HomeMy WebLinkAboutHelicopter Information
5~A~~ "
1-Jec1bA~
Chronology of Helicopter Use in
West Carmel-Clay Area ~.~ 01<<(;
if RECEIVED -1
. < 2001 Infrequent use in Crooked Stick Addition? APRfJ~ 2I!J2 OJ
· Spring, 2001 Indpls. Star article announces petitl@.mer's ~UflGftase
of Bell H430 helicopter ~iY
- Construction of helipad
- Take-offs and landings become increasingly frequent
· Summer, 2002 Neighbors complain about-
- Frequent (<5X/ day) take-off and landings
- Untimely (< 7AM- to >Midnight) use
- Safety
- Noise
--> Helicopter activity moved to 111th and Springmill Road.
· Fall, 2001 Springmill Road residents complain about helicopter
and activity stops
· April, 2002 Petition SU-22-02 seeks zoning variance to use
helicopter in residential area
~Ke,
^Jeu 6li-u&2
Petition SU-22-02 Seeks a Zoning
Variance to Use a Helicopter ~'>~:_
Residential Area A~RECflv~2 \~
/7,
It.::.,
~l
..../('/'
}>/
"- >--
-<:I:;
(fJ
~
.......
_-f'J'1....
-~ ....' ., if)
if)
~w
~ D1SL~~~~:
~ -..--....- i.\: ~:>I'
r-..,...,': .. 'I' ~ ~7 --
Scolr ," - ...0' AUMl.. ~,h . 1
-_....:.~---
~-::I..o
=:..-'= ~
..,. .... ...,..",.....
....,~c....,~QMr.......___
:..,~--o..f*''-................. :
~~
,,~i')~\
.. ";-;i~~"~
.r..
2f>.A'I.'\lt..:...
1-,--
~l ' LEGEND FOR BURIED UllLITIES
~..I.yX"'EI.lJ'HCIot[.~N
:. om _ EUCTIllC
~. .
~~
1Je~ ,
How Noise is Measured* !,~: \:'\;~~' ^, \
" ... It (the FAA) uses a complex metric knl~w~B2 :~
Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) tO~Q~rtify jeJs
and large helicopters, while it uses the simp~rlJr:Y
measurement of sound exposure levels (SEL) to
certify small helicopters (these and other technical
terms are defined in Appendix A).
. .. Also, as the metrics were not developed for
helicopters, some experts believe that they do not
adequately account for the directionality, overall
duration, tonal and impulsive qualities of certain
helicopter noise events... they do not adequately
measure the most important aspects of helicopter's
unique noise."
*http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/law/current/fl ight/CH2NOIS E. PDF
'fy.-4K.d'
I...!dU~4U6J2
The FAA has Three Stages For
Classifying Aircraft NOisef~fS*
_ RECENEO \--
-:.. ~~R 22 2002 ~
noes I--.
~~
i) .-" ,
~ fIT\"\ ,
"Since 1977, the FAA has provided for three "stages" for
classifying aircraft noise levels, each with specified limits...
-Stage 1 levels (represented now primarily by the oldest
aircraft) are the loudest.
-Stage 2 levels are somewhat quieter, and
-Stage 3, quieter yet."
*http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/law/cu rrent/fl ight/CH2NO I S E. P DF
{)LA-KC
0iuMU~
Most Helicopters in Use Today Fall Into the
~'_---'I'
^ \~'-'"~ ....,.ft.
Noisiest Stage I and 2 Cate~.Ot~ ~
b APR 22 2002 :)j
". .. and are louder on approach than severall;/Sta~'e 3~j,et
. f j" /<,./
al rcra t. ~h IL 2:;/
... Helicopters are getting quieter, in relative terms, but
nearly all helicopters built since 1988 are rated Stage 2
although some- several of the Sikorksy S-76 series and the
Bell Heli Textron 412 SP, for example- meet even more
stringent noise levels.
However, the fact that helicopter approach noise levels are
even close to those of a large Boeing 737 jet airliner makes
clear that the helicopter industry has a long way to go
toward bringing down the noise generated by its uniquely
useful and uniquely noisy flying machines."
*http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/law/current/flight/CH2NOI SE. PDF
6L..~Kd' .
!Jeub<<J etZ
The Petitioner's Helicopt~<,;
(r-':- RECEIVED \~\
- I '..J
'~~~e.:W @] C:\Documents and Settings\rx30659\My Documents\PERSONAL\BELL 430.htm ,I
~J)- ","....,-,-.;\\'Y
~. ' I \ J.-7
Bell Helicopter Textron (Canada) 430 ---
Total Production n!a First flight nJa
Conunents Certification expected 2/96
Engine(s) Allison 250-C40 lIP (takeofi) 808 shp ea.
Dimensions main rotor 42 ft./12.8 m Tail rotor 6.9 ftl2.1 m
Height 12.8 ft/3.9 mLength 50.5 ftl15.4 m Width 11.7 ftl3.6 m
Empty weight 9,000 lbs/4,082 kg Gross weight 5,1851bs
Useful load 3,815 1bsll,730 kg External 3,500 1bsll ,588 kg
Vne 150 ktsf278 kmh Max cruise 139 kts{257 kmh
Max rate of climb 1,890 tpmf9. 6 mfs
mGE 13,700 ft!4, 176 m HOGE 8,000 ft/2,438 m
Service ceiling 14,600 ftl4,450 m SfE Service ceiling 6,200 ft/l,890 m
Stdfue1247 gal/9,361 lit Max fuel + aux. 48 gal/1821it
Max range Std fuel (no reserve) 378 nmf700 km
V}R Crew 1 Passengers 9
Standard avionics 1 VHF Comm.
1996 base price ($U.S.) Furnished upon request.
For more infonnation contact Commercial Marketing (817) 280-2222
~KC:.
A./eu~
~
/,; ......~- >--
A Comparator (FAA Stage 2 Noise Leve~, J.leU~copter
r- \1.E~!Nnr \j
I' lOR 21 2002 -:
\ - I\f f..:..1
.....
"~I
Bell 412EP
Overview
With the highest dispatch reliability
of any twin and the lowest hourly
cost in its class, the Bell 412EP
delivers proven performance and
vers atility.
Seats fifteen.
Maximum cruise speed'
122 kts, 140 mph, 226 kph.
Range (sea level): 356 nm, 659 km
More Product
Information
The Bell 412 Online Product
Brochure
rml
~
~~
lliu ~&R.
