HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - City Council Airport PolicyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
July 25, 2006
TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Don Webb, Mayor
644 -3131, don2webb @earthlink.net
SUBJECT: City Council Airport Policy
ISSUE:
Should the City Council adopt the "Airport Policy" (Exhibit A) that was drafted and
approved by the Citizens Aviation Committee?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the revised Airport Policy (Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION:
The City Council first adopted an "Aviation Policy" in 1972 and has amended the policy
twelve times — most recently in March, 1999. A critical component of the current
Aviation Policy is the development of an additional commercial airport at MCAS El Toro.
The current Aviation Policy also pre -dates the 2002 amendments of the John Wayne
Airport Settlement Agreement.
The Citizens Aviation Committee is, among other things, charged with the responsibility
to "make recommendations to City Council regarding current and future policies
regarding regional air traffic service...." Recognizing that the current Aviation Policy did
not reflect important changes in airport issues during the past 7 years, the Citizens
Aviation Committee began discussing modifications to the policy in September 2005. In
April 2006, the Citizens Aviation Committee approved and recommended City Council
adoption of a revised "Airport Policy" (Exhibit A). Staff transmitted the proposed Airport
Policy to AWG, SPON and Airfair for comments and the proposed policy reflects many
of the comments submitted by those groups.
The following is a summary of the proposed Airport Policy:
City Council Airport Policy
July 25, 2006
Page 2 of 4
1. Executive Summary. The proposed Airport Policy is quite lengthy and the
Citizens Aviation Committee believed an "executive summary' would help establish the
context of the policy and recognize the contributions of the members of the Citizens
Aviation Committee and community based groups in the effort to make JWA the most
community friendly airport in the Nation.
2. History. Newport Beach has been working to control JWA impacts since the
1970's. The Citizens Aviation Committee concluded that an understanding of what the
City had done to control impacts was and is critical to the development of strategies to
control impacts in the future. This section also provides a factual basis for many of the
key provisions of the proposed Airport Policy.
3. Legal Framework. As the proposed Airport Policy notes, "the failure of
the City Council or community groups to accurately inform Newport Beach residents
about the legal framework (relevant to the control of airport impacts) could lead to
unreasonable expectations and ill- advised decisions and /or strategies." (Text in
parentheses has been added). The Citizens Aviation Committee concluded that an
understanding of relevant Federal laws and regulations is essential to the development
of effective policies and strategies to control airport impacts. This section provides a
brief overview of the most important Federal laws and provisions including the most
important law - the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA). ANCA requires, among
other things, FAA review and approval of any "noise or access" restriction on Stage 3
aircraft. The JWA Settlement Agreement requires the County to adopt and enforce
regulations that would —arguably —be subject to ANCA. However, the JWA Settlement
Agreement and amendments that do not adversely impact airport capacity or airport
safety are exempt from the FAA review and approval requirements of ANCA. The
important thing to remember is that, in the absence of the JWA Settlement Agreement,
the County would not have the unfettered right to regulate the number of "noisy" aircraft
departures or passenger service levels.
4. Policy — Primary Objective, This policy makes it clear that "the City
Council's primary objective is to protect Newport Beach residents from the adverse
impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport (JWA)" and
that all "strategies and plans (to control impacts) must consider and respect the complex
legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and impacts." (Text in
parentheses has been added)
5. Policy - Considerations. This policy highlights the most important factors the
City must consider in developing and implementing strategies to control airport impacts.
The development and implementation of a successful airport impact control strategy is a
very complicated process.
6. Policy — JWA Settlement Agreement. This policy confirms that the JWA
Settlement Agreement "is the primary vehicle by which the City — and County -
exercises control over airport impacts" and that future amendments to extend the term
City Council Airport Policy
July 25, 2006
Page 3 of 4
of the Settlement Agreement should be pursued. However, the policy makes it clear
that the City Council should not consider amendments that modify the curfew, facilitate
a second air carrier runway or materially alter residents' quality of life.
7. Policy — JWA Facilities and Operations. This policy identifies proposed
changes in the physical or operational characteristics of JWA that the City Council
should vigorously oppose if proposed by the County. The changes that should be
opposed include addition of a second air carrier runway, the noise curfew, the current
level of general aviation support facilities and the General Aviation Noise Ordinance.
