ACI Airport Environmental Colloquium. Noise, Europe s airports perspective

Transcription

1 ACI Airport Environmental Colloquium Cairo, November 2008 Noise, Europe s airports perspective Etienne van Zuijlen ACI EUROPE ACI EUROPE European branch of the Airports Council International (ACI), based in Brussels Represents the interest of some 440 airports in 45 countries Our members account for over 90% of commercial air traffic in Europe each year, welcoming 1.5 billion passengers Working with the European Union institutions, ECAC and EUROCONTROL

2 The overall Challenge Economy (incl. pricing & financing) Sustainability, profitability and growth is the result of the balancing of the performance in the 3 domains Capacity Environment Noise concerns are still a dominant environmental issue at EU airports.. Capacity cap Charges Taxes Price out of flying Restrict from flying

3 An Extensive Legal Framework Legislators and regulators have set the tone for the future: Quieter Cleaner Noise is already the subject of voluminous legislation Gaseous emissions were somewhat behind, but the legislator is catching up complex NOISE PICTURE ICAO Annex 16, Vol I ICAO-Chapters Airport Noise Rating Scheme London Noise QC Certification 1.2 Classification COM (2001) Noise Emissions ICAO/CAEP ECAC/ANCAT EU EUROCONTROL Procedures/ B-RNAV PLANO Curfew Technology 1.3 Measures: reduction at source Procedures Restrictions Land use planning Operational Noise Impact 2.1 Assessment 2.3 Measures Charges TANC COM (2001) Passive measures 2.2 Effects Modelling Monitoring Noise limits Sleep disturbance ENHANCE AIRMOD Proposal COM(2000) 468 Noise at airports working group Balanced approach ICAO, A33/7 + COM(2001) 695

4 Environmental Management It comes at a Price.. Small Eastern Europe airport: 61,000 p.a. Staff, procurement of materials, energy (for noise monitoring system) Procurement of environmental services: air quality protection water resources and waste water protection waste management underground water protection Environmental Management It comes at a Price.. Major Western European Hub: 4-5m p.a. Staff, procurement of materials, energy (for noise monitoring system) Construction of a new Runway: Upto 1billion noise insulation, buyback, compensations high extra operational costs each year

5 Noise at airports: 5 core elements Phase out of old/noisy aircraft improved total noise picture, while doubling traffic The acoustical side - ICAO Balanced approach Reduction at Source Land Use Planning Operational Procedures Operational Restrictions The non-acoustical side: Communication, Consultation & Mediation Development of noise at EU airports: shrinking of Lden-contours will stop +100% +25% 200,000 ATMs 400,000 ATMs 500,000 ATMs

6 Development of noise at EU airports: increased number of night-flights is an issue +250% +40% 10,000 ATMs 25,000 ATMs 35,000 ATMs Number & type of night flights (23-7 or 22-6) very sensitive in local debate 1. Noise reduction at source ICAO Annex 16 standards: not enough Cumulative margin to Chapter ACI (4,4,4) Industry Chapter 4 (2006) 25 B (1995) ICAO (noise) standards are underpinning existing technology, not driving quieter ac proposal comprise reality

7 1. Noise reduction at source Expected technology development Noise of aircraft Changes to yr2000 baseline (db(a)) Technology development Stand still Extrapolation R&D implemented R&D targets Realised Stated research targets are ambitious, but compromises once implemented 1. Noise reduction at source noise-incentive charging shemes difference in airport charges to stimulate quieter aircraft and discourage the noisiest aircraft Based on ACI Noise rating index or national scheme

8 2. Land use planning (by government) prevent encroachment & safety issues Demolition zones 3rd part risk Demolition zones noise Restrictions for new buildings Height restrictions Physical planning restrictions in the airport area 3. Operational Procedures shift routes to less populated areas CDA s over the sea at night Before After

9 3. Operational Procedures introduce continuous decent approaches difference of a single B747-4 noise footprint 3000 ft approach vs. CDA approach 10 Distance to centreline(km) Indicative Village/City 3000 ft CDA Landing RWY 65.0 db(a); 75 km² 65.0 db(a); 40 km² Distance to landing Rwy (km) Reduce noise impact, fuel use/emissions 4. Operational Restrictions last resort, difficult to implement Directive 2002/30/EC Limited to marginal Chapter 3 aircraft Partial or full ban Lengthy procedure, with full impact assessment & consultation process Implemented / in progress at a number of EU airports

10 Noise impact differs from noise disturbance! Conclusions: Most of the complaints are from outside official noise zones Shifting traffic will create new hot spots 5. The non-acoustical side of noise Communication, Consultation & Mediation Terminal Expansion New Runway Demand Environmental Capacity Physical Capacity Time Tolerance enhancement Why: impact ALARA When: continious proces, dependent on current (local) situation Who: joined actions by all responsible parties What: Communication Consultation Mediation

11 5. The non-acoustical side of noise open, honest information is crucial example: using online websites for actual flighttrack, altitude and noise event information Noise & flight track monitoring around airports is a valuable starting point Questions?