Table 1. Comparison of Helicopter r~na~e!,Aircraft
Approach Noise Levels* I". Rt:Nf.1l "-
I' ~~R 21 ~ ~ I
\ uoes " ;'
Helicopter Approach Levels
Sikorsky S-76 series
(several models)
Bell Heli Textron 412 SP
~6
95, 96 and'91;j"EPNdB
'-
95.6 EPNdB
Several Stage 3 Jet Aircraft Approach Levels
Boeing 727-200 (hushkitted) 97.2 EPNdB
Boeing 737-200 95.8 EPNdB
Lockheed 10 II - 1 96 EPNdB
Fokker F- 100
93 EPNdB
dB = Decibel: the logarithmic unit used to measure sound as perceived by the human car: because it is a
logarithmic noise. a IO-decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of loudness.
EPN= Effective Perceived Noise: a term used by the FAA in determining the approximated human
annoyance response to a given noise. The EPN level is the metric used to measure noise certification
levels for large aircraft including large helicopters. EPNI. noise measurements are measured in EPNdB.
*http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/law/cu rrent/fl ight/CH2NOI SE. PO F
g{'4~tr
~ ..
Ut!1lM~
. .'
~ Reject Petition SU-22-02 to Permit Use
of Helicopter in Residentia:l\ Area
/ ~ "'<-==:\
f" Rt.Ct.\\lt~? ~
· Approval of petition wilH, ~~v. ~~cs J
- be injurious to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community
- adversely affect the use and value of
adjacent property
· Strict application of Zoning Ordinance
will not result in practical difficulties in
the Petitioners' use of their property
';;.
'...,....., ..~ -
*"7
RPR 22 '02 13: 44
3172972055 COLTS OPER AND SALES
942 P02 APR 22 '02 01:32
I L GEN-01-78
-r;:\ I g--,. ,
/(\ ...J~~-3p,f,~
/, \..Y .,,~
/!tV .t .~{
TABLE 1. NOISE LEVELS OF BELL HELICOP-q~~s RECEiVED
CERTIFICATED UNDER FAR PART 36 APPEND{!j H APR 2~2002
f:.?
j--J
Ir:;/
/^' :;
~\" /'
!.!.J..~/
--:-. \1\1
EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL ....
MODEL (EPNdB) ~~
FL YOVER TAKEOFF APPROAGId!nr
206L-4 85.2 88.4 90.7
427' 89.1 88.0 91.2
42f2- 89.0 . 88.5 91.2
230'3 90.8 89.1 94.2
2364 90.5 89.1 94.2
~3Q:5 91.6 92.4 93.8
412SP 93.4 93.2 95.6
412HP 93.4 92.8 95.6
412EP 93.4 92.8 95.6
Notes: 1. 2722 kg (6000 lb) configuration
2.2880 kg (6350 Ib) configuration
3. Wheel gear configuration
4. Skid gear configuration
TABLE 2. NOISE LEVELS OF BELL HELICOPTERS
CERTIFICATED UNDER ICAO ANNEX 16 CHAPTER 8
EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL
MODEL (EPNdBl
FL VOYER TAKEOFF APPROACH
206L-4 85.4 88.3 90.8
427' 89.1 88.0 91.2
427L. 89.0 B8.5 91.2
230'3 90.9 89.1 94.3
2304 90.6 89.1 94.3
430 91.6 92.4 93.8
412SP 93.4 93.2 95.6
412HP 93.4 92.8 95.6
412EP 93.4 92.8 95.6
Notes: 1. 27'22 kg (6000 Ib) configuration
2.2880 kg (6350 Ib) configuration
3. wt'rel gear configuration
4. Skid gear configuration
317:?g7:?f1hS
PClr;l=" 171?
N ell "I". \ '\~l\I.eJ
3172972065 COLTS OPER AND SALES
I )CClIH:l I .l:" 1:1;-'
942 P03
RPR 22 '02 01:32
NOISE CENTER OF THE LEAGUE
t 888 NOISE 88
NOISE LEVELS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT FACT SHEET
How Loud is Too Loud? Experts agree that continued exposure to noise above 85 dBA
over time, will cause hearing loss. To know if a sound is loud enough to damage your ears,
it is important to know both the loudness level (measured in decibels, dBA) and the length
of exposure to the sound. In general, the louder the noise, the less time required before.
hearing loss will occur. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (1998), the maximum exposure time at 85 dBA is 8 hours. At 110 dBA, the
maximum exposure time is one minute and 29 seconds. If you must be exposed to noise, it
is recommended that you limit the exposure time and/or wear hearing protection
Measure Up and Turn it Down: Decibel Levels Around Us The following are decibel
levels of common noise sources around us These are typical levels, however, actual noise
levels may vary depending on the particular item. Remember noise levels above 85 dBA
will harm hearing over time. Noise levels above 140dBA can cause damage to hearing after
just one exposure.
Points of Reference "'measured in dBA or decibels
\II 0 The softest sound a person can hear with Donnal hearing
. 10 normal breathing
. 20 whispering at 5 feet
o 30 soft whisper
. 50 rainfall
o 60 normal conversation
1Il 110 shouting in ear
ell 120 thunder
Home
Work
Recreation
. SO refrigerator
. 40 quiet office, library
. 40 quiet residential
http://www.lhhorglnoise/decibel.htm
4/2212002
APR 22 '02 13:44
3172972065
PAGE. 03
..
3172g72055 COLTS OPER RND SRLES
NviSl' ('en1l'l" L.kcl!1c1 't~veh
" 50 60 electric
toothbrush
t> 50 75 washing
machine
\) 50 - 75 air conditioner
o 50 - 80 electric shaver
. SS coffee percolator
o S5 - 70 dishwasher
" 60 sewing machine
. 60 85 vacuum
cleaner
e 60 - 95 hair dryer
. 65 - 80 alarm clock
. 70 TV audio
III 70 - 80 coffee grinder
o 70 95 garbage
disposal
. 7S - 85 flush toilet
.. 50 large office
. 65 - 95 power lawn
mower
. 80 manual machine,
tool s
. 85 handsaw
Gl 90 tractor
e 90 - 115 subway
o 95 electric drill
. 100 factory machinery
\II 100 woodworking c13ss
o 105 snoW blower
. 110 power saw
~eafblO~
o 120 chain saw, hammer
on nail
. 120 pneumatic drills,
heavy machine
942 P04
RPR 22 '02 01:32
area
10 70 freeway traffic
. 85 heavy traffic, noisy
restaurant
e 90 uuck, shouted
conversation
05~om~
. 100 snowmobile
. 100 school dance,
boom box
G 110 disco
III 110 busy video arcade
\II 110 symphony concert
~ar~
.. 110 -120 rock concert
ill 112 personal cassette
player on high
o l17 football game
(stadium)
. 80 pop-up toaster 0 120 jet plane (at ramp)
III 80 doorbell ~ ambulance sir0
o &0 ringing telephone · 125 chain saw
" 80 whistling kettle
\) 80 - 90 food mixer or
processor
. 80 - 90 blender
'iI 80 95 garbage
disposal
c;-;;- bOO; cry~
http://www.lhhorglnoiseldecibel.htm
APR 22 '02 13: 45
. 120 band concert
. 125 auto stereo
(factory installed)
. 130 jackhammer, power 0 130 stock car races
dri 11
0~ bicycle h~
. 150 firecracker
It 130 air raid
.. 130 percussion section
at symphony
III 140 airplane taking off
III 150 jet engine taking
... 156 capgun
.. 157 balloon pop
o 162 fireworks (at 3
4/2212002
317~q?~RhS
PAr;~ Rd
3172972055 COLTS OPER AND SALES
942 P05
APR 22 '02 01:33
,.J ...' ._ .
