A New Technological Fix Hopes to Make Airport Noise a "Whisper"

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D.

Noise abatement procedures are only effective if they are used. Noise impacted communities are frequently heard to complain that, despite the complex, time consuming and expensive process needed to develop and implement noise abatement procedures at airports, either through the FAA’s Part 150 process, or through other airport specific processes, airlines seem to ignore them. The rationale often provided is that each airline is entitled to develop and implement its own flight procedures, some, but not all of which incorporate the specified noise abatement procedures. This situation was exacerbated in 1990 when the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. § 47521, et seq., took noise abatement policy making out of the hands of local airports and placed approval authority exclusively in the hands of the FAA.

A deceptively simple solution to this pervasive problem of airlines non-uniform observance of airport specific noise abatement policies has been developed by a small, new company in Truckee, California, Whispertrack.
 

The concept behind the Whispertrack system is simple: to “give airports an intuitive, web based tool to manage and update their noise abatement procedures” (Esaassoc.com/Airports, Summer 2011 Aviation Rising), as well as to distribute the various noise abatement procedures to flight crews and aircraft operators throughout the entire national air transportation system.

 

The Whispertrack system distributes noise abatement procedures in much the same way as Instrument Flight Rule procedures are distributed today: through flight planning/dispatch services developed by companies such as Honeywell, Universal, flightplan.com, AIRNAV and others. In essence, Whispertrack establishes a technical process extending across all categories of noise abatement procedure, and is intended to transmit this information universally, so that noise abatement procedures developed painstakingly by cooperative processes between aircraft and airport operators, air traffic controllers, and communities won’t be ignored by failure to integrate them into the normal flight planning system.

Whether Whispertrack will remedy the frequent divergence of aircraft from established noise abatement procedures is yet to be established by the year old process. What is certain is that Whispertrack is a step toward eliminating the “nobody told me” defense that so often accompanies divergence from established noise abatement procedures, observance of which is so heavily relied upon by noise impacted communities.
 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FAA Aircraft Re-Registration and Registration Renewal Rule Becomes Effective October 1, 2010

Posted on September 9, 2010 by Berne C. Hart
In response to requests by law enforcement and other government agencies to provide more accurate, up-to-date aircraft registration information, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has amended its aircraft registration regulations. The FAA estimates that approximately one-third of the 357,000 registered aircraft records it maintains are inaccurate, and that many of the aircraft listed in its Civil Aviation Registry database are likely ineligible for U. S. registration. Those inaccuracies result from failures by aircraft owners to report aircraft status and address changes under the current voluntary compliance based system. The FAA Final Rule, published in the July 20, 2010 Federal Register, will become effective on October 1, 2010. The re-registration or renewal fee will be $5.00. (See 47 CFR Sec. 47.17).

 

Under the new rule, the FAA will, over a 3-year period, terminate the registration of all aircraft registered before October 1, 2010, and require re-registration of each aircraft in order to retain U.S. civil aircraft status. The rule will establish a 3-year recurrent expiration and renewal system for all aircraft registration certificates issued on or after October 1, 2010, and also provide standards for timely cancellation of registration numbers (N-numbers) for unregistered aircraft. Aircraft owners who keep their registration address current will receive two timely reminder notices before the scheduled date for expiration of their aircraft’s registration. The FAA will post lists on its Registry website showing aircraft as they move through re-registration and renewal stages.

The 3-year re-registration period will clear the Civil Aviation Registry database of questionable registrations. The FAA estimates that the 3-year re-registration scenario will reduce the error rate for questionable or erroneous aircraft registrations from the current rate of approximately 36.5% to approximately 5.7% The FAA also points out that the FAA and manufactures will realize cost savings when mailing emergency airworthiness directives, safety notices and surveys to aircraft owners, and that more reliable notification regarding safety matters should improve aviation safety.

Finally, the Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 cannot be used for re-registration. A separate re-registration form will be available on the Registry website. At present, online re-registration and renewal is available only when no changes are required. If changes are required, paper forms must be used. However, the FAA is exploring options to accept all registration information online in the future. Forms and additional aircraft registration information are available at http://registry.faa.gov/renewregistration.

