Independent Toronto Airspace Noise Review
Independent TorontoAirspace Noise ReviewReport and RecommendationsIn partnership with:Bo RedebornGraham Lakeancompany
Independent TorontoAirspace Noise ReviewAuthors Nick Boud, Katie Mathias, Bo Redeborn, Graham LakeProduced byHeliosProduced forNAV CANADAHelios contactNick BoudEmail e of release18th September 2017Document referenceP2271D011
Independent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewReport and recommendationsAbout the Review Team & HeliosThe review is led by Nick Boud of Helios, and is supported by Bo Redeborn, Graham Lake, and Katie Mathias.Helios is the aviation consultancy of Egis, focusing on air traffic management and airports, with a worldwidereputation for excellence and integrity. Helios specialises in performance improvement for large and complexairports, and has supported some of the world’s most complex convoluted airports. Work encompasses airfieldand ATM performance; runway capacity and resilience optimisation; airside simulations; business planning;economic appraisals; procurement support; safety and risk management; and regulatory policy.Nick Boud, a Principal Consultant at Helios, is a highly experienced aviation and transport planning consultantwith 25 years broad airport planning, analysis and consultancy experience. He has spent 13 years workingwithin BAA, the former UK airport operating group, and 12 years as a consultant delivering a range of aviationand airport projects.Bo Redeborn brings extensive experience and understanding of air traffic control as well as global provisionsfor aviation, having previously served as Principle Director of Air Traffic Management for EUROCONTROL.Graham Lake, who had previously served as Director General of the Civil Air Navigation Service Organisation,also brings extensive experience and understanding of air traffic control, aviation policy and aviationenvironmental developments.Katie Mathias, a Consultant at Helios, has supported the review team throughout the study and has had apivotal role in coordinating activities and composing the final report.P3
Independent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewforewordReport and recommendationsAircraft noise is an issue for almost all major airports around the world, Toronto is no different. Therehave been issues of noise related disturbance from aircraft departing from, and arriving at, Toronto PearsonInternational Airport, reported by local communities and community groups. Following these reports,NAV CANADA announced that they would appoint an independent body to undertake a review of the airspace,to establish whether additional aviation noise mitigations could be identified. Helios, with the support ofBo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016 to undertake this review.The review team, comprised of Nick Boud of Helios, Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, is independent ofNAV CANADA and has been tasked to provide a wholly independent professional analysis and report.The review team was asked to determine whether all reasonable actions to reduce aircraft noise disturbanceare being taken with respect to the design and operation of the Toronto area airspace.The review has included an analysis of documentation and data; the development of a comprehensiveunderstanding of the principal perspectives identified and; the identification of, and engagement with,key stakeholders, including residents.Nick BoudAdditional evidence was gathered through site and familiarisation visits. The identification of potential optionsto improve the present reported situation has included suggestions from all the established stakeholders,community groups, and individuals, together with a review of the techniques and policies used elsewhere inCanada and overseas.The independent review has stemmed from NAV CANADA’s assessment that more can be done to meet theconcerns of local communities about noise from departures and arrivals. That assessment has been borneout by the findings of the review. It has emerged that there is scope for improvement of the present situationthrough the utilisation of several established techniques, and through closer collaboration on noise issuesbetween stakeholders. More can and should be done.Bo RedebornFull cooperation has been provided to the review team by NAV CANADA, GTAA, Transport Canada, and airlines,for which we express our sincere appreciation and thanks.The review team has been struck by the positive and constructive inputs to the study by all those involved, andit is our strong hope and belief that this report will provide a basis on which all concerned can move forward inthat spirit to deliver a significantly better situation for the residents living close to the Airport’s flight paths.Graham LakeP4Finally, thanks are due to the many individuals and organisations that have contributed their views to permitthe development of these findings and recommendations.