o 11 0 squeaky toy hel d
close to the ear
off
feet)
. 135 nOIsy squeeze
toys
. 150 artillery fire at 500
feet
. 163 rifle
. 166 handgun
. 180 rocket launching
from pad
Q 170 shotgUn
~_~A.GUE HOM!;.PA.G~ II ~Qise Center III EMall
\Q Copyrigb1 1996-2001 LEAGUE FOR no; HARD OF HEARING - Updated Feb,uary 1,1001
http://www.lhh.orglnoise/decibel.htm
4/2212002
APR 22 '02 13:45
3172972055
PAGE.05
Ii ...-
"
11
CHAPTER 2
/c-\
/ \,;.-- '
." y
/(.7' A
/...:./ T-
HaW HELICOPTER NOISE ISREGJOL~ECli\IW
(=I .APR 22 20D2
'{\ DOCS
~~)-.....
....:.,./ /~--
~l~,' I
How Noise is Measured
T he FAA relies almost exclusively on a singl~ noise Illeasuring unit (or
"metric") fl.)r all of its noise measurement. mitigation, and land-use
compatibility efforts in and arollnd airports, This metric averages all thl;: noise ill a
24-hour period. adding an extra 1 O-decibel penalty for nighttime noise eVl;:nts to
accollnt for the additional impacts of noise that occlIrs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Called the "day-night SOllnd level" (abbreviated as DNL or. in mathematical
equations. as Ldll), it is a cUl11ulativt: measuremcnt whose nOise-averaging method
masks the cffix:t of each single noise evcnt, often resulting in an underestimation of
the impact of aircraft noise 011 the surround ing CO III Illll/l ities. 2"
While the FAA relies almost exclusively on thc DNL metric for airport
compatibility evaluation and planning, it uses various sets ofmetrics for other
ait'craft and helicopter noise measurement. The FAA uses a different set of metrics
for cletcrm in ing certitication noise levels. It llses a complex metric known as
Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) to certify jets and large helicopters, while it
uses the simpler measurement of sOllnd exposure levels (SEL) to celii(y small
helicopters (these and other tcchnical tcrms are defined in Appendix A).
Consequently, it is difficult to directly compare the certification noise levels of small
and large hc I icopters. 111 order to compare EPN Land S EL results. one. needs to
apply a series of correlatiolls or conversion factors, and also know the distance at
which the measurements were made and during what kind of operation. A further
\
,:\
<\
'~I
I _ /
'/
'.,
,
11
r
Must helicopters in
use ,odoyfidl in/o the
noi,\'iesl SlaKe 1 and 2
cOJeKories, and /hus
are louder on
approach {hon several
SlaKe 3 jel aircraft
lis/ed he/ow
hindrance to comparison is that jet certification tests inc lude a sidel ine noise
measurement, wh i Ie he 1 icoptcr certi fication tests lIse a flyover measurement.
None oftlH:se metrics takes low frequency sounds into account in any significant
woy. Also, as the metrics were not developed fOl" helicopters, some experts believe
that they do not adequately aCCOullt for the directionality. overall duration, tonal and
impulsive qualities of certain helicopter noise events. Thus. they do not adequately
measure the 1110st il11pOl1ant aspects of helicopters' unique noise.'"
1l1e FAA's Three stages For Classifying Aircraft Noise lewis
Since 1977, the FAA has providrd for three "stages" for classifying aircraft noise
levels, each with specified limits." Stage 1 levels (represented now primarily by the
oldest aircraft) are the loudest. Stage 2 levels are somewhat quieter, and Stage 3.
lJuieter yet. The thrust of the regulations over the years has been to requ ire new
aircrati to comply with progressively quieter Stage 3 noise limits. For commercial
.let aircraft fleets, the phase-out of Stage 2 engines to somewhat quieter Stage 3 noise
certification levels is to be completed by the year 2000. (See discussion under
ANCA in Regulatory Section.) Stage 3 aircraft are generally about 10dB quieter
than lhose designated Stage 2.'~ But this is by no means always the case, Stage 3
aircraft are not equally quiet and a Stage 3 aircraft is not necessarily quieter on
landing. tor example,"
How l.cud Are They?
Most helicopters in use today fall into the Iloisiest Stage I and 2 categories, and thus
arc louder on approach than sevE:ral Stage 3 jet aircraft listed below. Helicopters are
getting quieter, ill rclative terms. butllcarly all helicopters built since 1988 arc rated
Stage 2 althollgh some-several of the S ikorksy 5-76 series and the Bell Hel j
Textron 412 sr, for example-meet even more stringent noise levels. However, the
fnct that helicopter approach noise levels are even close to those ofa large Boeing
12
,':0
73 7 jet airliner makes clear that the helicopter industry has a long way to go toward
bringing down the noise generated by its uniquely useful and uniquely noisy flying
machines.
Table 1
Comparison of Helicopter and! Jet Aircraft Approach Noise levels
Helicopter Approach Levels
Sikorsky S-76 series (several models)
Bell Heli Textron 412 SP
95.96 and 977 EPNdB
95.6 EPNdB
Several Stage 3 Jet Aircraft Approach Levels
Boeing 727-200 (hushkitted)
Boeing 737-200
Lockheed 1011-1
Fokker F-l 00
97.2 EPNdB
95.8 EPNdB
96 EPNdB
93 EPNdB
dll =Ikcihcl - the log~rithmk unflused to me~Sllre sound as perceived by the human car: Ilc<.:au,c it j, a
logarithmic ~ealc. a I O-dceilld increase is perceived as a douhling of luudncss.
