years
Current measurement and a 12 month rolling
1.2 Chicago N/A (monthly average) average 1

Noise levels recorded by

day and aircraft noise
1.2 Farnborough N/A events Quarterly report 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 111 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Implement the operational
Noise Policy set out by the
DfT by continuing to
promote, monitor, and seek
to improve and report on
adherence to the Departure Monitor relevant statistics -
Noise Abatement noise infringements - and
procedures detailed in the publish figures in the FEU
1.2 Heathrow 1.2.8 Heathrow AIP report NAP AIP
Top 25 loudest noise events
1.2 Chicago N/A over reporting period. 1
Average daytime and night-
time recorded sound level
1.2 Chicago N/A for each monitor 1
Single event maximum
noise level limits at each
1.2 SFO N/A noise monitoring site. 1 2
Continue to fine aircraft in
breach of DfT departure Number of noise
1.3 Heathrow 1.2.6 noise limits infringements NAP AIP
Continue to fine aircraft in
breach of DfT departure
1.3 Heathrow 1.2.6 noise limits Amount of fine money raised NAP AIP
Work with airline customers
to agree the introduction of
a noise control scheme to
penalise operators that Publication of noise control
1.3 Heathrow 1.2.2 breach noise controls scheme NAP AIP
Review the fining levels set
for breaches of the
departure noise limits in
2010 and at least every Number of noise
1.3 Heathrow 1.2.7 three years infringements NAP AIP
Number of infringements in
1.3 Geneva N/A monthly report Reduced noise procedures 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 112 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Details of all aircraft
movements causing
infringements of noise
1.3 Gatwick N/A monitoring stations 1
Protect quiet areas in any
airspace change process
that impacts Heathrow
where it does not conflict
with the governments'
stated policy of not adding
to the burden of more
1.4 Heathrow 1.2.17 densely populated areas. NAP AIP
Summary noise Current quarter compared to
measurements/contours previous four quarters. Red
from each monitor located numbers indicate an increase
1.4 Chicago N/A around airport in noise; green a reduction 1
Modelling of changes in
noise contours with new
1.4 Heathrow N/A runway build programme NAP AIP
Monitor the fleet profile at Publish annual percentages
Heathrow and report this on of Chapter 4, Chapter 3 High,
an annual basis in order to Chapter 3, Chapter 3 minus
track progress towards a (and equivalents) in FEU
2.1 Heathrow 1.1.1 quieter fleet report NAP AIP
Monitor the fleet profile at
Heathrow and report to
track progress towards a Publish annual noise
2.1 Heathrow 1.1.1 quieter fleet contours (55 Lden) NAP AIP
Noise related landing Publish annual percentages
charges to encourage of Chapter 4, Chapter 3 High,
airlines to use the quietest Chapter 3 and Chapter 3
aircraft possible and review minus (and equivalent) in
2.1 Heathrow 1.1.2 on an annual basis FEU report NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 113 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Fleet noise quality; Assigns
a higher rating or grade to
airlines operating quieter,
new generation aircraft,
while airlines operating Evaluates noise contribution
older, louder technology of each airline's fleet as
2.1 SFO N/A aircraft would rate lower. operated 1
Phase out marginally
Chapter 3 compliant Publish annual percentages
(Chapter 3 high) aircraft at of Chapter 3 High in FEU
2.2 Heathrow 1.1.3 Heathrow report NAP AIP
For all new aircraft types
entering scheduled
operation undertake
comparative noise studies
relative to older equivalent
aircraft types to show Publication of reports (A380
2.3 Heathrow 1.1.4 improvements in 2010) NAP AIP
In conjunction with partners
in Sustainable Aviation
continue to lobby for and
seek to support continual
improvements in technology
and operations towards the
ACARE goal of 50%
reduction in perceived
external noise by 2020
based on new aircraft of Publish in sustainable
2.3 Heathrow 1.2.16 2020 aviation bi-annual report NAP AIP
Quarterly report; monitoring
designated noise-abatement
flight routes and procedures
Fly quiet awards; flight to reduce impact of aircraft
paths, overall level and noise at night using Airport
timing of operation and Noise Management System
2.3 Chicago N/A ground runs. (ANMS) 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 114 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Quietest airline award;
Currently, the Fly Quiet The overall goal of the Fly
Program consists of five Quiet Program is to influence
elements: - The overall airlines to operate as quietly
noise quality of each as possible in the San
airlines fleet operating at Francisco Bay Area. A
SFO (fleet); - An evaluation successful Fly Quiet Program
of single overflight noise is expected to reduce both
level exceedances (noise single event and total noise
2.3 SFO N/A monitoring); levels around the airport. 1
Work with airline customers
and NATS to identify trial
and evaluate costs and
benefits of future
operational methods which
may have the potential to
enhance noise management
opportunities. For example Results reported in
trials of P-RNAV arrivals Sustainable Aviation report
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.11 and departures. and FEU annual report NAP AIP