Independent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewExecutive summaryReport and recommendationsIn February 2012, NAV CANADA implemented a large-scale change to the airspace over the geographic areafrom Windsor, through Toronto, to Montreal. Included within this airspace change were adjustments to thearrival and departure procedures for Toronto Pearson. An element of the overall airspace change involved anupdate to the local arrival and departure flight procedures associated with Toronto Pearson. One particularchange was the re-location of an arrival flight path, known as the South downwind, by one Nautical Mile (NM)to the south of its previous position, to be compliant with regulatory requirements. In 2014, an update of theCanadian Aviation Regulations removed the possibility of retaining the original derogation, and hence theoption to return the South downwind to its previous position.It is important to recognise that people’s reaction to and perception of aircraft noise is a complex matter forany airport; Toronto Pearson is no different. The routes and altitude flown by aircraft, and how those aircraftare flown, have a direct impact on the effects of aircraft noise. The routes and altitudes are a product of theairspace design and its operational management. Since Toronto and the wider area has one of the highestpopulation densities within Canada, it is understandable that aircraft noise will be a particular issue here.Civil Aviation operates within a highly organised regime throughout the world. In Canada as elsewhere, thiscomprises; Government policies and strategies, regulations, airport and aircraft operation and, airspacemanagement and operation. To ensure a consistent, safe and harmonised implementation, changes proposedfor the Canadian air transport system at a national level are required to respect and reflect the policies andguidance developed and agreed by States (including Canada) at a global level through the International CivilAviation Organisation (ICAO).Toronto Pearson is the largest and busiest airport in Canada and is operated by the Greater Toronto AirportsAuthority (GTAA). Like all large airports in developed countries, the management and mitigation of aircraft noiseis a key consideration for local communities; the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is no exception.In 2015 the GTAA and NAV CANADA undertook a review of community suggestions for initiatives that wouldhelp mitigate the impact of aviation noise. GTAA and NAV CANADA identified six of these initiatives as feasible,and undertook further investigation. After two years, only one of these six initiatives has been implemented,this pace of change has been noted by residents, although significant development of the remaining initiativeshas been observed since the commencement of this review.In the spring of 2016, NAV CANADA announced that they would appoint an independent body to undertakea review of the airspace plan for Toronto Pearson, to establish whether additional aviation noise mitigationscould be identified. Helios, with the support of Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016to undertake this review.P5
Report and recommendationsIndependent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryCommunity feedbackThe review team, whilst undertaking this review, has engaged with a range of stakeholders, and has held tenopen public meetings. The following complaints have been distilled from our community meetings and fromthe hundreds of emails received from community members and stakeholders. Flights are too loud, too low and too frequent. F light paths have been designed to achieve efficiency and typically not to minimise the impact tocommunities overflown; with a lack of consideration to keeping flights over Lake Ontario. F lights are not fairly distributed across all the runways meaning some communities carry an unfairburden of noise and there is no compensation for those communities. T oo many noisy flights at night and the definition of night restricted hours (00:30 to 06:30) isunrepresentative of when people are attempting to sleep. Departures are turning too low in the same location too frequently. The Airbus A320 family of aircraft create an annoying high-pitched whine at times during descent. T he GTAA’s noise management programme is ineffective. The complaint system and procedure isfutile and the statistics produced are misleading; the WebTrak system is perceived as inaccurate; andthe Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee (CENAC) is perceived to be unproductive,powerless, biased and reluctant to change. G TAA and NAV CANADA do not listen or take action over noise disruption, particularly since theairspace change in February 2012 and there was a severe lack of consultation during the airspacechange process. There is no acknowledgement of the health impacts from aviation activities. The airport has been allowed to expand too much and the number of flights need to be reduced.One of the concerns often expressed by community members to the review team was that flights on arrivalroutes have become more concentrated, i.e. the lateral dispersal left and right of the designated flight path hasreduced since the airspace change. The arrival flight procedures pre- and post- the change are designed to thesame navigational standards, so this will not have impacted the concentration. To address this concern, moredetailed analysis of the lateral concentration on the South downwind to runways 06L / 06R and 24L / 24R hasbeen completed.P6
Report and recommendationsIndependent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryThe results show that whilst the overall width of the lateral dispersion has not changed, there has beensome increased concentration within 150m either side of the Standard Arrival Route (STAR) centreline.A change within 150m either side of the centreline will only have a marginal impact on the noise experiencedat ground level; a far greater lateral shift is required to generate a distinguishable difference.Guiding principlesThe review has identified and considered a number of additional noise mitigation actions to addressconcerns raised by community members. To assist in reviewing the mitigations, it is beneficial to establisha set of guiding principles:P7 Not to compromise operational safety. Not to reduce the capacity of the airport or the airspace. To prioritise mitigations that reduce noise at its source. I f noise can’t be reduced at source then prioritise noise abatement that will reduce the amount of noisereaching the ground and impacting communities. To identify opportunities for noise relief and respite. T o avoid moving noise between communities on a long-term basis purely to appease one ormore communities. Not to make a judgement on a mitigation where there is a significant socio-political decision to be taken. To look forward for better solutions rather than backwards at temporary or partial mitigations. T o be cognisant of the boundaries of Canadian airspace and not to assume any right to impact airspaceoutside of Canada.