FI'N= ,.:n;';etivc l\:redvcd Noise. a term mcd hy the FAA in detclmining the approximaled human
annoyance response to a giwll noise. The EI'N Level is the mctri<.: used to meaSllfC noise certification
kvcls Iilr l;irgc airnalL including large helic()p!cr~. I~I'NL noise rncasurClncnls ,Ire measured ill EPNJB,
Noise limits for the variolls stages arc prcscribed separately for the takeoff.
tlyover, and appronell tests. The limits also depend 011 the maximum certificated
weight of the aircraft or helicopter. The heaviest craft are allowed thc maximum
noise levels or standards, and the levels are reduced for each halving of the
maximum weight by a given number of EPNdBs. down to a minimum weight and
noise level, which aircraft weighing below the minimum must also meet. (See box
011 pg. 15)
13
Because the FAA began helicopter noise-testing in 1988. helicopters built before
that date have not been noise-tested by the FAA, IIn less the bel icopter company
l:hangcd the type design of the hel icopter. These untested hel icopters are considered
to be Stage I noise level, even though Illost are actuatly in the Stage 2 range.q (No
information was available all the numbers of Stage I helicopters still flying.)
Nearly all helicopters built since 1988 are rated Stage 2. although, as previously
mentioned, some meet more stringent noise levels. However, there is no Stage 3
standard for helicopters. as there is for fixed-wing aircraft and no new domestic
regulations are immediately planned. At the inrernationallevel, disCllssions are
cum~ntly under way with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
l:ol1cerning Stage 3 limits that 'would apply to U.S. helicopters.'; NRDC believes
that Stage 3 I imits for hel icopters should be establ ished now and at levels that wi II
lessen tilture helicopter noise impacts.
Helicopter Noise Standards and Tested Noise Levets
The FAA's aircraft and helicoptellJoise h:vels arc found in various areas of Part 36
of FAA regulations. Helicopter noise standards are presented in Appendices Hand
J to Pari 36; the actlllll tested noi se levels of aircraft and hel icopter models are
presented in Appendices I through II in FAA Advisory Circular (Ae) No. 36-1 G.
The noise levels of larger helicopters (and jet aircraft) are measured using the
EPNdB unit. Noise levels oflhe smaller helicopters, listed in Appendix II in the
AC, are measured in terms of" the SEL Illelril: f"lJr the flyover operation only. Noise
levels for smaller helicopters (6,000 pounds and under) during IlYllver, rangc from a
low of about 79 SEL to 85.2 SEL.;r, The EPNdB llyover noise levels for helicopters
over 6,000 pounds (I isred in App(:nd ix 10) range from about 86 on the low end to a
high of about 93 EPNdB.'J With the lack ofa direct conversion between the SEL
metric and the EPNdB, noise comparisons arc difftcu It and, apparently, almost
nonexistent.
The comparison of helicopter and airplane noise standards in the box below
illustrates the need for Stage 3 helicopter noise standards. Note, for example, that a
Stage 3 airplane weighting 77,20n pounds or less, regardless of number of engines,
14
has n noise limit all approach of 98 EPNdB, while a Stage 2 helicopter of 44.000
pOllnds hns a Ilyover noise limit of 102 EPNdB.
Stage,2 Noise LeveJs,for;.J;~rg~(Helicopters. ,,' , "'~H"".
:!~ tT-:'!c*+ ::f~~:;:,,; ~:'::'~~-=:i::k~:~J:i..;_-'-, }!~:' "~'r,':;,:;. ~.;'~::,-!~>_?~,;f: ,-':'~ -:.'<:'c; -,>/-;.~ :-':"~-"'_ ;;~, ~<.~;.:;~, .-'~_, ,- -"",~, .:~'\f..'~!~:-:':::.':"f; __ -:,' ::/_~;
,For.flyover, the Stage'~ m~~i.1~\4'ri1!allowable helicopter:nois~Jev,els i~ ':108'EPl'Jd~, for' !c
the maximumweightpf 176,.370. pounds or more.,(No U.S. civil helicopter tiurrently ~. '
weighs more than 50,OOO,poUlids.) Thi~ maximum noise limit is reduced by 3.01 EPNdB
per halvingofthe maximufn.,~ei&nl d8wn to 88 EPNdB formaxiITIUm!\Ve'ights'of,J,764;"~
pounds or less, This ,mean~i~at :aJielicopter weighing'44,092pounds'Hwo halvings,ofcthe
maximum weight) has asiag~2A.voY~r.noise limit ?fabo~t J02EPNdBio~6'E.PNdB: '
less than the rD8EPNdBmaximuli1):'" ' ":' ,: ,,' "', , '
. .' ... '-:C.- "," . - ,-
]. ,.t '" . ."., , -'
f'or take~frcalcl/{ated limits; using,the'same maximum and miriimu~helicopte~"Yeights
and the samej-eductions'perhalving()fl~.ehelicopter,we;ightas rQrjlxovef,'thelimjtsl;lr~
109 EPNdBdown to '89 EP'NdB: .
','., ~ . ,-,F,,' .}",,- .-c~'~;,~;~0f;:,.. J;F.~:Xf:
For approathecilt::u!qi~41!!'!!f~;using the same maximum,and minimum:\iteightsand";,:",, "
reductions, limitsare.1l0I~'PNd.ir;ilown4o'90EPNdi3." ,,', ",' ,
'1": ,~._; t' : '.
. ''''! .'~"';'-- ,--.i..- "~_ . . -.
