Noise Control Strategies around Airports - Report Example

Noise Соntrоl Strаtеgiеs Аrоund Аirроrts Name Institution Affiliation Noise Соntrоl Strаtеgiеs Аrоund Аirроrts Introduction Noise produced at different airports has gone beyond the requirement for human survival as well as for the tolerance by other living organisms around the world (Girvin, 2009). With the increasing use of airline as means of transport, the number of airplanes has increased an indication that the noise produced at the airports has also increased. From the understanding of the challenges that noise brings to the communities and workers around the airports, different strategies have been developed at different airports to curb the problem. This paper will analyze different strategies that have been used by various airports to reduce noise. The analysis will be done through highlighting of the strategies and giving examples of the airports that the strategies have been used. Strategies used around airports The first strategy that has been used is to involve the locals in taking full control of the airports through implementation of their strategies (Oosterlynck & Swyngedouw, 2010). The idea involves bringing all those who take and oversees the operations to stay around the airports to help them create legislations which directly benefit them. The strategy also consults the community in relation to expansion of the airports as well as the times for taking off and landing. The establishment of regulations with the help of the locals ensures that noise is not produced throughout the day, but at specific times which favors the community. The community and the stakeholders leaving around the airport are prompt to establish a specific amount of sound that can be tolerated and the managements finds the way up on which the noise is reduced to the required intensity (Oosterlynck & Swyngedouw, 2010). The practice of involving the locals in controlling the airports has been practiced in the following airports: San Francisco International Airport, San Jose International Airport in California, Brussels airport and Munich airport in Germany. Secondly, the strategy used is the one that removes the Federal Aviation Administration from being the oversight of environmental quality and public health (Girvin, 2009). In doing so, the interest of FAA to promote the air transportation will be greatly reduced, hence in the process reduce the number of flights per day thus reducing noise. Putting the power into the hands of another body which is concerned about the environment ensures that duplicate of power is avoided and several regulations that are made by the different body are forcefully subjected to FAA. The locals as well as the other oversight body that takes the control of the environment with the mandate to control noise giving pressure to FAA resulting to the companies reducing the noise that they emit to the surroundings. The pressure and the responsibility given to them will dictate that the organization that is FAA discourages air transportation and offer regulations that favor the locals and other oversight communities towards maintaining a silent environment. The oversight community has set targets for noise production at the airports which as remain the mandate of the FAA to find solution to the problem prompting constant development of the noise safety applications at the airports (Girvin, 2009). Some of the airports and areas that have implemented the strategy includes; Frankfurt Airport in Germany and San Jose International Airport in California. Third strategy is the use of the legislation that demands that airports and airplanes pay the full cost for the damage they cost on individuals and other living things (Black et al. 2007). The penalty that has been placed on the noise that airports produce above a certain limits has helped reduce the noise with fear of making losses through charges. The management has ensured that none of the airports produce noise that is beyond their limit accorded in order to avoid operating on the unnecessary charges. The strategy provides that the airports are given freedom to operate as per their wish with only their noise production being monitored. When found quality of producing too much noise, the charges are filled and every damage that is evaluated to have been attributed by the noise is paid by the airports. The strategy makes the airports to balance their operations to produce little noise that cannot make them incur unnecessary expenses as well as being forced to operate under the consideration of the surrounding community interests. Some of the airports that have implemented the strategy includes; San Francisco International Airport and the Gatwick of London. The fourth strategy that is used by different airports to reduce noise is the extension of the intervals of flights landing and taking off at the airports (Kwakkel et al. 2010). A reduced time interval in flying planes is an indication that there would be continuous noise being produced at the airport. Small intervals in taking off as well as landing combine that effort that different planes provide towards producing noise at the airport. The connection between the two provides that prolonged noise which is continuous remaining as a disturbance to the community. When the two intervals is increased, the noise produced is reduced as the plane will only land a single plane as well as taking off as one reducing the possibility of having continuous noise production. The idea has been achieved through the use of different programming software to fix the intervals. The strategy has worked best through the involvement of different bans on intervals of plans which calls for the coordination with several airports to avoid clash of programs and only planes that can be allowed to break the protocols for its operation are the emergency and research planes which are always rare in the society. Most of this strategy has been practiced at the Gatwick and majority of United States of America airports. The fifth strategy that has been used by airports to reduce noise is the application of the satellite-based navigation systems (Van Praag & Baarsma, 2005). This system involves the evaluation and the study of the different landing angles for the planes. The increased time that the plane takes while taking off is an indication that there will be more time that the plane will take making noise and a similar case apply to landing. With these understandings, the airports developed the strategy that will ensure that the plane lands and takes off as fast as possible to reduce the time for noise making. The airports have recommended steeper angles for taking off as well as for landing as the plane will take little time to be noticed by the surrounding society or community before it lands or reach a height which is too high to affect the community. The only challenge that the system has brought to the airports is the need to establish more precise flight paths to be used at different times of the day. Some of the airports that have adopted and used the strategy include the United Kingdom airports such as Gatwick, Heathrow and other European-wide airports. The sixth strategy that has been used by the airports to reduce noise at the airport is the idea of being open to dialogue (Kivits et al. 2010). The affected individuals in the areas surrounding the airports have their needs and plans for the ways of controlling and constructing the airports. The application of the dictatorial leadership in the construction of the airports only calls for the conflict with the community. Involving different stakeholders in making the airport has provided the different ideas that are used to reduce the noise. Various stakeholders that are involved in the dialogue establishes the different ways through which noise is monitored and the changes in the noise recommendations are subjected to dialogue to establish the next procedure that can best help in reducing noise (Kivits et al. 2010). The strategy of working with dialogue has widely been used in different countries with the outstanding area of application being at the Munich airport. The last strategy that has been used is the identification of the noise producing capacity of the planes at the construction point, a strategy that is sometimes referred to as the London system (Van Praag & Baarsma, 2005). The system evaluates the aircraft certification noise values which are then used to grade the planes into bands by steps of three decibels. Each and every airport is provided with the maximum noise that it can produce and the management of the airport then remains with the mandate to acquire planes with different noise level with a restriction concerning the maximum noise to be produced. The strategy ensures that even the manufacturers do not construct planes which produce a lot of noise but little noise to be purchased for use in different airports. The method has been applied at the Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports an indication that it is mostly applied in the United Kingdom. Conclusion The paper has looked at different strategies that have been used by various airports in reducing noise produced in the area. It has done the analysis through explaining the strategy and giving the example of the airport that has adopted the technology to reduce their noise production. From that understanding, noise production at the airport still remains to be a huge challenge to different stakeholders for ensuring safety of the community and employees. Individuals therefore have the mandate to be involved in the decision making process of airport programs in order to include their recommendations in the implementations. There are still too much to be done in the sector and different resources should be provided for research work in order to have noise free airports. References Black, D. A., Black, J. A., Issarayangyun, T., & Samuels, S. E. (2007). Aircraft noise exposure and resident's stress and hypertension: A public health perspective for airport environmental management. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(5), 264-276. Girvin, R. (2009). Aircraft noise-abatement and mitigation strategies. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(1), 14-22. Kivits, R., Charles, M. B., & Ryan, N. (2010). A post-carbon aviation future: Airports and the transition to a cleaner aviation sector. Futures, 42(3), 199-211. Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & Marchau, V. A. W. J. (2010). Adaptive airport strategic planning. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR), 10 (3), 2010. Oosterlynck, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Noise reduction: the postpolitical quandary of night flights at Brussels airport. Environment and Planning A, 42(7), 1577-1594. Van Praag, B., & Baarsma, B. E. (2005). Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: The case of airport noise. The Economic Journal, 115(500), 224-246. Read More

