HCNF Working group updates July 2016

WG 1 - Monitoring, Verification and Metrics

Objective

”To oversee data analysis of historic flight

patterns and agree parameters of extended

noise monitoring programme"

WG 1 - Work Plan

Meetings

Dates

Gateanalysisforhistoricaltrends

Confirmgatesfor2016

Agreeoutputsfrom1sttranche

Undertake2016trendanalysis

Review&agreeoutputsfor2016

Agree2017gates

Newpermanentnoisemonitors

Agreepotentiallocations

Identifylocations&deploynewmonitors

Mobilemonitoringdeploymentstrategy

Agree2016locations

DepartureProfiledeployment

Agree2017locations

A320retrofitstudy

Agreepotentiallocations

Securetemporarysites

Deployment

NLRVerifcationReport

Reviewreport

Publishreport

Standardreportingmetrics

Use"teddington"datatotestpotentialmetrics

AgreestandardmetricsforHeathrowMonitoringReports

5thMay 29thJune 16thSept 10thNov

‘Quick’ deliverables Proactive measure to provide

understanding on how flight

patterns changing over time

All community noise reports on

hold until work completed

TAG data

WG 1 – Deliverables and progress to date

Gate analysis for historical trends Next 5 gates proposed

New permanent noise monitors Strategy presented

Mobile monitoring deployment strategy Agreed to use for departure profile study on 09R DET

Locations being investigated

A320 retrofit study

No work started as yet

NLR verification report Report drafted

Awaiting final analysis on CAA’s ANCON data

Standard reporting metrics TAG requirements set out

Analysis begun - see following presentation

Next Steps

• Modification of gate locations in line with discussions

• Distribute proposed mobile monitor locations

• Development of a proposal for permanent monitor locations

• Presentation of NLR report

• Development of report template

WG 1 - Community Noise Report - template

WG 2 – Operational procedures

• Objective

• To explore changes to operating procedures for both arrivals and depatures, understand

the trade offs in order to identify those that have most potential to improve the noise

climate around the airport.

• Scope

• Steeper Approaches

• Landing Gear deployment

• Airline Standard operating procedures

• The effect of the aircraft “load” on aircraft performance

• Departure profile study on 09R DET

• Study of climb gradients at other international airports

• Vectoring

• Arrivals approach paths

• Use of tools for the optimisation of departures

WG 2 – Scope and objectives

WG 2 – Deliverable and progress to 1 July

Teach in on the difference between RNAV, RNAV overlays, RNP and

conventional procedures

COMPLETED by TRAX 27 April 1700-1900

Bench marking study of climb gradients at LHR compared with other airports COMPLETED 14 April 2016.

Follow up with airlines and airports on impact of raising climb gradient and

achievement of climb profiles

Airlines completed the next focus for Q3/4 is airports.

Steeper Approaches Summary slides delivered June 16. Report will be published asap.

COMPLETE

Airline Standard operating procedures

Airline survey published 4 May and closed 24 June - 20 airline responses

received covering 20 aircraft types - 5 questions including NADP1/2, thrust

reduction altitude and RNP AR availability.

Results informing 09R DET trial

The effect of the aircraft “load” on aircraft performance Initial analysis at WG 12 May 2016. Next steps to draw out fuel influence

currently engaging with airlines to ascertain what level of data can be provided

for this.

Departure profile study on 09R DET WIP with Noise monitor “ideal locations” identified, these are now being

translated into specific sites for use. Airline survey underway to confirm airline

uptake of NADP1/2

Landing gear deployment Study underway to further build on studies done in same period for 2014 and

2015

Vectoring

WIP NATS want to complete the work on vectoring below 4000ft before looking

at below 7,000ft as requested in WG

Arrivals approach paths

COMPLETE 30 June 16 - Teach In provided by NATS to explain arrivals and

associated inefficiencies

Use of tools for the optimisation of departures

WIP

BA A380 change to departure procedures BA are changing the aircrafts acceleration altitude from 1,000 to 1,500ft in

August for cockpit efficiency purposes. All runways and all SIDs. HAL are

looking to deploy NMT’s under 27RBPK to capture any noise change.