8. Policy - Alternative Transportation Service. The Citizens Aviation Committee
recognized that the City needs to work on finding ways to serve Orange County air
transportation demand at other facilities or through alternative means of transportation —
and not just focus on efforts to control JWA impacts. The Citizens Aviation Committee
also recognized that any solution would be outside of Orange County and that "there is
presently no feasible site for a second air carrier airport in Orange County." While this
statement may be difficult to accept, the Citizens Aviation Committee concluded that our
residents are better served by a policy that reflects reality.
9. Policy -Public Agency Support and Participation. The Citizens Aviation
Committee also recognized that, more and more, efforts to control JWA impacts need to
involve other public agencies — especially the Corridor Cities. This policy requires the
City Council to continue to work with other cities and regional planning agencies to
develop broad -based support for JWA impact controls and out of county means of
serving some of Orange County's air transportation demand.
10. Policy - Community Involvement. This policy acknowledges the important
contribution of groups such as AWG in the past and the critical role they will hopefully
play in the future. The Citizens Aviation Committee concluded, however, that these
groups need to understand and work with due consideration of the factors involved in
controlling JWA impacts.
11. Policy - MonitoringlRecommendations. This policy confirms that "the City
Council is ultimately responsible to achieve the primary objective of this policy "...and
calls on the Council to designate the City Manager as the employee primarily
responsible for implementing the Airport Policy.
Consistency with General Plan:
The proposed General Plan includes policies related to JWA in the Safety and Noise
Elements. Staff is recommending minor revisions to those elements to be consistent
with the proposed Airport Policy, and those are described in the report for the General
Plan update item on this agenda.
City Council Airport Policy
July 25, 2006
Page 4 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental document is required.
Dbb, ayor
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AIRPORT POLICY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council's primary objective is to protect Newport Beach residents from the
impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport (JWA). The
City Council believes that the impacts related to JWA are now, and will continue to be,
the most significant threat to the quality of life of Newport Beach residents. For the last
30 years, the City, and community groups concerned about adverse airport impacts,
have developed and implemented strategies to control those impacts and these efforts,
which have been supported by the County for the last 20 years, have made JWA one of
the most "community friendly" airports in the nation.
The City and community groups have achieved some success in controlling airport
impacts by understanding, and working within, the complex legal, economic and political
factors that are relevant to adverse airport impacts such as the type and level of aircraft
operations. The purpose of this Policy, which is admittedly long and somewhat
complex, is to provide elected and appointed officials with information and guidelines
that will help ensure that decisions related to JWA serve the best interests of Newport
Beach residents and enable residents to better understand and provide input regarding
those decisions.
Recognizing that the City has no legal ability to directly regulate JWA operations, the
City Council and community groups approved (in 1985), aggressively protected (in
1990), and then extended the term (in 2002) of the JWA Settlement Agreement. The
JWA Settlement Agreement is the single most important vehicle for controlling adverse
airport impacts. The City Council should pursue future Settlement Agreement
amendments but only if the terms and conditions of the amendments don't facilitate any
airport expansion, don't modify the curfew, don't adversely impact our resident's quality
of life and are in the best long -term interests of Newport Beach residents most
adversely impacted by airport operations.
The City will continue to aggressively oppose any proposal or plan that could lead to
development of a second air carrier runway or runway extension and any plan or
proposal that could lead to any modification of the existing noise -based curfew. The
City will continue to work with, and support the efforts of, community groups and other
cities impacted by JWA when those efforts are consistent or compatible with the airport
strategies approved by the City Council. The City will also actively support any program
or proposal that would help serve Orange County's air transportation demand at
facilities other than JWA.
This Policy has been developed with input from the Citizens Aviation Committee
(Aviation Committee) that was established by the City Council in 1979. Aviation
Committee members have volunteered thousands of hours in developing and
implementing City airport policies and strategies. The Aviation Committee is comprised
1
ti
of consists of residents of each Councilmanic District, many of whom are pilots or
otherwise knowledgeable about airport or aviation issues, and the diversity of
membership ensures relevant input from all geographic segments of the City. The City
Council appreciates the good work of the Aviation Committee and will continue to rely
on the Aviation Committee in developing and implementing airport policy.