Continue to promote
adherence to the arrivals
code of practice (ACOP)
and in particular the
achievement of CDAs
through forums such as
FLOPC, Sustainable % CDA achievement
Aviation and other published in annual FEU
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.5 communication events. report NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 115 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Continue to promote
adherence to the arrivals
code of practice (ACOP)
and in particular the
achievement of CDAs
through forums such as
FLOPC, Sustainable % CDA achievement
Aviation and other published in annual FEU
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.5 communication events. report NAP AIP
Continue to promote
adherence to the arrivals
code of practice (ACOP)
and in particular the
achievement of CDAs
through forums such as
FLOPC, Sustainable % meeting joining point
Aviation and other criteria published in annual
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.5 communication events. FEU report NAP AIP
Continue to promote
adherence to the arrivals
code of practice (ACOP)
and in particular the
achievement of CDAs
through forums such as
FLOPC, Sustainable % meeting joining point
Aviation and other criteria published in annual
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.5 communication events. FEU report NAP AIP
Implement the operational
Noise Policy set out by the
DfT by continuing to
promote, monitor and seek
to improve and report on
adherence to the Arrival Monitor relevant statistics -
Noise Abatement (e.g. CDA compliance,
procedures detailed in the Joining point - and publish
3.1 Heathrow 1.2.9 Heathrow AIP figures in the FEU report NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 116 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Adherence of flights to
CDAs and noise abatement
3.1 Gatwick N/A arrival/departure routes 1
Between 23:30 and 06:00,
aircraft must not join the ILS
below 3,000 feet or closer
than ten nautical miles (nm).
Indicator shows adherence to
this joining point criteria
3.1 Gatwick N/A ILS Joining point criteria adherence. 1
Monthly achievement of Day, night, core-night and
3.1 Gatwick N/A CDAs shoulder 1
We will continue to engage
with our aviation partners
through FLOPC and other
communication
opportunities to seek to
improve adherence to the
AIP noise abatement Publish in FEU quarterly
3.2 Heathrow 1.2.13 procedures report NAP AIP
Work with partners in
sustainable aviation to
develop and promote low
noise fight procedures
through evaluation of future
operational methods and
implementation of best
practice, for example:
evaluating the feasibility of
implementing steeper
3.2 Heathrow 1.2.10 approaches. Evaluate steeper approaches NAP AIP
Atlanta, SFO,
Heathrow,
Schiphol,
3.2 Chicago, Geneva N/A Public Flight track software N/A

P1464D002 HELIOS 117 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Monthly flight movements
3.2 Zurich N/A (IFR and VFR) by runways 1 2
Time of arrivals/departures
by flight paths (and
percentage change on
3.2 Zurich N/A previous year) 1
Daily flight movements for
IFR and VFR traffic by
3.2 Zurich N/A runway Monthly report 1 2
% Adherence to noise
preferential route in % terms
3.2 Chicago N/A by runway 1
Rating of A/C approaches to Over-bay approaches; green,
3.2 SFO N/A two specific runways over-communities; poor 1

Adherence to flight routes;

Following attributes are
reported:
- Total number of 'registered
deviations'
- Proportion investigated
- Number of cautions issued
- Number of discussions
with pilots Significant deviation from
- Number of cases reported these paths are investigated
3.2 Zurich N/A to regulator (FOCA) and a caution issued 1
Flight route deviation
3.2 Geneva N/A parameters monitored 1
Using noise-abatement
departure procedures,
approaches over water when
possible and using CDA for
3.2 Hong-Kong N/A Flight route adherence arrivals from the North-East 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 118 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Work with DfT, NATS and
CAA to identify and assess
the changes necessary to
end the Cranford
Agreement and allow the
introduction of alternation on Publication of a schedule of
easterlies. Publicise key work to inform local residents
4.1 Heathrow 1.2.2 dates and changes about timescales NAP AIP
Compliance with preferential
runway use programme.
Description notes that the
Night-time preferential runway alternation scheme
runway use. Logging of cannot be used all the time
flight runway usage. due to prevailing wind
Displayed in table, graphs direction. Pilot discretion
and map diagram in exercised. Over-water
4.1 SFO N/A directors monthly report. departure procedures. 1 2
Night-time flights; arrivals
and departures in the night
quota period; limits, usage
and exempt aircraft
4.1 Gatwick N/A movements 1
Night-time flights; quota Movements by quota count
4.1 Gatwick N/A count category and by season. 1
FAA summarises details of
why particular night-time
4.1 Chicago N/A operations occurred 1
Number of aircraft types
4.1 Gatwick N/A against quota 1