Industry Engagement plan ref: Climb Gradient and

achievement of altitude achievement points

Airline Engagement:

Etihad

Malaysia Airlines

Virgin Atlantic

British Airways

Singapore Airlines

Emirates

Learning from the specific Airline engagement:

• Not all Airlines are necessarily aware of

minimum 4% climb gradient at Heathrow as

specified in the AIP.

• Work towards altitude restrictions detailed

on charts.

• Increasing climb gradients will entail additional

maintenance and wear on engines

• Airlines decide their take off thrust on a flight by

flight basis using Flight Management System

calculations

• Airports

Frankfurt Airport (FRA)

Birmingham (BHX)

Manchester (MAN)

Hong Kong (HKG)

Stockholm (ARN)

Beijing (PEK)

San Francisco (SFO)

Los Angeles (LAX)

Dubai (DXB)

Purpose from Airport engagement is to understand

the actual achievement of climb gradients published

and what impact they have on operations.

• FRA study into thrust reduction altitude change

from 1000’ to 1500’ showed no noise difference.

• FRA only ever investigate climb profiles if ATC

report a concern. They do not monitor attainment

of altitude points on a regular basis.

Completed

Q2 2016

Completed Q2 2016

Completed

Q2 2016

Planned

Q3/Q4

2016

Next steps and actions for next meeting

• Feed Airline procedural survey results into 09R DET trial on comparison of

noise profile NADP1/NADP2

• Follow up on achievement of altitude attainment points with airports

• Trax to present on over view of 09R departure profile trial project plan and

KPI’s

• Fuel influence to be investigated to establish if there is a relationship with

aircraft performance

• Presentation of results from the review of the Joining point study 2015

• Feed airline movement numbers into the survey results to enable better

understanding of the level of engagement

• Recap on the “early morning arrivals respite trial in 2014”

• Request from community to receive clarification on the outcomes of this

community programme

WG 3 – Night Flights – Scope and objectives

• Heathrow’s night flight structure has been the same since 1992/93 and over

the years Heathrow has added in extra voluntary steps to mitigate the noise

impacts.

• The purpose of this group is to explore what other steps Heathrow could put in

place, within its current restrictions, to reduce the impact of Heathrow’s night

operations, particularly late running departures and the scope of the work

includes:

• Establishing an information pack on night flights

• Developing a Quiet Night Charter

WG 3 – Deliverable and progress to date

Trend analysis for late running flights “repeat

offenders”

COMPLETED – 09 May

Information pack on night flights Rick Norman presented a first cut of the information pack and took comments and

suggestions. These will be incorporated and a further presentation will shown at the

next meeting

Quiet Night Charter Steve Leighton gave a presentation on two areas raised at the last meeting Sunday –

Monday transition period and SID alternation. It was agreed that the principles need to

be agreed:

• Sharing noise?

• Close in or further out?

• Changes in vectoring if non optimal SID is flown?

Explore the idea of sharing night flights more equally

across the departure routes both during the day and

night e.g. by turning off particularly routes on a

daily/weekly/monthly schedule

The SID temporal respite work indicated some potential options to pursue further.

However, it highlighted that the consequence of limiting overflight from one area

resulted in an increase in overflight in another area and in some situations an increase

in late running flights. It was agreed that the principles need to be worked up by this

group; i.e.

What is the desired outcome of this piece of work?

Do we want sharing/What time is night-time?

An overview of the scheduling by route work showed there are no short to medium term

solution through the scheduling process which would require potential policy changes

and so this has been moved into longer term solutions area.

Greater Adherence to night alternation An update was provided on this piece of work, outlining performance to 1st and 2nd

choice runways, and who is responsible operationally for the decision making process.

It was agreed Heathrow will look at the weekly rotation as there was a view that it is

now outdated.

Options for period of relief following period of

disruption as part of the Demand vs Capacity process

WIP – data indicated this may be possible but further work required to identify process

of ensuring this.

Next steps and actions

• Confirming detail of information pack

• Redraft of charter

• Update on sharing of late evening flights across routes

• Presentation on opportunities for greater adherence to night alternation

HCNF Working Group 4 – Update to HCNF

July 2016

Nicole Porter

Associate Director

Agenda of previous meeting - June 2016

• General review of progress

• Update on future forecasting of pax numbers and local impacts

• Research

– Noise and Health briefing note

– Respite research update

– Evening lectures

• Policy

– What are AIPs

• Comms

– X plane update and demo date

– Airspace change page

Objective of HCNF Gp4 - Research, policy and communications

"To build knowledge of

• existing aviation health related research,

• noise metrics/modelling and

• relevant operational information

in order to inform decisions and choices around airspace redesign and

identify gaps in research”

NOTE: In May HCNF meeting, members requested more emphasis on POLICY in ToRs so

we have now included more policy updates e.g. last meeting we reviewed AIPs.