Stagc2 and 3 ~'lti forTr.msportCa.lxaixJ1urboj~ f~'efed~,," " ;';:,'
Stage 2: For lakelff,'" 08'EPN,~!3Iormaxi~um '".eights of 600;b:OOpound,s or more,
reduced by 5 EPNdB,pcr'haiVit1gof the 600,000 niaximum'weightdown io'93'EPNdB~tor
maximumweights .oN5,OOO,pounds)l,nd less", " . .,' ,,' " ,
for sirieline(.mdapproacli,1 08,EPNdBfor. thesllm~ maximum weight redticed:by2
EPN dl3;perha1~-jngoftlfe'mflxjmum down,to"j 02,' EPNdB,'t6Fmaximum.'N~ights'df"
75,000 poundsll~dless/".. ',' ., ' ' " , ' , '. ',," .',
Stage 3: ForTakeofJ". limitsdilTer d~pending onthe'number ot:engit1es~.' ""., ,
For airplaneswith'more that1t~ree engines, 109 EPN,d~rormaxil11um'weights'o(~,:i
850,000 pounds or more; TeducC(J by 4 EPNdB p~r halving'6f'themax'iitium weight,
down to89J~PN~B for Inaximuq1"we,ight of 44,~,;73,.po~'r~~,oI less;"", "
. .. ;-,. I"
For airplanes withthree engines, '04 EPNdB forthesamc'maximum,yiel'ghts;',,:
reduced'by 4 EPNdB per halyirigof the weight dowlltO,89 EPNdBfoFTID<imum H','
weightsof63,177'pciunds'a'nd!ess;:' " 'H ' ',s":,,>,,,
H'
. . . _' ,. . - .' '. n,_:___'_ _ _: '_,._, "" ~ ;;, - .u~~ ... :",,_ . _ _ ;: ':
For airplanes with fewer'than~h~tl~,~llgilles,J QI,:EPNg8for:th,~,~~m,e;11}~iilllUT','.,
weights, reduce~bY,4EPNdBper.ha]vingdown IOf89 EPNdBi'of'riiaxjrriun\~~rg~ts,
of I 06,250pounds arid less::' , ' "
For s idel il1~; 'regarl:l less;O'f:thenu m ber, pferigines ;~' ld3EPN d Bfor,rri~l'ii11um weights,
, or 882, 000 ornlore~ reduced 'by 2 56 EPN dB, perhaJvih~ .of~e maxii11 YP \ve ighf'~
.. .. t:;~~~~~1~~*~~~~;;i~~;~ti~i~~~I~6s~=:~~e;;t"~~;~u~':;?~;
. ,we ights or'6'F7.;SOQpound~or;mQre:leducedib~<; ~e B'EPNd~;perbalY i'ngidfthe14~;~,';
maxi mu'rri '\veight;downt0'9S'jE BN df! ,foLweignts' of,7,7;2 06'pounds,or,~1~'S~.~o:;~:<;, ",'
" ',' . , . . "-' . .d - :;),_' 'i",':' ;" .~ . -'-,r:' -, - - ,., ---'-'- ''':''::,;,;:.::-.', ":.;-";:-l-:::,tfokD:,:~,..,tr.-!";':':.'.
~~:;:::;.:::;;,'''' ,
1 5
A series of.federal
statures expressly
preempts control over
air splice, jliRht
routes, solely, aircraji
airworthiness
cer{ (fica I ion und
COI1/rot oj'el1Kine air
and noise emissions.
HOW FEDERAL PREEMPTION UMITS LOCAL HELICOPTER
RESTRICTIONS
Federal law "preempts" state Jaw, under tht: Supremacy Clause of the U,S.
Con~tltulion," when Congress expressly or impliedly indicates its intention to
displace state law, or when state law actually conflicts with federallaw.'~ State and
local law can be invalidated or voided by the courts, if it is found to '"interfere with"
or be "contrary to" federal law."
In the interest of developing and maintaining a fair and efficient air
transportation system and pre::ve::llting interference with Interstate commerce,
Congress long ago largely preempted state and local control of the aviation industry
and air travel by placing them under federal law," In the all' transportation field, a
series of federal statutes expressly preempts control over air space, f1 ight routes,
safety, a Ircraft airworthiness cert itication, and contro I of engine air and noise
emissions (Ht the source) and air] ine rates, to name somc areas.~' Thesc statutes give
federal control to the FAA. (Sollie of these statlltes are discussed in the "Legislative
Components" section below,)
Courts may also find that Congress has preempted an area of regu lation where
Congress has enacted a sufficiently comprehensive scheme of federal regulation or
where the federal interest is so dominant as to preclude state legislation in the same
area.,r. (See discussion of the Burnallk ease below.)
Federal Preemption and the Proprietor Exception
Whi Ie regulation of aircraft as a liaise "source" has been preempted by the Hircrali-
engine-noise certification levels prescribed in Part] 36 under the Federa I Aviation
Act Amendment of 1968, the boundaries of federal preemption of the larger area of
airport noise control are not as clearly detined. Congress has carved out a limited
"proprietor exception" to federal control of ai rport noise that allows a state or local
16
.'
govcrn ment, when act ing as the proprietor of an ai rport, to exercise certain
regulatory powers ill the area of airport noise.'J
The proprietor exception was created to protect Ilw airport owner from liability
for damage suits by airport neighbors. The airport owner wanled protection frolll
neighbors who WCI"C su ing under nuisance, trespass, and Ilegl igence theories, or
claims that their property had lost its value and been "taken" by overflights and
excessive aircraft noise. I n a seminal case, Uniied Sial!!s v. ('aushy, the Supreme
Court held that aircraft noise and low overllights were so damaging to the farmer's
properly that the farm had heen "taken" without just compensation under Ihe Fifth
Amendme n1."
As several recent cOllrls have explained, the proprietor exception recognizes the
responsibility or the airport O'vvner to obtain air casements from airport neighbors, as
well as the airport's liability for noise abatement, compensation, assuripg
compatihility in land use and. in some instances, relocatiun of neighboring property
owners. ,,,
Takings and Inverse Condemnation
Claims of a "taking" brought by propelty owners adjacent to an airport have
frequently been upheld by the courts. If the court finds that a governmental airport
owner has takcnlhe owner's property (or has taken an easement over the owner's
property), the COllrt can grant ajudgment for the value of the property destroyed, or
for the diminution in value of the property.'"
Courts have also upheld "inverse condemnation" suits to recover the value of
property that has in fact been taken by a govcrnmcntal defendant, althougl1no formal
condemnation proceeding has been attempted by the taking agency." ~ol11etimes,
wht:n a diminution in property values could not be shown, nuisance cases have also
heen successfully brought against llirports, as have cases of negl igence and trespass.
17
The courls coni inue to
affirm Congress'
lradil iOl1o! po! hy (~l not
preempting {he airport
operators' OJ'
proprietors ' limited
authority to estohlish
pel'lnissihle levels If
noise, as 10l1g as Ihe
airport noise rules are
./i.lir. reasonable, and
nondiscrimimllOlY
Relevant Case Law on the Preemption IM-b ;.....
The key Supreme Court case ill the area of federal preemption of aircraft noise
control is City qf' Burhul1k p, tlickheed A ir Terminal. decided in 1973.;' In a fivc-to-
four decision, the COllrt overturned an attempt by the City of Burbank to increase the
curlew hours at the privately oWI1ed HollywoodlI3urhank Airport. The Court found
tl1111 there had been impl ied tedera I preemption of the control of a ircraft noise
hecause of the pervasiveness of federal regulation in the aviation area,;'
Because the City of Burbank was not the airport proprietor and had attempted to
LIse its police powers to extend the curfew, the Court did not consider here what
limits, i r any, appl ied to an a irport proprietor in enacting a curfew. In a 111 Llch cited
"footnote 14," the Court cited a leuer from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
stating that the proposed legislation at issue in Burhal1k (the Noise Control Act of
1972) would not affect the rig/us of a state or local public agency, "as Ihe proprielor
01011 airport [italics in originall from issuing regulations or establishing
requirements as to the perl1liss ibk level or noise wh ich can be created by ai rcraft
using the airport."" In footnote 14, the Court noted that the l1lun icipaJ ity here was
not the proprietor and that the "authority that a municipality may have as a landlord
is not necessarily congruent with its police power." Here, the City of Burbank
attempted [0 impose the curfew using its pol ice powers and the COLlrt held such Iloise
regulation to be preempted.