The oversight community has set targets for noise production at the airports which as remain the mandate of the FAA to find solution to the problem prompting constant development of the noise safety applications at the airports (Girvin, 2009). Some of the airports and areas that have implemented the strategy includes; Frankfurt Airport in Germany and San Jose International Airport in California. Third strategy is the use of the legislation that demands that airports and airplanes pay the full cost for the damage they cost on individuals and other living things (Black et al. 2007). The penalty that has been placed on the noise that airports produce above a certain limits has helped reduce the noise with fear of making losses through charges.

The management has ensured that none of the airports produce noise that is beyond their limit accorded in order to avoid operating on the unnecessary charges. The strategy provides that the airports are given freedom to operate as per their wish with only their noise production being monitored. When found quality of producing too much noise, the charges are filled and every damage that is evaluated to have been attributed by the noise is paid by the airports. The strategy makes the airports to balance their operations to produce little noise that cannot make them incur unnecessary expenses as well as being forced to operate under the consideration of the surrounding community interests.

Some of the airports that have implemented the strategy includes; San Francisco International Airport and the Gatwick of London. The fourth strategy that is used by different airports to reduce noise is the extension of the intervals of flights landing and taking off at the airports (Kwakkel et al. 2010). A reduced time interval in flying planes is an indication that there would be continuous noise being produced at the airport. Small intervals in taking off as well as landing combine that effort that different planes provide towards producing noise at the airport.

The connection between the two provides that prolonged noise which is continuous remaining as a disturbance to the community. When the two intervals is increased, the noise produced is reduced as the plane will only land a single plane as well as taking off as one reducing the possibility of having continuous noise production. The idea has been achieved through the use of different programming software to fix the intervals. The strategy has worked best through the involvement of different bans on intervals of plans which calls for the coordination with several airports to avoid clash of programs and only planes that can be allowed to break the protocols for its operation are the emergency and research planes which are always rare in the society.

Most of this strategy has been practiced at the Gatwick and majority of United States of America airports. The fifth strategy that has been used by airports to reduce noise is the application of the satellite-based navigation systems (Van Praag & Baarsma, 2005). This system involves the evaluation and the study of the different landing angles for the planes. The increased time that the plane takes while taking off is an indication that there will be more time that the plane will take making noise and a similar case apply to landing.

With these understandings, the airports developed the strategy that will ensure that the plane lands and takes off as fast as possible to reduce the time for noise making. The airports have recommended steeper angles for taking off as well as for landing as the plane will take little time to be noticed by the surrounding society or community before it lands or reach a height which is too high to affect the community. The only challenge that the system has brought to the airports is the need to establish more precise flight paths to be used at different times of the day.

Some of the airports that have adopted and used the strategy include the United Kingdom airports such as Gatwick, Heathrow and other European-wide airports.

Read More