II. HISTORY
Many residential communities in Newport Beach are located under or near the
departure pattern of commercial, and some general aviation, aircraft operating out of
JWA. The City has, since the mid- 1970's, developed and implemented strategies
designed to minimize the adverse impacts — such as noise and traffic - of JWA on its
residents and their quality of life. The City's initial efforts focused on involvement in
"route authority' proceedings conducted by the Civil Aviation Board and litigation
challenging County decisions that could increase the level or frequency of aircraft noise
events. However, the City and community groups concerned about JWA such as the
Airport Working Group (AWG) and Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) re- evaluated the
litigation strategy after the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the 1985 JWA
Master Plan (Master Plan) because of changes in State and Federal law as well as the
factors that impact air transportation demand in Orange County and the region.
In 1985, the City, County, SPON and AWG entered into a stipulation and agreement
(1985 Settlement Agreement) to resolve Federal Court litigation initiated by the County
seeking judicial approval of the Master Plan. The 1985 Settlement Agreement required
the Board to modify resolutions approving the Master Plan to reduce the size of the
terminal and limit the number of parking spaces. The 1985 Settlement Agreement also:
(a) established three "classes" of commercial aircraft (Class A, AA, and E) based on the
noise generated by the aircraft (operating with known gross takeoff weights) at the
departure noise monitoring stations; (b) limited the number of "average daily departures"
(ADD) of Class A and AA departures before and after construction of a new terminal to
73 ?; (c) limited the number of passengers served each year at JWA (expressed in terms
of "million annual passengers' or "MAP ") to 8.4 MAP after construction of the new
terminal; and (d) required the County to maintain the curfew then effect at JWA and
enforce the General Aviation Noise Ordinance.
Between 1985 and 2002, the County, City, SPON and AWG each collectively agreed,
on seven separate occasions, to amend the 1985 Settlement Agreement. These
amendments responded, among other things, to: (a) a new FAA Advisory Circular (AC
91 -53A) that established specific criteria for close -in and distant noise abatement
departure procedures; (b) changes in the location and /or type of equipment used to
monitor commercial air carrier noise levels on departure; (c) air cargo carrier requests
for access; and (d) changes in passenger, facility and baggage security requirements
brought about by the events of September 11, 2001.
1n 1990, Congress adopted the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) which, in
relevant part, requires FAA "review and approval of proposed "noise or access
2
to
restrictions" on Stage 3 aircraft. The City and County successfully lobbied Congress to
"grandfather" (exempt from the FAA "review and approval' requirements of ANCA): (a)
the 1985 Settlement Agreement; (b) amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement
that do not adversely impact airport capacity or airport safety; and (c) the then current
County noise "curfew" ordinance
In August of 2000, the City Council asked the Board to consider extending the term of
the 1985 Settlement Agreement. During the next two years, the City and County, with
input from SPON and AWG, engaged in discussions regarding the appropriate terms
and conditions of the extension. During this period, the City engaged in an extensive
public information program with the assistance of other communities impacted by airport
noise including Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin and Anaheim
(known collectively, together with Newport Beach, as the "Corridor Cities "). This
process culminated in City, County, SPON and AWG approval of amendments to the
1985 Settlement Agreement (2002 Amendments — Exhibit A) that: (a) eliminated the
"AA" class of aircraft; (b) increased the maximum number of noise regulated air carrier
ADD from 73 to 85; (c) increased the maximum number of air cargo ADD from 2 to 4
(the County is authorized to allocate two air cargo ADD to air carriers pending requests
for use of those ADD by air cargo carriers); (d) increased the service level limit from 8.4
to 10.3 MAP until January 1, 2011 and to 10.8 MAP on and after January 1, 2011 (with
500,000 seats allocated to regional jets); and (e) increased the maximum number of
passenger loading bridges from 14 to 20. The 2002 Amendments also eliminated the
floor area restrictions on the size of the terminal and the "cap" on public parking spaces.
City Council, SPON and AWG approval of the 2002 Amendments was contingent on
receipt of a letter from the FAA confirming that the 2002 Amendments were consistent
with ANCA, other relevant laws and regulations and grant assurances made by the
County. In December 2002, the FAA sent a letter confirming compliance (Exhibit B). In
January 2003, the Honorable Terry Hatter (the Federal District Court Judge who
entered the stipulated judgment implementing the 1985 Settlement Agreement
stipulation) also approved the stipulation of the parties implementing the , 2002
Amendments.
The 2002 Amendments allowed the County to offer additional air transportation service
without any significant increase in noise impacts on Newport Beach residents. The
flight and service level restrictions remain in effect at least until January 1, 2016 and
provisions related to the curfew remain in effect until at least January 1, 2021. The
FAA letter confirming the validity of the 2002 Amendments is a precedent for future
amendments that do not adversely impact airport capacity or airport safety.