Report and recommendationsIndependent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryStrategic objectivesIn undertaking this review, the team has identified four strategic objectives they consider that NAV CANADAcould adopt and strive to achieve. The mitigations we examine and the conclusions and recommendations wemake support the achievement of these objectives. Get / keep aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible to minimise the noise that reaches the ground. M anage the arrival flow, sequence and separation of flights through Time Based Operations (TBO) as thiswould facilitate the elimination of downwinds, whilst reducing noise and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. M aximise the use of Low Power – Low Drag (LPLD) Continuous Descent Operations (CDO), as these arenormally the quietest approach an aircraft can make. S et clear guidance as to when noise should be prioritised over GHG emissions below 8,000ft Above GroundLevel (AGL). Currently, NAV CANADA has a corporate mission to reduce the environmental footprint ofthe aviation industry, encompassing both noise and GHG emissions. There are circumstances where thereduction of noise and GHG emissions go hand in hand, equally there are occasions where they don’t andthus a balance should be found.MitigationsThe mitigations recommended by the review team are grouped according to ICAO’s Balanced Approach,as defined in the report.Reducing noise at sourceAirbus A320Of relevance to Toronto arrivals, is the known noise issue associated with the Airbus A320 family of singleaisle aircraft. This is often described as a high-pitched whine, and is generated by the Fuel Over PressureProtector (FOPP) cavities under the wings. The whine is audible under the approach of these aircraft, normallybetween 7NM and 15NM from touchdown. About 18% of all arrivals at Toronto are A320 family aircraft.Air Canada is the largest operator of Airbus A320 series aircraft at Toronto, and at the time of writing, has73 such aircraft in its active fleet.Airbus, the aircraft manufacturer, has developed a modification to address this noise phenomenon, andreport that it will deliver an improvement of up to 9dB; this is almost a halving of the volume perceived bythe human ear.P8
Independent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryReport and recommendationsThe A320 whine is recognised by many residents and organisations reporting to the review, who in turn reportthat they have also sought to understand why the characteristic has been allowed to persist for so long by therelevant authorities.This review recommends that:Recommendation 1A: NAV CANADA should formally write to Transport Canada requesting themto consider establishment of a sunset date of December 31st 2020 for the operation, in Canada, ofAirbus A320 series aircraft without the Fuel Over Pressure Protector cavity vortex generator noisemodification.Recommendation 1B: As an indication of GTAA’s and NAV CANADA’s commitment to noise reduction,and a tangible indication to local communities that the noise impact of the airport is taken seriouslyand; to incentivise an accelerated noise modification by all airlines using A320 family aircraft at Toronto;NAV CANADA should formally approach the GTAA about the establishment of an earlier sunset datefor unmodified Airbus A320 family aircraft using the airport, such as two years after publication of thisreport. With an appropriate noise penalty applied for non-compliant aircraft immediately thereafter,if lawful within the GTAA’s or NAV CANADA’s charging regimes.Land-use planningNAV CANADA have no accountability or responsibility for land-use planning or zoning, therefore land-useplanning falls outside the scope of this review.Even so, international and Canadian airspace design criteria require the designer to consider safety, fly-ability,and terrain / obstacle clearance; the criterion does not however, provide direction on the consideration of theland-use overflown.In accordance with the new voluntary “Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol”, noise issuesmust be handled at local level. NAV CANADA have made active progress towards ensuring that considerationof the land-use is undertaken for all flight path changes that occur within a Terminal Control Area.P9
Report and recommendationsIndependent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryNoise abatement operational proceduresDescent managementNoise experienced by communities can be reduced if aircraft descent is managed with a noise reductionobjective. To achieve a quieter descent, the pilot must use low engine power and minimise drag for as longas is safe, as well as staying as high as possible for as long as possible. Two techniques that are effective atreducing the noise on approach include CDO and LPLD.Efficient, low noise approaches at Toronto Pearson are currently difficult to achieve because: T here is inadequate communication and understanding of expectations between pilots and air trafficcontrollers in relation to the management of descent and the descent clearances given, particularlyregarding provision of descent information or guidance. T here is a waypoint on the South downwind that currently requires aircraft to be at exactly 3,000ft AboveSea Level, to serve the high / low separation objective. As this altitude requirement is part of the publishedprocedure it is effective 24 hours a day, although