Number of night flights

(relative to total) and their Non-commercial flights are
4.1 Geneva N/A timing (by category) banned from 22:00 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 119 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action
Continue to promote
adherence with our
voluntary agreement on
reverse thrust through
forums such as FLOPC,
Sustainable Aviation and
other communication
5.1 Heathrow 1.2.4 events.
In order to manage ground
noise continue to work with
airline customers and
ground handling agents to
ensure engine maintenance
activity is conducted within
the terms of the appropriate
operational safety
5.2 Heathrow 1.2.14 instructions (OSI)
Ground-run up monitoring
(infringement
5.2 SFO N/A count/procedure)
Continue to administer
engine ground running
restrictions to ensure the
number of minutes of high
power engine testing limits
5.2 Heathrow 1.2.20 are not exceeded.
P1464D002 HELIOS
Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Publication of a schedule for
these work to inform local
residents about timescales NAP AIP
Number, location and
duration of engine runs
published in FEU quarterly
report NAP AIP
As part of the aircraft
operations and noise
monitoring system upgrade,
a ground run up monitoring
system was installed at SFO.
This system gives the Airport
the tools to remotely monitor
aircraft run up activity via
motion detection cameras
and noise monitoring. 1
Monitor engine running
statistics and publish figures
in annual FEU report NAP AIP
120 of 154
 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Total number of ground run-
ups from current quarter by
aircraft type and also by
airline and location (including
use of noise pen) in absolute
and percentage (utilisation)
Ground-run up monitoring terms. This is compared with
(infringement the equivalent data for the
5.2 Chicago N/A count/procedure) previous quarter. 1

Engine run-up restrictions

infringement count and
5.3 SFO N/A follow-up procedure 1 2

In conjunction with airline

customers and NATS
investigate improvements to
the stand utilisation and taxi
procedures at Heathrow in Publish a report on
order to reduce ground optimisation opportunities for
5.3 Heathrow 1.2.18 noise stand utilisation NAP AIP
In conjunction with airline
customers and NATS
investigate improvements to
the stand utilisation and taxi
procedures at Heathrow in Publish a report on
order to reduce ground optimisation opportunities for
5.4 Heathrow 1.2.18 noise taxiing NAP AIP
In order to manage ground
noise continue to work with
airline customers and
ground handling agents to
ensure aircraft turnaround
activity is conducted within Number of APU compliance
the terms of the operational checks and number not
6.1 Heathrow 1.2.15 Safety Instructions compliant NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 121 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
6.1 Geneva N/A FEGP stand equipage Annual report 1 2
Provide FEGP to any new
Use of fixed electric ground stand and limited amount of
6.1 Gatwick N/A power ground power units on stand 1
Prohibited during night-time
6.1 SFO N/A APU Infringement count hours. 1
Together with partners in
sustainable aviation develop
a best practice guide for
departures by end of 2012
to optimise operational
performance of departing
aircraft with regard to noise,
7.1 Heathrow 1.2.1 (balanced with emissions) Publication of DCOP NAP AIP
Keep aircraft away from
residential communities
located to the northwest of
SFO by keeping east of
Highway 101. Aircraft east of
Aircraft departing 28L and Highway 101 are judged
28R operate under this good. Departures west of
(predominantly VFR) 101 are scored marginal or
shoreline departure poor depending on their
7.2 SFO N/A procedure location. 1
Implement the operational
Noise Policy set out by the
DfT by continuing to
promote, monitor and seek
to improve and report on
adherence to the Departure
Noise Abatement
procedures detailed in the Monitor relevant statistics -
Heathrow AIP track keeping - and publish
7.2 Heathrow 1.2.8 figures in the FEU report. NAP AIP

P1464D002 HELIOS 122 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Deviations by year; overall
on-track performance of all
aircraft; on-track
7.2 Gatwick N/A Track-keeping performance performance by aircraft type 1
Conformity with noise
abatement departure
7.2 SFO N/A Gap departure quality procedure. 1

Implement the operational

Noise Policy set out by the
DfT by continuing to
promote, monitor and seek
to improve and report on
adherence to the Departure
Noise Abatement Monitor relevant statistics -
procedures detailed in the 1000ft - and publish figures
7.2 Heathrow 1.2.8 Heathrow AIP in the FEU report NAP AIP

Annual flight movements by

flight type (charter,
1.1 Hong-Kong N/A scheduled, cargo, etc). HK CAA 1

Reduced night-time
movements. Average
number of flights operating
each hour reported on a
1.1 Hong-Kong N/A quarterly basis.
Noise and track keeping
system used to record the
number of night-time flights 1