III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The strategies, actions and decisions of the City .Council and community groups
concerned about airport impacts must consider and respect the complex statutory and
decisional law related to aircraft operations and airport regulations. The failure of the
City Council or community groups to accurately inform Newport Beach residents about
3
n
the legal framework could lead to unreasonable expectations and ill- advised decisions
and /or strategies. The following is a brief summary of some of the more important laws
applicable to the control of aircraft operations and airports.
(a) Noise Control. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the owner of an
airport — the proprietor — is the only non - federal entity that can adopt regulations
restricting the amount of noise that is generated by aircraft operations. A non -
proprietor such as the City of Newport Beach has no authority to adopt
ordinances or resolutions that regulate airport noise. In fact, ANCA severely
constrains the right of the proprietor to regulate Stage 3 aircraft operations.
ANCA states that any "noise or access" restriction on commercial aircraft
operating today must be "reviewed and approved" by the FAA. The FAA review
is based on an extensive proprietor funded study of the impacts of the proposed
restriction. As of this date, the FAA has not approved any proposed Stage 3
aircraft noise or access restriction and the consensus of aviation attorneys is that
the FAA would be hostile to any such a restriction. The 1985 Settlement
Agreement predated ANCA and was "grandfathered" from its provisions. The
2002 Amendments were not subject to FAA review and approval, as confirmed
by the FAA letter, because they did not adversely impact airport capacity or
airport safety.
(b) Aircraft Operations & Airport Facilities. The FAA has exclusive
jurisdiction over aircraft after takeoff and extensive authority over airport facilities.
The FAA approves standard instrument and noise abatement departure
procedures and has done so with respect to aircraft operations at JWA. The
FAA also approves "airport layout plans" for each airport and has the authority to
enforce regulations that promote and /or pertain to airfield and airport safety.
While the proprietor retains the authority to decide the number and nature of
certain facilities such as passenger loading bridges and aircraft tie - downs, the
FAA has adopted, and has the discretion to enforce, numerous regulations
governing airport facilities. Federal law preempts any local law purporting to
regulate aircraft operations or airfield safety.
(c) Interstate Commerce Clause. Commercial air carrier operations are
considered interstate commerce and the Interstate Commerce Clause can be
invoked to invalidate local laws or regulations that purport to control certain
aspects of those operations. The courts will invalidate laws or agreements that
are found to be "unreasonable restraints" on Interstate Commerce.
IV. POLICY - SUMMARY
The following components comprise the City's airport policy:
A. Considerations.
B. JWA Settlement Agreement.
4
q,
C. JWA Facilities & Operations.
D. Alternative Transportation Service
E. Public Agency Support and Participation
F. Community Involvement
G. Monitoring /Recommendations
V. POLICY
A. Primary Objective
The City Council's primary objective is to protect Newport Beach residents from
the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne
Airport (JWA). The City Council believes that airport impacts are now, and will
continue to be, the most significant threat to the quality of life of Newport Beach
residents. Accordingly, the City should develop, modify as necessary and
aggressively implement strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve
the primary objective. The strategies and plans must consider and respect the
complex legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and
impacts.
B. Considerations.
The City's airport policy has, historically, been based on a thorough
understanding and consideration of a wide range of factors that are relevant to
airport operations and impacts. Factors relevant to airport operations and
impacts include:
(1) State and Federal law;
(2) The attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA;
(3) The state of the economy — national and regional;
(4) The economic condition of the air carrier industry;
(5) The regional demand for air transportation;
(6) Regional and sub - regional planning and transportation programs
and policies;
(7) The decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Board of Supervisors
and, to a lesser extent, other local, State and Federal
representatives and officials; and
(8) The opinions and concerns of Orange County residents and
business owners.
5
q
The number of relevant factors and the complexity of the issues related to
adverse airport impacts mean that no single approach or simple strategy will be
successful in achieving the City's primary objective. The City will be able to
achieve its primary objective only if its strategies and action plans reflect a
thorough understanding and consideration of these factors — especially the legal
framework applicable to airport and aircraft operations - and if its residents
understand the inherent limitations on the City's legal authority to regulate aircraft
operations or airport service levels.