The courts conti nue to affirm Congress' trad itional policy of not preempting the
airport operators' or proprietors' limited authority to establish permissible levels of
noise, as long as the airport noise rules are fair. reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.;'
Tile courts' support of airport proprietors' limited role in noise regulation cont inues
despite a series offcdcnJl statutes giving illCl'C,lScd rcsponsibility for aircraft noise to
the FAA.50,
.\ . ; "
The following paragraphs provide a guide summaI)' of some of the most relevant
appellate court decisions in the area of federal preemption. Because this is an
18
extremely complicated and evolving area of law, they are mennt as an introduction
only. i.e., as the slart of any advocate's exploration oflhe issue. NRDC strongly
urges the reader to go straight to the sources-read tlw cases, review the related
citations. explore relevant law review and other articles, and consult legal coullsel-
before procceding with allY legal strategy in this area.
National Helicopter Corp. Case
In t 998, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Ci rcuit, in Natiollal Helicopter
Corp. v. City oj'.New York, citing a long line of federal case law, upheld New York
City's right, as a proprietor, to place restrictions at the 341h Street Heliport." The
appellate court noted Ihat National Helicopter Corporntion "does not dispute the
v iflbil ity of the proprietor exception "5' National II el icopter argued that the city was
not acting in its proprietary capacity, but under its police powers. The appellate
court disagreed and upheld four of the seven New York City regulations as not
preempted and as reasonable regulations to control the permissible leve \s of hel iport
/loise. The permissible regulations included weekday and weekend curfews,
elimination of sight-seeing helicopter operations on the weekends, and a 47 percent
reduction in operations. The appellate court did not uphold the City's ban on a
palticular. noisy helicopter (the S-58T), finding the ban to be discriminatory; nor
local regulation of sightseeing rolltes, finding rOlltes Lo be a preempted area; nor
changes in the marking of helicopters fOf the purpose of monitoring their use ofthe
proposed routes.'" The Court fOllnd a "cooperative scheme" existed hetween federal
and local contra!.""
19
Other Cases on 1he Proprietor IExceptioal
. British Airways Board v, Pori Authori~y o/New York and Ne.v Jersey
(Collcorde Z). '"
This \;aSl; was occasioned by proposed flights to the U.S. of the new BritishlFrcnch
supersonic transpon, the Concordc, I n 1976, the U,S. Secretary of Transportation
ordered a 16 month operational lest of the Concorde at both John r. Kennedy (JFK)
and Dulles International Airport in Washington. In response to local political
opposition to the Concorde flights, the Port Authority at its JFK airport imposed a
temporary ban on the !lights. The Pori Authority believed Ihe Concorde could not
Illeet JFK's existing noise limit for takeoff" and landings, that the Concordc's low
frequency noise characteristics would not he adequately addressed by its rule, and
that the Concorde's noise and vibratIon impacts needed additional evaluation.
The Port Authority wanted more evidence of the Concorde's noise characteristics
and impact from its operations at Dulles, P<lris and London, while it conducted its
own research. The airlines challenged the Port Authority's ban and the lower court
upheld the challenge. The Coun of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however,
reversed the lower court and sent the case back for further evidentiary hearings Oil
the reasonableness of the three-month ban on flights. The appe Ilate court reasoned
thaI federal policy authorized the local airport owner (when acting as the airport
proprietor) to refuse landing righls lor noise aoatcl11ent purposes. Therefore, the
appellate I.:Ollrt held that the Secr'clary's ordcr to a.;;ct:pt tht: COllcorde operational
tests did not preempt the Pori Authority's temporary ban of the COllcorde. During
the ban, the Port Authority was ordered to develop reasonable, nonarbitrary,
nond iscriminatory regulations that cstabl ishcd acceptahle noise levels for the airport
and its immediate neighbors.'"
20
.. Brilish A in-vay,\' v. PorI Authority o.lNew York und New Jersey (Cof]corde II). ,.l
Only Illonths after the COl1corde I decision, the lower l:ourt again entered an
injunction to end the Port Authority's ban on the Concorde flights; Port Authority
appealed lhe decision again, and this time the appellate court ruled the ban should be
t:nded (('o!/corde J f).
111 the interim between (.'oncorde J and CO/7corde fl, the U S, Secretary of
Transportation concluded that vibrations produced by the low frequency noise of the
COlleorde did not present any danger of structural damage to homes and little
possibi lity of annoyance. While the Port Authority's consultant had devised a means
or relating household vibration to the Concorde' s absolute noise levels, it had not
been able to correlate this figure with the amount of irritation experienced by an
ind ividual at a given leve I of noise and v ibration.". Further research needed to
establish this correlation had not been llllthorized by the POlt Authority, Meanwhile
the airlines had refined their data to prove th<lt the Coneorde could meet JFK's
existing noise standard. The appellate court concluded that Port Auth0rity had not
corne up with new regulations quickly enough, that the ban had already been in
eflect for 18 months. and that further delay was unwarranted.
Cily und County <48,,11 Francisco v. FAA"-
This case stemmed fi'olll a San Francisco Airports Commission resolution
prohibiting certain rctrofined (i.e., quieted for noisl;: abatement purposes) aircraft
from using, San Francisco International Airport (Sf 0) after a certain date. Only
retrofitted Stage 2 certified aircraft certified before January 1985 were allowed. Any
retrolitted cargo carrier that had not received the FAA certification by that date was
den ied access. The carrier appealed to the FAA. which found this ru Ie to be unjustly
discriminatory-i.e., that it violated the airport's assurance of nondiscrimination in
publ ic lIse availability ofthe airport. The FAA then denied SFO's applications for
airport improvement grants from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund,
21
This suit arose when the City and County of San Francisco petitioned for cOllrt
review of the FAA decision to deny them airport grants because of their local rule.