Noise levels recorded by

day and aircraft noise
1.2 Hong-Kong N/A events 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 123 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2

Using noise-abatement
departure procedures,
approaches over water when
possible and using CDA for
3.2 Hong-Kong N/A Flight route adherence arrivals from the North-East 1

No night time period defined

1.1.1 John F. Kennedy N/A and no quota attached. 1

Extensive GA and business

jet traffic; as such no noise Fines for infringing airlines or
quota system has been denied usage of airport of
1.1.1 John Wayne N/A developed or imposed owner and operator 1

Curfew with limited number

of take offs/landings in a
1.1.1 Munich N/A given period 1

1.1.1 Orlando N/A 7 Hour night defined in AIP 1

No limit on number of night

flights; chapter 2 ban in
1.1.2 Orlando N/A place.

P1464D002 HELIOS 124 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Paris Charles de
1.1.1 Gaulle N/A 7 Hour night defined in AIP 1

Ban during core night

Paris Charles de restriction of nosiest at other
1.1.2 Gaulle N/A times of 7 hour night 1
Paris Charles de
1.1.3 Gaulle N/A No quota system 1

No arrivals procedure
published however limits on
Paris Charles de landing times of early/late
1.1.14 Gaulle N/A arrivals 1

Strict - slot restrictions on

1.1.1 Schiphol N/A night movements Noise quota system 1

Noise quota restricted for Total noise volume now used

part of the night for the most for quota system; 25 points
noisy aircraft (marginally max for Lnight. Limited
1.1.2 Schiphol N/A chapter 3 compliant) number of slots 1 2

No reporting (annual or
monthly on noise levels or
disturbance). Details also
contained in Schiphol
annual report (including Interactive reports presented
1.1.3 Schiphol N/A traffic figures) via 'NOMOS' online 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 125 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action
CDA procedures used
between 2200-0530,
1.1.4 Schiphol N/A avoiding 300ft OFL.
1.1 San Francisco N/A Woodside VOR
Single event maximum
noise level limits at each
1.2 San Francisco N/A noise monitoring site.
Fleet noise quality; Assigns
a higher rating or grade to
airlines operating quieter,
new generation aircraft,
while airlines operating
older, louder technology
2.1 San Francisco N/A aircraft would rate lower.
Quietest airline award;
Currently, the Fly Quiet
Program consists of five
elements: - The overall
noise quality of each
airlines fleet operating at
SFO (fleet); - An evaluation
of single overflight noise
level exceedances (noise
2.3 San Francisco N/A monitoring); - A measure
Rating of A/C approaches to
3.2 San Francisco N/A two specific runways
P1464D002 HELIOS
Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
1
Late night Woodside VOR
crossing altitude; flight
number and altitude for each
aircraft that uses the
Woodside VOR on approach
to SFO International Airport
between 22:30-06:30 1
1 2
Evaluates noise contribution
of each airline's fleet as
operated 1
The overall goal of the Fly
Quiet Program is to influence
airlines to operate as quietly
as possible in the San
Francisco Bay Area. A
successful Fly Quiet Program
is expected to reduce both
single event and total noise
levels around the airport. 1
Over-bay approaches; green,
over-communities; poor 1
126 of 154
 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Compliance with preferential
runway use programme.
Description notes that the
runway alternation scheme
cannot be used all the time
Night-time preferential due to prevailing wind
runway use. Logging of direction. Pilot discretion
flight runway useage. exercised. Over-water
Displayed in table, graphs departure procedures used
and map diagram in during periods of lighter
4.1 San Francisco N/A directors monthly report. traffic 1 2
As part of the aircraft
operations and noise
monitoring system upgrade,
a ground run up monitoring
system was installed at SFO.
This system gives the Airport
the tools to remotely monitor
Ground-run up monitoring aircraft run up activity via
(infringement motion detection cameras
5.2 San Francisco N/A count/procedure) and noise monitors 1

Engine run-up restrictions

infringement count and
5.3 San Francisco N/A follow-up procedure 1 2

Prohibited during night-time

6.1 San Francisco N/A APU Infringement count hours. 1

1.1.2 Singapore N/A Chapter 2 aircraft ban 1

Conformity with noise
abatement departure
7.2 San Francisco N/A Gap departure quality procedure. 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 127 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Keep aircraft away from
residential communities
located to the northwest of
SFO by keeping east of
Highway 101. Aircraft east of
Aircraft departing 28L and Highway 101 are judged
28R operate under this good. Departures west of
(predominantly VFR) 101 are scored marginal or
shoreline departure poor depending on their
7.2 San Francisco N/A procedure location. 1
No night time period defined
and no quota attached;
although preferential noise
abatement SIDs for use
during 1600-2200 are
1.1.1 Singapore N/A defined 1
2300-0600 is curfew
restricting aircraft
1.1.1 Sydney N/A movements (weekday) 1