Work Plan ‘Quick’ deliverables

Meetings

Dates

QuarterlyResearchBriefingNote(1-2pager)

Publishnotes

EveningLearningLectures

NonAcousticFactors

Noise&HealthOverview

NORAH(includingnightflights)

WHOGuidelineRevison

Setdatapresentationchallenge

Agreequestionsstandardreportingtemplateneedstoaddress

Designstandardreportingtemplate

Draftandagreedesign

EnhancedNoise&TrackkeepingTools

Demoprototypeof“Xplane”

Reviewfeedback

Launch

Gapanalysisinresearch

Agreeareasofcommoninterestandpotentialopportunitiesforresearch

4thMay 22ndJune 8thSept 14thNov

WG 4 – Deliverables and progress to date

Quarterly Research Briefing notes High level overview of noise and health presented

First draft presented June 2016, format agreed.

Evening learning lectures Programme of lectures drafted (see slide)

Set data presentation challenge Questions for reporting template and template developed

but not yet discussed in this group.

Design standard reporting template

See above

Enhanced noise and track keeping tool X Plane demo – web tool for analysis over a self selected

area

Gap analysis research Not yet started

Next Steps - update • Prepare noise and health briefing note - drafted

• Consider evening lectures dates and presenters - drafted

• Update on future forecasting of pax numbers and local impacts – completed

• Investigate establishing central info depository – discussed

• Set up demo of X Plane for all HNCF members – in progress

• Consider report template developments of Gp 1 – next meeting

June July Aug Sept Oct

Suggested evening lecture timetable

Introduction

to noise and

health

impacts

Bernard

Berry

5th July

2016

Aircraft

noise and

effects on

children

Charlotte

Clark

14th July

2016

Night flights

And NORAH

Dirk Schrenkenburg

August

2016

Non-

acoustics

factors and

COSMA

Uwe Mueller

September

2016

Additional information:

• Community Noise Information Report (WG1)

• Noise and Health Update (WG4)

• Respite Research (WG4)

Community Noise Information Report (WG1)

Progress

• Template developed

• Populated with TAG data for Strawberry Hill Noise Monitor

• Being circulated around WG1 for more detailed comment on each page: – Format of data presentation

– Usefulness of data/content

• Awaiting some additional modelling inputs to provide information on the wider

area - will be ready for next WG meeting

• NPL noise monitor report now also being populated for next WG meeting

• Next meeting to review status, plans for discussion with WG4 and wider

circulation of report template.

Community Noise Information Report

Strawberry Hill House

13th August 2015 – 20th March 2016

1 Introduction

2 Key findings

3 How have we produced this information?

5 What does the noise monitor data tell us?

6 What is the noise environment in the wider area and how has this changed?

7 Noise terminology

4 Where do the aircraft fly and how has this changed?

1.

Introduction

2.

Key Findings

3.

Methodology

5.

Noise Monitor Data

6.

Noise in Wider Areas

7.

Noise Terminology

4.

Gate Analysis

Pages are driven by key questions GENERAL

How does the airport operate?

Where do aircraft fly on easterly operations?

How has route usage changed since 2011/12?

How many easterly departures were there?

At what time is the DET route used?

On which dates did easterly departures occur?

LOCATION OF MONITOR

Where do aircraft fly above Strawberry Hill House?

How high are aircraft above Strawberry Hill House?

Where was the noise monitor?

When did the noise events occur during the monitoring period?

What are the overall noise levels during a day?

How many aircraft noise events occur during a day?

What are the average aircraft noise levels during a day?

What is the range of noise levels from aircraft events?

What is the range of durations of aircraft events?

Which aircraft types account for the noise events?

How loud are different aircraft types?

NOISE IN THE WIDER AREA

What is the noise environment in the wider area?

How has this changed over time?