The appellate court reatllrmed that, although the rederal governm~lIt regulates
f1ircraft and airspace pervasively. Congress had reserved a limited role for airport
proprietors in regulating liaise <it their airports.'''' But the COllrt stressed that this
power is limited to regulations that are not unjustly discriminatory. Finding that
other aircraft perm itted to operate at San Francisco were in fact equally noisy or
noisier than the banned aircraft, it found the rule to be unjustly discriminatory.I'7 The
Court noted that neither it nor tht: FAA had considered whether the Airport Noise
and Capae ity Act of 1990 hlld altered the division of responsibil ity between federal
government and the airport proprietor, since the Act was passed after the
administrative proceedings in this case were completed.''''
(lfohLlI fl1lernu/iol1al A irways Corp. v. Pori A'ulhorily oj'New York and New
Jerseyl'"
Global International Airways, a charter carrier, and several international carriers
sought to enjoin enforcement of sOllle noise'a batement regulations (an" Interim
Rule" and "Nighttime Rule") at Port Authority-rull airports. The lower court found
that the Nighttime Rule was a permissible exercise of the airport proprietor's noise
abatement powers. but that the "Interim Rule" was preempted by the federal
government. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the Interim Rule, aimed at
encouraging international clIrrier:; to use mostly noise compliant aircraft ahead oflhe
F AA\ schedule ror these planes, was not preempted. The appellate eourt held that
an airport proprietor's rule could be aimed at reducing cumulative noise levels rather
than only barring aircraft that exceeded mini ll1um decibel levels. But the appellate
couli again noted that aircraft could only be denied use of an airport "on the basis of
non-discriminatory noise criteria".'"
22
With the passage of tile Aircraft Noise and Capacily Act in 1990, Congress tilted
the trad itionallocal/lederal balance of control of airport noise levels further toward
ledcral contro I. In ANCA, Congress mandated a phase-out of airlines' noisier Stage
2 air carriers by the year 2000. At the same time, it also enacted burdei;some new
prol:cdural requirements and standards that an airport must meet in order to enact
nl:w local noise or access restrictions on Stage 2 and particularly on Stage 3 aircraft.
ANCA has not had a major court challenge since its enactment, (tliough it was
discussed in Millard Refrigeralcd ,)'crvices v. FAA r; consequently, no court has
explicitly considered how ANCA may have effectively altered the traditional
division of responsibility between the FAA and the airport proprietor. But it appears
that the onerolls new burden of proof required by the A NCA regulations has
discouraged airports from attempting to cnal:t new 10c<l1 controls, such liS curfews,
even where noise impacts are extreme. As of this writing, no airport or heliport has
enacted a Part 161 restriction under A NCA. ANCA is further disclIssed below,
LEGISlATIVE COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THE AIRCRAFT NOUSE ANID
CAPACITY ACT OF 1990 (ANCA) AND onfER MAJOR AIRCRAFT NOISE
STATUTES
The jollowing paragraphs provide a quick summary ot"some of the 1110St important
laws related to the issue of helicopter and other aircraft noise,' They are meant as an
introduction only. i.e., as lhe start of any advocate's exploration of legal avenues.
NRDC strongly urges the reader to go straight to the sources-read the statutes, and
review the underlying regulations, and consult legal counsel-before proceeding
with ally legaf strategy reterred below.
It r:cderal Aviation Act of 1958 (Pub. L. 85-726, 72 SlaL 73l), now codified in
various sections of 49 LJ .S.C., the FAA's statutol)' charter.
23
This law established the legal basis tor the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR),
cod itied under 14 Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR), which inel udes those
regulations relating to helicopters. Section 611 of the Act mandated the FAA's noise
abatement authority (directed at abating aircraft noise "at the source", i.e., the
aircraft engine).
. A ire raft Noise Abatement A\~t of 1968 (Pub. L 90-411; 82 Stat. 395) amended
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
This act established a new Part 36 of the federal regulations governing aircraft noise
levels. It proh i bited further escalation of aircraft noise levels in subson IC eivi I
turbojet and transport category airplanes and required new ones to be quieter. The
act establisllcd "stages" of Iloise levell'. and has been amended numerous times. By
1977, the FAA detenn inerl that the technology was avai lable to make aircraft qll ieter
and requi red that slIch technology be lIsed in 811 new designs.1l In 1988, by
<lll1endment to Part 36, noise standards for helicopters were finally added, in part La
provide uniformity with helicopter standards that had been enacted by ICAO.7'
CI Noise Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234)
Cod ificd at 42 U .S.C. ~ ~ 490 I ~ 491 8, this act directed EI' A to publish scientitic
information about the eftcets of noise lncluding sound levels that would protect the
public health and welfare with all adequate margin of safety.
. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193. 94
Stat. 50)
Codified at 49 U.S.c. 947501 el seq. (1994), the act established the Part 150
voluntary noise-compatibility programs that allow airports to apply for federal funds
to implement noise-mitigation 111t.'.asures. ASNA was aimed at addressing growing
eonfl iets over" irporlnoisc between the airports (1I1d surrounding communities and
24
'i;
-i
helping to protect the airporLs from potential liability fmm damages they might incur
from noise suits.
/n this law, Congress directed the FAA to estahlish a single system for
measuring noise; La develop noise exposure maps around airports, and to modify
I~]nd uses (and/or acqllire land) in accordance with the ll1.'lpS to III itigate airport noise
impal.:ls. "Compatibility" (of uses with an airport) was defined in terms of interstate
commerce concerns and local land use compatibi lity, not in terms of the health-and-
welfare-based threshold of noise exposure developed by EPA only live years
before." Part 150 designates a decibel level of 65 dB DN L as compatible with
residences -- a level Lwice as loud as the S5 dB DNL threshold earlier identified by
EP ^ as protective of human health and welfare,"
. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248,96 Stat. 671),
codified at 49 U.S.C. ~ 4710 I et seq.
This act includes federal policies on airport construction and improvement projects,
One policy is that aviation facilities nre to be constructed and operated to Illlnimize
current and projected noise impacts on ncarby communities.'"
e Airline Deregulation Act of 1994 (Pub. L. l03-305, 108 Stat. 1569), codified at
sections of49 U.S.c. including ~ 71713,
Section 47509 of this law added research programs on quiet aircraft technology
including rotorcratt. This act also explicitly preempts regulatiol1srelated to "price,
roLltc, and service of an air carrier."" But Congress specifically states in the next
subsection that the preemptive effect ofthis section does not I imit state and local
agencies in the course of carrying Ollt their proprietary powers and rights.'"
e Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) (Pub, L. 101-508, 104 StaL
1388), codified al 49 U.S.c. *9 47521 et seq.