Ban on night movement of

noisiest aircraft and high
1.1.2 Sydney N/A penalties 1
1.1.3 Sydney N/A No quota system 1 2

Arrivals flight paths Specifically climb procedures

developed and implemented apply when using particular
to spread noise over runways and penalties are
communities according to a imposed for violating flight
1.1.4 Sydney N/A prescribed schedule. corridors. 1 2

Number of flight arriving or

departing of a given aircraft According to ICAO noise
1.1 Zurich N/A noise classification classification 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 128 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2

Annual % change in flight

movements by flight path
('occupancy of landing and
1.1 Zurich N/A take-off routes') Diagrammatic form 1 2

Annual % changes in flight

1.1 Zurich N/A movements by runway 1 2

Annual flight movements by

1.1 Zurich N/A runway 1

Annual flight movements for

1.1 Zurich N/A IFR and VFR air traffic 1

Percentage of flights
operated in night period
1.1 Zurich N/A Number of night flights 22:00-06:00 1

Monthly flight movements

3.2 Zurich N/A (IFR and VFR) by runways 1 2

Time of arrivals/departures
by flight paths (and
percentage change on
3.2 Zurich N/A previous year) 1

Daily flight movements for

IFR and VFR traffic by
3.2 Zurich N/A runway Monthly report 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 129 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Adherence to flight routes;
Following attributes are
reported:
- Total number of 'registered
deviations' Significant deviation from
- Proportion investigated these paths are investigated
- Number of cautions issued and a caution issued Number
- Number of discussions of cases reported to regulator
3.2 Zurich N/A with pilots (FOCA) 1
Average daytime and night-
time recorded sound level
1.2 Zurich N/A for each monitor 1
CDA procedures reported on
CDA compliance (regular by time of day according to
2.3 London Stansted N/A reporting out of date) airline 1 2
Web tracking system in No arrival routes specified
place. Fining airlines that fly (so no track keeping
off track and 'green fly' compliance) however track
1.1. London Stansted N/A ranking system density plots published 1 2
Noise preferential routes
published (along with track
density) for departures Strategic noise maps -
1.1 London Stansted N/A (adherence is not). informing airspace design 1 2

Manchester airport NTK Drag and drop' game used to

(MANTIS) system used to
1.1 Manchester N/A fine infringing airlines.
Noise report sets out
legislative context at a
national and European
level. Location of noise
monitors and noise limits
defined/ position of new
1.1 Manchester N/A monitors described.
familiarise people with local
environment 1 2
Urban areas defined by
DEFRA and noise contours
used to define population
level exposed to aircraft
noise as well as overall size
of contours. 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 130 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Skytrack awards for good
track keeping; off track fined
750; preferred runways
used; noise limits depend Interesting diagram depicting
on Time of day - departure downward trend in aircraft
and arrival noise surcharge; noise certification chapters.
type surcharge (marginal Absolute reduction in number
1.1 Manchester N/A chapter 3) of noisiest departures 1 2
London City Airport
Consultative committee with
comprehensive list of noise
2.2 London City N/A mitigation measures. 1 2
Restrictions on hours of
2.2 London City N/A operation and aircraft types 1 2
Action plan describing
operational measures and
relationship with noise
2.3 London City N/A complains 1

Procedures for domestic air

3.1 Paris Orly N/A traffic operations. 1 2

3.2 Oslo N/A Point merge in operation NTK system reports to CAA. 1 2
Point merge in operation;
safety 'hot spots' highlighted New airspace noise
in a separate video to noise abatement procedures. No
2.2 Oslo N/A impact video. extended NTK website 1 2
Minimal use by GA and
1.1 Toronto N/A training flights 1 2
Jet flight path movements
1.1 Toronto N/A STARs colour coded by height 1 2

Operating restrictions during

3.1 Toronto N/A periods of night time Noise contours published 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 131 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2

More to do for airport to

independently verify
compliance through noise
Washington monitoring, not just by
1.1 National N/A checking on aircraft type. 1 2