To ensure that they are included in the Registry early notification, registration and registration renewal program, and to avoid cancellation of registration numbers for unregistered aircraft, aircraft owners should ensure that their correct address is on file with the Civil Aviation Registry. There is no fee for updating an address.
Tags: , , , ,

House Subcommittee on Aviation Hears FAA Testimony on Aircraft Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Posted on May 7, 2008 by Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP
At a May 6, 2008, hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation, the FAA sought to dispel several "myths" concerning the effect that aircraft emissions of greenhouse gases have on the environment.  Coming a little over one month after the EPA announced its plans to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for aircraft emissions of GHG (see, "EPA Plans to Release an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Emissions" below),  Daniel K. Elwell, Assistant Administrator, Office of Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment, testified that there were three myths that needed to be put to rest.  First, Mr. Elwell stated that aircraft emissions account for only 3% of GHG emissions, and “the largest aviation market in the world is burning less fuel today than in 2000.”  Indeed, Mr. Elwell, said, aviation in general and aircraft in particular are becoming more fuel efficient, now outstripping automobiles in terms of energy intensity - that is automobiles burn more BTUs per passenger mile than aircraft.  This increase in fuel efficiency and the attend reduction in GHG emissions was one of the primary themes of several other witnesses as well:
Second, Mr. Elwell stated that CO2 emissions by aircraft at altitude do not have any more (or any less) effect on climate change than CO2 at ground level.  David H. Fahey, a research physicist for NOAA, has a small issue with that statement, when he responded to Rep. Ehlers' question about the effects of emissions.  Dr. Fahey stated that although CO2 does not affect atmosphere any differently at altitudes, nitrous oxides, a component of aircraft emissions, do.  That, in turn, affects ozone creation and methane. “That aspect of aviation is one that stands out,” Dr. Fahey stated. Moreover, Dr. Fahey continued, aircraft emission create water vapor in the upper atmosphere, i.e., contrails, which in turn creates clouds, which in turn creates "radiative forcing," a primary element of climate change.

Finally, Mr. Elwell wanted to make clear that the U.S. was not falling behind Europe in terms of environmental impact of aircraft emissions.  European aviation emissions, Mr. Elwell testified, have increased three times faster in recent years than U.S. emissions. He says that the U.S. is happy to participate in market-based environmental initiatives, as long as they are “based on mutual consent.”

This led to perhaps the testiest exchange, though came when the Subcommittee heard from Ambassador John Bruton, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United States.  Ambassador Bruton testified about the controversial inclusion of aviation in EU's Emission Trading Scheme.  He believed that because aviation emits far more CO2 than other industries included in ETS, such as steel and oil, aviation must be included in the ETS.  Everyone seemed to acknowledge, however, that ICAO was the proper forum, although Ambassador Bruton indicated that the EU has attempted to go that route, but did not receive any indication that ICAO would take any action.  The members of the Subcommittee apparently did not cotton to the idea that the EU was taking the lead on this issue.  It also should be pointed out that the Lieberman-Warner Bill, currently before the Senate contains an emissions trading program.

Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, for the U.S. Government Accountability Office also testified.  It was his belief that the aviation inductry could achieve significant reductions in emissions through the use of "Next Generation Air Transportation System" (NextGen) and an increase in research and development to promote such technologies as biofuels and fuel cells.  NextGen involves new technologies and air traffic procedures that can reduce aviation emissions and incorporates research and development on emissions-reducing technologies.

In short, the industry stated that it was making strides toward fuel efficiency, which would lower the amount of GHG emissions, although a more fuel efficient fleet would also increase the airlines' and aircraft manufacturers' bottom line, as well.  The government pointed to (reasonably) successful efforts made in better management of the airports and airways.  What remains to be seen is what action, if any, the House will take.

Also testifying:
For video of the session, click here for Panel I and here for Panel II.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,