it is only needed when the high / low operation is in usewhich is currently about eight hours a day.Pilot and air traffic controller collaborationThe provision of Air Traffic Control (ATC) services and the operation of an aircraft, are both rule basedand heavily regulated activities, with prescribed procedure based operations. Even so, with standard radiophraseology and published flight procedures, there is still room for individual interpretation and applicationgiving rise to potentially sub-optimal outcomes for noise.To achieve a safe approach while minimising noise, a pilot requires descent information from ATC to help reachthe desired altitude and speed at the right time.Improved communication and collaboration is often a function of increasing awareness and understandingeach has for the others workload and objectives; such a philosophy has been used successfully by otherairports and countries.P10
Independent Toronto Airspace Noise ReviewEXEcutive summaryReport and recommendationsThis review recommends that:Recommendation 2A: NAV CANADA, the major Toronto Pearson airlines (Air Canada, Rouge,WestJet and Jazz), the National Airline Council of Canada, the GTAA, and possibly the CanadianAirports Council and Transport Canada, should form an Industry Noise Management Board.Recommendation 2B: The Industry Noise Management Board should develop a cross industry“Code of Conduct” that facilitates the reduction of arrival and departure noise through improvementsin aircraft operation and air traffic control management at Toronto Pearson.Low Power - Low Drag and Continuous Descent OperationsLPLD is achieved when an aircraft maintains a ‘clean’ configuration for as long as safely possible, i.e. delayingthe deployment of flaps, slats, undercarriage and air brakes. A ‘cleaner’ configuration generally requires lowerengine thrust. An aircraft conducting a LPLD approach will generate less engine and less airframe noise. A studyconducted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) concluded that a noise reduction of up to 5dB is possibleif the flaps and landing gear on an aircraft are operated and deployed correctly. As a comparison and to putit into context a 3dB reduction is perceivable by the human ear; much less than 3dB is not noticeable by themajority of people.CDO and LPLD are often used in conjunction. CDO is intended to keep aircraft higher for as long as possible,and is acknowledged as being a leading potential technique for the mitigation of aircraft noise and GHGemissions on approach to an airport.CDO is achieved when an arriving aircr
Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, were contracted in July 2016 to undertake this review. The review team, comprised of Nick Boud of Helios, Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, is independent of NAV CANADA and has been tasked to provide a wholly independent professional analysis and report.
of airspace usage for both civil and military airspace users. One of the new procedures ASM/ATFCM Procedure 3 - U nplanned Airspace Activation, provides the facility for military users to book additional airspace that could not have been foreseen in the Airspace Use Pan (AUP). The impact of the unplanned airspace activations
Noise Figure Overview of Noise Measurement Methods 4 White Paper Noise Measurements The noise contribution from circuit elements is usually defined in terms of noise figure, noise factor or noise temperature. These are terms that quantify the amount of noise that a circuit element adds to a signal.
ACP Op Report: RAF Spadeadam; DNV GL DA (EGD510C Desig.) 1 OFFICIAL AIRSPACE CHANGE PROPOSAL - OPERATIONAL REPORT: ROYAL AIR FORCE SPADEADAM PROPOSAL ON BEHALF OF DET NORSKE VERITAS-GERMANISCHER LLOYD (DNV GL) FOR A STANDALONE DANGER AREA (DESIGNATION EG D510C) References 1. Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725: Airspace Change Proposal 2.
Operations and ATP 3-91, Division Operations have been updated, the ACPO will begin updating the ATP 3-91.1, The JAGIC. n Airspace control order (ACO): An order implementing the airspace control plan that provides the details of the approved requests for airspace coordinating measures. Airspace control plan (ACP): The document approved by the joint
Dynamic Airspace Configuration (DAC) is a new operational paradigm that proposes to migrate from the current structured, static airspace to a dynamic airspace capable of adapting to user demand while meeting changing constraints of weather, traffic congestion and complexity, as well as a highly diverse aircraft fleet (Kopardekar et al., 2007).
The Noise Element of a General Plan is a tool for including noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. This Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of
7 LNA Metrics: Noise Figure Noise factor is defined by the ratio of output SNR and input SNR. Noise figure is the dB form of noise factor. Noise figure shows the degradation of signal's SNR due to the circuits that the signal passes. Noise factor of cascaded system: LNA's noise factor directly appears in the total noise factor of the system.
noise and tire noise. The contribution rate of tire noise is high when the vehicle is running at a constant speed of 50 km/h, reaching 86-100%, indicating tire noise is the main noise source [1]. Therefore, reducing tire noise is important for reducing the overall noise of the vehicle and controlling noise pollution [2].