Violation can only be

Difficult for FAA/airport to enforced if radar tracks are
state if power setting fused with ATC
Washington procedures are being communication recordings
1.1 National N/A complied with. and trust settings. 1 2
Limited opportunities for Report to the house of
Washington aircraft to comply with representatives on airport
1.1 National N/A NADPs/NAAPs. noise; 1 2
New York Noise abatement
1.1 LaGuardia N/A procedures in operation. 1
Tokyo
International Construction of additional
(HND/RJTT - Strict restrictions/limitations runway suspended due to
1.1 Haneda) N/A on night movements. noise concern. 1 2
Tokyo
International
(HND/RJTT -
1.1 Haneda) N/A Noise pens 1
New NADP for Lufthansa
Cargo GNSS-assisted Currently in night-time testing
1.1 Frankfurt N/A 'segmented approach' period 1 2
MLS, LPLD, airport Fixed and mobile noise
1.1 Frankfurt N/A charging, monitoring stations 1 2
Close monitoring of all Noise charges, noise quota,
flights operating within minimum noise approach
airport noise abatement and departure routes and
1.1 Frankfurt N/A area. fleet monitoring all in place 1

P1464D002 HELIOS 132 of 154

 Heathrow NAP
Relevant benchmarking KPA Airport Ref. Action Performance indicator Ref. 1 Ref. 2
Lochard flight tracking
system in place used for
Noise contour maps and monitoring compliance.
reports produced on a Noise monitors placed in
1.1 Los Angeles N/A quarterly basis. community 1 2
Over ocean flights used with
restrictions on maintenance California state airport noise
1.1 Los Angeles N/A and helicopter operations standards quarterly report 1 2
Lochard flight monitoring
complete with current noise
1.1 Los Angeles N/A levels Noise reduction programme 1
Interactive maps/reports,
monthly reports, runway
Minneapolis - St. closure, newsletter and Run by the metropolitan
1.1 Paul N/A flight tracker airports commission 1 2
Minneapolis - St. Select dates and time
1.1 Paul N/A periods. Annual noise contour report 1 2
San Ana (John
1.1 Wayne) N/A Local flight monitor installed Airport statistics, noise report 1 2
General Aviation noise
San Ana (John abatement procedures in Noise Quest - aviation noise
1.1 Wayne) N/A place information and ressources 1 2
Engine test, reverse thrust
and power supply
1.1 Prague N/A Restricted night operations, restrictions. 1 2

1.1 Prague N/A Preferential runway system Landing charges 1

Regulations applied to
departures and arrivals. Noise monitoring system and
land use planning
Wheel tug development restrictions. 'Protected'
1.1 Prague N/A supported contour 1 2

P1464D002 HELIOS 133 of 154

 E KPI Capabilities table
KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5
Night time
restrictions - design
of procedure - 5 hours or not
definition of night defined (e.g. 0000- 6 hours (e.g. 2300- 7 hours (e.g. 2300- 8 hours (e.g. 2300- 9 hours (e.g. 2200-
1.1.1 1.2.12 time hours 0500) 0600) 0600) 0700) 0700)
Ban on core-night
movements of Ban on night
noisiest aircraft, i.e. movements of the
Night time chapter 3 marginally noisy aircraft
restrictions - design No restriction on compliant, equivalent (Equivalent to LHR
of procedure - number of night Restriction on overall to AIP QC; no take AIP QC; no take off of
stringency of movements and number of off of 8 or 16 and no 4,8 or 16 and no Ban on night
1.1.2 1.2.12 controls chapter 2 noise ban movements landing of 16 landing of 8 or 16) movements
Infringements - QC Infringements - QC Infringements - QC
or number of or number of or number of
movements movements movements Infringements - QC or
exceeded (with exceeded (with exceeded (with number of movements
Night time explanation explanation explanation exceeded (with
restrictions - provided) exceeded provided). Limit provided). Limit explanation provided).
success rate - quota by >15% of target exceeded by 10-15% exceeded by 5-10% Limit exceeded by 0-
1.1.3 1.2.12 count targets (or no QC system). of target of target 5% of target No infringements

Night time
restrictions - design Details of specific
of procedure - cargo Promotion of infringements (and
and early morning No voluntary code voluntary or enforced Success rate explanations) Fines for infringing
1.1.4 1.2.19 arrivals developed code published published airlines

Noise abatement Monitoring and Details of specific

procedures- reporting on Strive to improve Infringements (and
departures - Promotion of adherence to adherence to the explanations) Fines for infringing
implementation and departures AIP departures AIP departures AIP published airlines
1.2.1 1.2.8 success rate

P1464D002 HELIOS 134 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5
Number of noise
infringements - Published - >10 per Published - 5-10 per Published - 1-5 per Published - 0 per
1.3.1 1.2.6 success rate Confidential quarter quarter quarter quarter
>5k pa. and
complete breakdown
of
Level of fine - infringement/associat
1.3.2 1.2.6 success rate Confidential >1k pa. >2k pa. >5k pa. ed costs