B. JWA Settlement Agreement
The JWA Settlement Agreement is the primary vehicle by which the City
exercises control over airport impacts. The operational and service level
restrictions in the JWA Settlement Agreement remain in effect at least until
January 1, 2016 and provisions related to the curfew remain in effect until at least
January 1, 2021. The FAA letter confirming the validity of the 2002 Amendments
is a precedent for future amendments that, like the 2002 Amendments, increase
air transportation service without impacting airport capacity, airport safety or the
quality of life of Newport Beach residents. The City Council shall pursue further
amendments to adhere to the following fundamental principles with respect to the
JWA Settlement Agreement and any modification or amendment under
consideration:
(1) The City Council shall not consider or approve any agreement
(including any amendment of the 2002 Amendments) that would or
could result in any modification to the County's airport curfew
ordinances.
(2) The City Council shall not consider or approve any agreement
(including any amendment of the 2002 Amendments) that would or
could lead to the construction of a second air carrier runway.
(3) The City Council should consider modifications to the Settlement
Agreement only upon a determination, based on appropriate
environmental documentation, that the modifications will not
materially alter the quality of life, and are in the best long term
interests, of Newport Beach residents most impacted by JWA.
(4) As a condition to any amendment of the 2002 Amendments or
successor agreements, the City Council should obtain a favorable
FAA determination that the proposed amendment or agreement is
exempt from FAA review and approval on the basis that there is no
adverse impact on airport capacity or airport safety and complies
with other relevant federal laws and regulations.
(C) JWA Facilities & Operations
JWA has a single air carrier runway with air carrier, air cargo and general
aviation facilities sharing approximately 500 acres. The City Council shall take
6
m
any action necessary to ensure that no additional air carrier runway is
constructed. The City Council shall also take any action necessary to prevent
any modification of the existing noise curfew that, generally speaking, prohibits
certain departures from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (8:00 a.m. Sunday morning).
The City should also support any plan or proposal that maintains, and oppose
any plan or project that proposes any significant change to, the existing level of
general aviation operations, the current level of general aviation support facilities
or the General Aviation Noise Ordinance. Finally, the City shall take all steps
necessary to preserve or enhance the existing remote monitoring system (RMS)
and public disclosure of RMS readings and information.
The City, through the Aviation Committee, will also continuously evaluate means
and methods by which JWA impacts can be minimized including the analysis of
changes in airport procedures and aviation related technological advancements
to determine if feasible alternatives exist. In the event the City identifies feasible
alternatives that could reduce adverse airport impacts the City shall take all
reasonable actions necessary to implement the alternative(s).
(D) Alternative Transportation Service.
The City Council recognizes that there is presently no feasible site for a second
air carrier airport in Orange County and that residential and commercial
development is likely to result in increased air transportation demand over time.
Accordingly, the City Council should support opportunities to serve some Orange
County air transportation demand at airports other than JWA including:
(1) Promoting circulation and transportation improvements from
Orange County residential and business communities to outlying
airports with capacity in excess of current operations levels such as
Ontario Airport and San Bernardino International Airport.
(2) Supporting development of new or expanded air carrier facilities in
locations that are, or could be with appropriate transportation links,
convenient to Orange County residents.
(3) Supporting the development of new or expanded air cargo service
and facilities that could increase the airfield or airspace capacity of
existing passenger serving airports.
(4) Supporting regional and sub - regional plans and programs that are
consistent with then current JWA operational and passenger
service levels and provide potentially feasible means or
mechanisms to serve some Orange County air transportation
demand at facilities other than JWA.
(E) Public Agency Support and Participation
The City Council should continuously pursue support for each component of this
Policy from other public agencies, especially those concerned about JWA
7
u
impacts. A key component of any such initiative is the Corridor City coalition.
The Corridor City coalition was a major force in Board approval of the 2002
Amendments. The Corridor City coalition was built on a foundation of mutual
interest in JWA operations and regular meetings between members of the
respective City Councils supported by interaction between city managers and /or
city attorneys. The City should continue to arrange regular meetings of the
Corridor City coalition to update members on any activity that could be relevant
to Orange County air transportation or JWA operations.
The City will participate, to the maximum extent possible, in local and regional
planning processes that have a bearing on decisions regarding airport capacity,
airport service and other relevant issues. Of particular importance is participation
in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) development of
the Regional Transportation Plan. The City Council and staff will also regularly
meet and communicate with County, State and Federal elected or appointed
officials regarding the actions that the officials can take (or oppose) that will help
the City achieve its primary objective.