Heathrow Community Noise Forum (HCNF)

Noise & Health Research Papers

EXAMPLE Update June 2016

Presented by Nicole Porter and Louisa Johns

Anderson Acoustics

EXAMPLE PAGE

Introduction

• In 2015, Heathrow Community Noise Forum requested a quarterly update on

published research papers on Noise and Health.

• It was agreed that Anderson Acoustics would provide this regular update in a

Powerpoint format.

• Each update provides an initial table of current knowledge of noise & health

relationships as presented in literature to date based primarily on information

from independent reviews.

• Recent research is outlined in terms of stated scope and outcomes. A link to

each reference is also supplied.

• This information is factual and does not aim offer any interpretation of

the findings.

• This is the first of these updates.

EXAMPLE PAGE

Recent published reviews on Noise and Health

• AEF – Aircraft Noise and Public Health: The Evidence is Loud and Clear, UK

http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/Aircraft-Noise-and-Public-Health-the-evidence-is-loud-and-

clear-final-reportONLINE.pdf

• Aircraft Noise Effects on Health – for Airports Commission (Clark, 2015)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/446311/nois

e-aircraft-noise-effects-on-health.pdf

• Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise effects on health (Basner, 2014)

Lancet 383 pp. 1325-1332

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61613-X/abstract

EXAMPLE PAGE

Current Knowledge of Noise & Health Relationships from literature

Effect Specific Outcome Strength of

Evidence

Cardiovascular

• Hypertension

• Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)

• Stroke

Sufficient but no proven

causal link

Sleep Disturbance • Short term: Awakenings

Sufficient but self-

reported

• Long term effects Lacking

Cognitive

Development

• Adults Lacking

• Children – Reading Age Sufficient

Mental Health • Symptoms Lacking

Annoyance • Short term Sufficient

Hearing Impairment • Loss in hearing None at <75dB(A)

International standardized evidence categories according to WHO:

Sufficient: if a relationship has been observed in which chance, bias, and confounding can be ruled out with reasonable confidence

Limited: if an association has been observed, but chance, bias and confounding cannot be ruled out without reasonable confidence

Inadequate: if the available studies are insufficient in quality, consistency or statistical power to permit conclusions regarding the presence or

absence of a causal relationship

Lacking: several adequate studies are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure and health effects

EXAMPLE PAGE

Recent published research on Noise and Health

• NORAH Noise Impact Study, Frankfurt, Germany

• Living with Aircraft Noise in England, UK, (Lawton, Fujiwara )

• Annoyance from Road Traffic, Trains, Airplanes and from Total Environmental

Noise Levels, Canada, (M.S. Ragletti et al)

• Vienna International Airport Perceived Noise Emissions, Vienna, Austria

(Heidelinde Jelinek-Nigitz)

• Effects of Noise Information Provision on Aircraft Noise Tolerability, Manila,

Philippines (Veng Kheang Phun)

• A New Indicator to measure the Noise Impact around Airports, France

(Lavandier et al)

• AEF – Aircraft Noise and Public Health: The Evidence is Loud and Clear, UK

• Defra - Recent reviews of previous Health Studies

• US Practices – Recent Evaluations

EXAMPLE PAGE Annoyance from Road Traffic, Trains, Airplanes and from Total

Environmental Noise Levels

• Canadian study carried out by telephone for 4500 residents of Montreal.

• Relationship found between distance to noise source and prevalence of

annoyance for road, rail and air traffic.

• 20.1% of population annoyed by road traffic, 13% by air and 6.1% by rail.

• No clear relationship between noise levels and annoyance from trains and

airplanes.

• Survey questioned participants on their disturbance not annoyance levels –

these were then grouped into Not Annoyed, Annoyed and Highly Annoyed.

M.S. Ragletti et al (2016) ‘Annoyance from Road Traffic, Trains, Airplanes and from Total

Environmental Noise Levels’, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (1) pp. 90

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26729143

Respite Research - Update to HCNF July 2016

Nicole Porter

Associate Director

Progress

RESPITE WORKING GROUP REPORT AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

• Should be considered as Part 1 of this research work programme – to set the context of this research

work and act as an introduction to the research.

• Now available on Heathrow website at

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Respite_Review_June_2016.pdf

PEER REVIEW PROCESS:

• Peer Review Group (PRG) comments on overall objectives and methodology discussed.

• Research scope document updated and forwarded to PRG for written statement.