Noise control Details of specific

scheme - Strive to improve Infringements (and
implementation and No noise control Noise control adherence to the explanations) Fines for infringing
1.3.3 1.2.2 success rate scheme published scheme published noise control scheme published airlines
Fining system not Fining system
Level of fine - present (or not Fining system in updated in last 5 Fining system updated Fining system
1.3.4 1.2.7 definition published) place but out of date years in last 3 updated every year
Information passed on
to regulatory
Identification of quiet authorities and
Protecting quiet areas to be protected government/local Consensus opinion
areas - lobbying for and information Regulatory authority authorities presented to
1.4.1 1.2.17 airspace change No action published engaged in process consulted/lobbied. government
Publish annual Details of number of
percentages of movements of aircraft
Chapter 4, Chapter 3 in all chapters with
No action (no High, Chapter 3, year-on-year trends
profiling of operated Publish annual Chapter 3 minus Publish annual identified and
Fleet monitoring - fleet against percentages of (and equivalents) in percentages of all extrapolations
2.1.1 1.1.1 chapter profile Chapter number) Chapter 4 aircraft FEU report Chapter classes applied
Annual Noise
contours published,
updated annually and
Noise monitoring - Noise contours Noise contours accessible in
publish noise No action (no noise published every 5 published every 2 Annual noise contours interactive electronic
2.1.2 1.1.1 contours contours published) years years published and .pdf based report

P1464D002 HELIOS 135 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5
>500 per movement
Noise related and complete
landing charges - breakdown of
revenue generated - Confidential/non- <101 fine per <200 fine per <500 fine per infringements and
2.1.3 1.1.2 success rate existent movement movement movement associated revenue
In addition to targets
airlines are further
Targets for the incentivised by
reduction of nosier ranking their
No published Publication of nosier aircraft types environmental
Proportion of nosier breakdown of aircraft flight Publication of all published. performance against
aircraft types - operated aircraft movements (i.e. by aircraft movements Performance against competitors and
2.2.1 1.1.3 success rates fleet chapter number) by airline those targets recorded fining accordingly
Assessment of noise
footprint of new types.
Detailed comparison In addition to a
made with older types detailed assessment
Change in fleet Manufacturer's data using operationally a forecast of
Aircraft type noise mixture cited but no sheets used to recorded data improvement in
reduction - success No comparative detailed evaluation of formulate a high level correlated with aircraft overall noise footprint
2.2.2 1.1.4 rates study performed noise impact comparison movements. is made

Actively working with

government, industry
and academia broadly Funding and
Promotion of through joint ventures incentivising other to
ACARE/green flight to drive forward fund specific
Quieter aircraft - initiatives to funding to support research initiatives
lobbying for Low level promotion commercial partners R&D initiatives (e.g. that support the
2.3.1 1.2.16 implementation No action of initiatives and airline customers sustainable aviation) overall goal

Safety case
constructed with All relevant parties
P-RNAV - associated evidence engaged in Innovate operational
3.1.1 1.2.11 implementation Not present Simulations (e.g. flight trials) implementation plans method implemented

P1464D002 HELIOS 136 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5
Start from bottom of Start from bottom of
stack stack Start from bottom of Start from top of
High percentage of High percentage of stack descent
CDA - design of level flight level flight No level flight No level flight
3.1.2 1.2.5 procedure Not present Vectoring RNAV/RNP Route RNAV/RNP route RNAV/RNP route
CDA - level of
3.1.3 1.2.5 compliance 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

Not descending
below 3000ft before
Not descending being established on
below 2000ft before Not descending below ILS (approximately
Joining point - Use of ILS in VMC being established on 2500ft before being 10NM from
3.1.4 1.2.5 design of procedure No ILS or not used and IFR conditions ILS established on ILS touchdown)

Joining point - level

3.1.5 1.2.5 of compliance 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

Strive to improve
Monitoring and adherence to the
Noise abatement reporting on departures AIP Details of specific
procedures - arrivals adherence to (discuss operational Infringements (and
- implementation Promotion of departures AIP (i.e. and technical explanations) Fines for infringing
3.1.6 1.2.9 and success rate departures AIP track keeping) enhancements) published airlines

Noise abatement
procedures airline
adherence to AIP
implementation and Performance targets
success rate (i.e. ANSP engaged in published; poorly
performance process and performing airlines
framework for No guidance Development of Promotion of preliminary feasibility highlighted and
3.2.1 1.2.13 airlines) material published guidance material guidance material study completed incentives introduced

P1464D002 HELIOS 137 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5
Knowledge of novel Implementation plan in
operational Safety case execution with all
Noise abatement procedures (e.g. Feasibility study constructed with relevant parties Novel approach
procedures - arrivals steeper initiated (e.g. steeper associated evidence engaged (e.g. steep methods
3.2.2 1.2.10 - implementation approaches) approaches; 3.25%) (e.g. flight trials) approaches) implemented

Detailed impact Detailed impact

assessment assessment
performed and performed and
consultation of all consultation of all Implementation plan
Introduction of new relevant parties relevant parties of new runway
runway alternation No impact High level impact (including local (including local alternation procedure
plan - assessment assessment authorities and authorities and (timetabled to take
4.1.1 1.2.2 implementation plan performed performed residents) residents) less then 1 year).