(F) Community Involvement
The City Council recognizes that any plan or strategy to control JWA impacts
requires support and assistance from community -based groups concerned about
airport impacts. These groups, such as the AWG, have volunteered thousands
of hours pursuing strategies and plans designed to minimize airport impacts and
were instrumental in past successes. The City Council welcomes, and will
support, the efforts of any group or individual that is striving to achieve the City's
primary objective, understands the legal, political and economic factors that are
relevant to the control of airport impacts and seeks to achieve the City's primary
objective in a manner that reflects full consideration and understanding of those
factors.
The City will communicate regularly with its residents relative to the key
provisions of this Policy as well as local and regional activities that are relevant to
this Policy. As part of this communication, Council members and staff will
regularly meet with the leaders and /or members of citizen -based organizations
concerned about airport impacts.
(F) Monitoring /Recommendations
The City Council is ultimately responsible to achieve the primary objective of this
policy — to minimize the impact of JWA operations on the quality of life of
Newport Beach residents. The City Council shall designate the City Manager as
the employee primarily responsible for coordinating the implementation of this
Policy. The City Manager, personally or through one or more designees, shall
implement this Policy including regular communications with residents, the
leaders of community organizations and the Corridor Cities. The City Manager
8
iv
shall periodically report the status of implementation to the City Council and shall
perform the following:
(1) Monitoring Settlement Agreement Compliance. The City Manager
shall carefully and thoroughly monitor those aspects of airport
operation relevant to the Settlement Agreement, including County
enforcement of the General Aviation Noise Ordinance and provide
the Aviation Committee and the City Council with periodic reports.
(2) Monitoring Regional Airport Plans /Programs. The City Manager
should continuously monitor efforts or plans by any agency or entity
to develop new airports, expand existing facilities or otherwise
provide additional air or ground transportation service that could
serve Orange County air transportation demand.
(3) Monitoring Regional Planning Agencies. Agencies such as SCAG
have the authority to, and do, adopt plans and programs that
materially impact airport planning, airport usage, airport
development and access to airports. The City Manager should
ensure that a City representative routinely attends all SCAG
meetings that pertain to aviation and report all relevant activities to
the City Council and the Aviation Committee.
(4) Monitoring State & Federal Legislative Sessions. State and
Federal legislation — such as ANCA — have the potential to impact
JWA and Orange County air transportation issues in a variety of
ways. The City Manager should routinely monitor all proposed
State legislation and, to the extent feasible, potentially relevant
Federal legislation and notify the City Council and the Aviation
Committee of any legislation that is relevant to the City's ability to
protect its residents from impacts related to JWA operations.
(5) Recommendations. The City Manager should continuously advise
the City Council on actions that should be taken to implement this
Policy in a manner consistent with the Fundamental Principles.
The City Manager shall prepare and submit to the City Council for
consideration at a noticed public meeting reports that explain the
rationale for any recommendation.
9
�3
hftp://www.aop&org/members/fdes/actac9l-53a.txt
Date: 7/22/93
Initiated by: AFS -400
AC No: 91 -53A
Subject: NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILES
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) describes acceptable criteria for
safe noise abatement departure profiles (NADP) for subsonic turbojet-
powered airplanes with a maximum certificated gross takeoff weight of more
than 75,000 pounds. These procedures provide the user with one means,
although not the only means, of establishing acceptable NADP'S. These
departure profiles are consistent with the airworthiness standards
required by the Federal Aviation Regulations ( FAR's) Part 25 for type
certification and FAR Part 91 for general airplane operations. This AC
also provides a technical analysis and description of typical departure
profiles that are consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA's) safety responsibilities and have the potential to minimize the
airplane noise impact on communities surrounding airports.
2. CANCELLATION. AC91- 53,Noise Abatement Departure Profile, dated October
17,1978, is canceled.
RELATED READING MATERIAL.
a. FAR Parts 25, 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135.
b. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration Environmental Assessment for AC 91 -53A. Copies may be
obtained from the Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
c. FAA Analysis of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures for Large
Turbojet Airplanes. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Environment
and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
d. County of Orange, California, Environmental Impact Report #546.
Copies may be obtained from County of Orange, Environmental Management
Agency, 12 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92701 -4048.