• Agreement that next PRG would be held after fieldwork pilot complete.

LAB TESTS

• Pilots completed.

• Main lab tests in progress - 3 days completed, attendance rate high, all going to plan at present.

• New departure recordings prepared for tests.

FIELDWORK

• First pilot set up for 15th July.

Compton Route Review update

Working group 5

Jane Dawes

09RCPT Background Primary Issue

• CPT 5J/4K crosses the final approach tracks to 09R/L causing a conflict

• As a result aircraft were issued a non standard heading after departure

• The passing of revised departure instructions can lead to crews mistakenly believing they have been given permission to take off

• To reduce this risk the departure procedure for CPT5J/4K routes needs to be formalised

• In order to assess the requirement a trial was established in 2009 with a standarised heading.

Original proposal for new conventional and PIBUG

•A new conventional procedure was designed as an output and submitted to the CAA at a framework brief 15 Mar 13.

• However, the DfT declined this as it was not PBN.

• This led to the design and trial of PIBUG back in Jul 2014 which was terminated on the first day.

Change to radar vectoring in the radar manoeuvring area

•Also at this time NATS introduced a new tactical procedure which reduced the variation in vectoring in the radar manoeuvring area to the south/south east of the airport.

• This procedure resulted in a shift in the traffic on 09RCPT concentrating it closer on the inside of the turn and more to the north.

In Nov 14 CAA made a request……….

“……..request for an update from Heathrow as to how it now intends to address the present notified conventional RWY 09L/R CPT SID deficiencies and remove the need for the operational work around?”

Design options

Community Noise Forum

HAL Airspace Governance Group Sept 15 took the decision to proceed on a procedural design solution for 09R CPT by working directly through the Community Noise Forum

Benefits of a procedural design solution

• Subject to assessment but include;

• reduces risk of passing a revised departure clearance

•reduction in radio traffic which may have +ve operational performance effect

• +ve effect on track-keeping

• +ve from some local residents who are currently seeking assurance on solution to improve track tracking

•Meets the requirements of the DfT

• Subject to assessment but include;

• requires consultation and ACP – therefore not quick

• will shift the traffic distribution

• may concentrate the traffic – therefore preference for conventional procedure which is in conflict with FAS

Risks of a procedural design solution

HAL Airspace Governance

Group

Scope

• To have an operationally viable CPT 09 SID

• That does not require an airspace change for any other arrivals or departures at Heathrow as other wise this would lead

to significant delay

• Progression with changes to other routes may defer to LAMP and therefore meet requirements of FAS

Compton 09 R/L SID – Work to Date

Project Kick Off

•NATS have been contracted to design and provide consultancy support for this project

•Kick off meeting held to review previous work and discuss scoring criteria.

Local Community

Engagement

•Engaged local community through Heathrow Community Noise Forum.

•3 local representatives have come forward to represent community at all meetings. Project is being run as a sub-group of the HCNF.

Airline Engageme

nt

•Meeting held with interested airlines (BA, VS, AA, DL, UA and EI)

•FLOPSC briefed on the project and the intentions. Full support offered including simulator time.

First Workshop

•Workshop held with local community and NATS to define options. With 7 being created. These will be designed using PBN and conventional criteria creating 21 total options.

•It was also agreed at this meeting to look further at a Northbound SID as well as removing the SID altogether.

Second Workshop

•A total of 36 design options were presented back for discussion. These included conventional and PBN procedures for the 7options proposed in workshop 1 plus a Northbound SID and removing the SID. The group discussed the implications of the designs.

•The 2nd workshop indicated that a broader set of stakeholders was required for engagement for further work to establish the principles of a new procedural design and that this would best be done through consultation

Progress, next steps and actions

• Following the 12th May meeting to review design options it was identified that a broader set of stakeholder views would need to be considered.

• A further meeting was held on 15th June to discuss how to best progress this. The group agreed that before any designs should be considered the principles of the airspace change and prioritisation of these should be established. e.g. noise close in or further out, conventional procedure vs PBN, climb gradient

• This approach would enable a more structured approach and could best be taken forward by scoping some potential principles in a workshop with both the airlines and local community representative which could then be taken forward and consulted on.

• An independent consultant is currently being contracted to undertake this and the workshop is planned for 28th July 2016 with community representatives, airlines, AOC and NATS.