Strive to improve
adherence to the
departures AIP;
understand drivers
Monitoring and for non-compliance Details of specific
Adherence to reporting on and work with airline Infringements (and
reverse thrust policy Promotion of adherence to customers to reduce explanations) Fines for infringing
5.1.1 1.2.4 - success rate departures AIP departures AIP causes published airlines

Instances, duration
Noise abatement and location of
procedures - engine engine running
testing/ground run - No monitoring (no Planned introduction logged and publically Infringements noted Targets set and
5.2.1 1.2.14 implementation public report) of reporting reported and investigated reported against

P1464D002 HELIOS 138 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5

Strive to improve
adherence to the
departures AIP;
understand drivers
Noise abatement Monitoring and for non-compliance Details of specific
procedures - engine reporting on and work with airline infringements (and
testing/ground run - Promotion of adherence to customers to reduce explanations) Fines for infringing
5.2.2 1.2.20 success rate departures AIP departures AIP causes published airlines

Programme
investigating stand
turn around Minimal noise turn-
efficiency around.
No programme of implemented (e.g
Noise abatement active improvement use of pre- Initiative Details of specific Commission
procedures - gate for stand turn- conditioned air and implemented and infringements (and independent report to
turnaround - around noise fixed electrical achieving a reduction explanations) identify remaining
5.3.1 1.2.18 success rate management power) in stand noise published gaps in performance
Achieve highly
efficient taxiing
procedures (80% half
Initiative engine taxiing).
implemented and 50% of aircraft taxiing
Noise abatement No programme of Programme achieving a reduction time available for half Commission
procedures - ground active improvement investigating ground in an ground engine taxiing is independent report to
operations - for taxiing movement efficiency movement in operated on half identify remaining
5.4.1 1.2.18 success rate procedures implemented efficiency engines gaps in performance

Instances, duration
Noise abatement and location of
procedures - engine engine running
testing/ground run - No monitoring (no Planned introduction logged and publically Infringements noted Targets set and
6.1.1 1.2.15 implementation public report) of reporting reported and investigated reported against

P1464D002 HELIOS 139 of 154

 KPI Heathrow
Ref. NAP Ref. KPI Competence level 1 Competence level 2 Competence level 3 Competence level 4 Competence level 5

Strive to improve
adherence to the
Noise abatement departures;
procedures- understand drivers
departures - Monitoring and for non-compliance Details of specific
implementation and Promotion of reporting on and work with airline infringements (and Investigation of
success rate departures best adherence to best customers to reduce explanations) on best airlines not complying
7.1.1 1.2.1 (CCD/cutback) practice guidelines practice guidelines causes practice guidelines with best practice
Strive to improve
adherence to the
departures AIP;
Noise abatement understand drivers
procedures- Monitoring and for non-compliance Details of specific
departures - reporting on and work with airline Infringements (and
implementation and Promotion of adherence to customers to reduce explanations) Fines for infringing
success rate departures AIP departures AIP causes track published track airlines track
7.2.1 1.2.8 (CCD/cutback) track keeping track keeping keeping keeping keeping

Strive to improve
adherence to the
departures AIP;
Noise abatement Monitoring and understand drivers
procedures- reporting on for non-compliance Details of specific
departures - Promotion of adherence to and work with airline Infringements (and
implementation and departures AIP - departures AIP - customers to reduce explanations) Fines for infringing
7.2.2 1.2.8 success rate 1000ft rule 1000ft rule causes - 1000ft rule published - 1000ft rule airlines - 1000ft rule

P1464D002 HELIOS 140 of 154

F Airport KPI scores
F.1 Operating restrictions

P1464D002 HELIOS 141 of 154

P1464D002 HELIOS 142 of 154
P1464D002 HELIOS 143 of 154
P1464D002 HELIOS 144 of 154
F.2 Fleet monitoring

P1464D002 HELIOS 145 of 154

P1464D002 HELIOS 146 of 154
F.3 Arrivals

P1464D002 HELIOS 147 of 154

P1464D002 HELIOS 148 of 154
P1464D002 HELIOS 149 of 154
F.4 Runway operations

P1464D002 HELIOS 150 of 154

F.5 Ground movements

P1464D002 HELIOS 151 of 154

P1464D002 HELIOS 152 of 154
F.6 Gate operations

P1464D002 HELIOS 153 of 154

F.7 Departures

P1464D002 HELIOS 154 of 154