BACKGROUND.
a. For several years, the FAA has worked to develop and
standardize profiles to minimise airplane noise. As part of that
commitment, the FAA has worked with airport managers, airplane operators,
pilots, special interest groups, and Federal, State, and local agencies in
numerous programs for evaluating noise levels in the airport environment.
The research considered a variety of departure flight tracks and profiles.
b. From an environmental standpoint, avoiding noise sensitive
areas by using preferential noise abatement runways and flight tracks
whenever possible can effectively supplement a comprehensive noise
abatement program. The FAA believes that using the two NADP's described
in this AC for subsonic turbojet - powered airplanes can provide
environmental benefits to the airport communities. The profiles outline
acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings, and airplane
configurations used in connection with NADP'S. These NADP's can be
combined with preferential runway selection and flightpath techniques to
minimize noise impact.
c. FAA reviews of various airplane vertical NADP's indicate that
some intricate NADP's have been developed on an airport specific basis.
)f 3 2/27/2006 11:11 AM
http: /Avww. aopa org/memben/files/ac/ac9l -53 a. txt
The management of these intricate profiles could compromise the pilot's
attention to interior flight deck detail% traffic avoidance, and other
safety responsibilities.
DEFINITIONS.
a. NADP. Noise abatement departure profile.
b. Close -in Community NADP's. NADP's for individual airplane
types intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive areas
located in close proximity to the departure end of an airport runway.
C. Distant Community NADPs. NADP's for individual airplane types
intended to provide noise reduction for all other noise sensitive areas.
d. AFE Above field elevation.
6. NADP's Acceptable criteria have been established for two types of
NADP's for each airplane type, as defined for use by each airplane
operator. These departure profiles are applicable to all types of
subsonic turbojet - powered airplanes over 75,000 pounds gross takeoff
weight. The two types of NADP's are the "closein" and "distant" profiles
as described below.
a. Close -in NADP.
(1) Initiate thrust cutback at an altitude of no less than 800
feet AFE and prior to initiation of flaps or slats retraction.
(2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or
by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to
takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at
or above 800 feet AFE.
(3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust
restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level
necessary after thrust reduction to maintain for the flaps /slats
configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine- inoperative climb
gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine
failure.
(4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration
system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after
thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps /slats configuration of the
airplane, a takeoff path engine- inoperative climb gradient of zero
percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a
minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine
inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.11 1(c)(3) in the
event of an engine failure.
(5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and
thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing
indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all- engine
target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane
configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed
tolerances can be found in AC 25 -15, Approval of Flight Management Systems
in Transport Category Airplanes.
(6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in
subparagraph 6 a(3) through 6 a(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until
the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb
configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en route
climb procedures.
b. Distant NADP.
)f 3 2/27/2006 11:11 AM
http://www.aopa.org/members/fdes/adac9l-53a,txt
(1) Initiate flaps /slats retraction prior to thrust cutback is
initiated at an altitude no less than 800 feet APE
(2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or
by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to
takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet APE or may be pilot initiated at
'or above 800 feet AIM.
(3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust
restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level
necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps /slats
configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine- inoperative climb
gradients specified in FAR Section 25.1 1 1 (c)(3) in the event of an
engine failure.
(4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration
system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after
thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps /slats configuration of the
airplane, a takeoff path engine- inoperative climb gradient of zero
percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a
minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine -
inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25. 1 1 1 (c)(3) in
the event of an engine failure.
(5) During the thrust reduction coordinate the pitchover rate and
thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing
indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all- engine
target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane
configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed
tolerances can be found in AC 25 -15, Approval of Flight Management
Systems in Transport Category Airplanes.
(6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in
subparagraph 6 b(3) through 6 b(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until
the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb
configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en route
climb procedures.
7. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES.
a. Each airplane operator may apply the procedures specified in
this AC to determine the following for each of its airplane types:
(1) Close -in community NADP.
(2) Distant community NADP.
For each NADP, the airplane operator should specify the altitude AFE at
which thrust reduction from takeoff thrust or airplane configuration
change, excluding gear retraction, is initiated.
c. Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADP's for
any airplane type to no more than two.
d. Each airplane operator is encouraged to use the appropriate
NADP when an airport operator requests its use to abate noise for either a
close -in or distant community.
e. This AC should not be construed to affect the responsibilities
and authority of the pilot in command for the safe operation of the
airplane.Q
F3 2/27/2006 11:11 AM