25
'i
ANCA'5 regulations are at 14 C.r.R. Part 161 and Part 91. ANCA directs the FAA
to establisll a national program In review noise and access restrictions imposed by
airport proprietors on aircraft operations (~ 47524). (Access restrictions arc any
I illl itations on the time or manner of aircraft access to an airport.) ANCA also
requires quieter engine technology for air carriers above 75,000 pounds by requiring
airlines to convert their flccts from aircraft meeting SWge 2 noise certification levels
to quieter Stage 3 levels by December 3 I, 1999 (S 47528).
It can be argued that ANCA WilS not intended to thang;e the substance of the law
concerning whcn it is permissible for all airport to impose noise restrictions on Stage
2 aircraft. (See ~ 47533 - rclationship to other lawsf' But onerous procedural
hurdles have been ndded.
ANCA Further Restricts Local Noise ControII Powers
In the Airport Noisc and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), Congress expressly
attempted to balance the localnceds for airport noise abatement against the net:d:; of
the national air transportation industry.
Outside oflhe FAA and the aviation industry, few observers would argue that
the balance was adequately reached. ANCA sets forth criteria and standards - these
are intcnded to ensure that an airport cannot upset this balance by imposing a local
restrietioll whose negative cffect on tin: national air transportation system outweighs
any local bcnefits wh icll (l restriction is designed to produce."" Some highl ights
fol!()w:
DANCA criteria It)r local re:;trictions on Stage 2 aircraft arc more straight
forward than for Stage 3 aircrall and do not require FAA approval.
The procedural hurdles that are preconditions to v.alid Stage 2 restrictions are set
forth in the statute. The 1110st impOJ1ant, and most difficult, requirement involves
doing, a cost-benefit ana lysis of tile restriction and of alternative measures to the
proposed restriction (~ 47524 (b)(4)). Since Part 161 provides no guidance and there
26
is no acct:ptt:d standard for comparing noise-abatement benefits with fin3m.:ial cost,
tl1 is comparison is al ways SlI bjcctive and resu Its il1 an under-weighting of benefits
and an over-weighting of costs.
. Both ANCA and its regulations impose substantial hurdles on any Stage 3
aircraft local restrictions.
Any local restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft. must be approved by the FAA and can only
be submiltl:d by an airport proprietor. Neither local governments nor community
organizations can subl1l it loca] Stage 3 restrictions for approval (14 C.F. R.
] 61.30 I (c)). I'll is FAA approval gives the agency much more leverage over local
Stage 3 restrictions than over Stage 2 restrictions. The stringency and subjective
nature of the Stage 3 requirements"' have effectively el iminated the abiiity of the
local proprietor to address serious noise problems in the way thai the proprietor
exemption has envisioned over the years.
Even when there is a voluntarily negotiated agreement among airl ines and airport
proprictors, any Stage 3 restril.:tioll l1lust allow new entrants to object to the
agreement, and it mLlst be published in tilt: Federal Register (14 C. F K ~ 61.\ 03).
Enforcement of ANCA is based on the financial disincentives to violating the
Act or its regulations. Ifan airport is fOLlnd to have violated ANCA, it could Jose its
e1igibi lity for federa I airport grant funds (under the Airport and A irway Improvement
Act) and its authority to collect passenger facility clUlrges (9 47526). However, \line
years after its passage, 110 airport has bcen found to violate ANCA, so the act's
enforcement provisions are untested.
ANCA's phase-ollt of Stage 2 aircraft applies only to those \",eighirig more than
75,000 pounds-primarily to large aircran owned by air carriers. .AIl domestic
helicopters are currently below the 75,000 pound weight threshold, soihat it might
appear that ANCA does 110t apply to helicopters. However, the FAA has included
helicopters in the Part 161 regulations implementing ANCA and asserts that ANCA
procedures apply to restrictions 011 Stage 2 helicopters at heliports.')
27
The stringency and
sul~jective no/ure oj"
(he SlaKe 3
I'equirements hovr
efteclivelveliminuted
.. .
the ohi/it}! ol1he focol
proprietor to (Ie/dress
serious noise
problems in the way
thaI/he proprietor
exemption has
envisioned over Ihe
years.
Selected l-IelicqpterRegulafioris in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
.' '<":~:<~',".~~_r;'/'c;,';:; "~"'~i';~^..':": ,,'.- . ,',,.".. ."
o 14'c:Fdi;:i>arit'-DefinitiQ'risand Abbreviations '"
.. . " '.
,p';uVides thcdc'finitionsiised throughgut the Code, including: rotorc~aft-:--aheavier-
i~~~,n":~ir;ai~craft that depends prinCipallY for its support in flight on tl1,eliftg~nerated
11yon'c:or more rotors;an9helicopter...L.a rotorcraft that depends on engine-driven'
'rotors for its horizontal movement
. : .,.,' f';" 'i .~.,' .
o
] 4C.F.R' Part 34 - EmissiorfRequiremenisfor Turbine Eng'ine-powered'Airplanes
. - . . ., ..
" ':::{~Son:t~htlSemissionstandards for fixed-wingaircrafi:engines'~;tluJnoffor helicopter
engmes;, , " ,
~.::. -:~,.
. 14 C.F.R. Parf36~,Noise':Standards
." . ,", ">', '-'
Provides ilOisesta,r1oarqs,:for various types of fixed-wing aircraft;.,i;lCh.Idihg;tninspm'f "
category l~rgeahd:tur~oJet ai rplanes,,?ubsonic, and super?onic'~itpl~lles;ami:sm<111
propeller-di-iv~n:flirpl~l1es. Certification, npise limits, and no'ise~ineasuI'em~ni .,.
procedures are 'pr~yi~edjn this Pi\!j.Part 36 originally appliedoiily;td;';a,irf!1ta,ne~t
but this defillitionwas'change~gl'~aircraft" and helicopter noisestan,dilrdswere
added in 1988. The'helicopter noise standards are in Appendix H a'nd AppendixJto'
, thlspart Noise Ii mits for Stage 2 helicoptersarei~sIj36,30~: the stage 2 limit for
helic?~tets under 6,000 'pounds tested underAppendixJis given in ~ J 36.305.
-.; -:,i. ;f:~/<~}::[;:r;.;,:_~
, ..,.
01 ~C.ltR;Piirt,91~Flight Rules
. . - -
: :' :'::;,:.,:. ;:~ :i~L~i"- ~-,i:t~~~:~:~,:.{. -.,
. <' :~o "r::~"~ .
Defines operating and flight rules for all ai,rcraft. Helicopters'may'.be !lP~$!e.f!'at less
than the minimum altitudes prescribed,Jor other aircraft; if the operatiqn"is;cpl1c1l.1cted
'without hazard to persons or p'ropertyo~,the surfa<:e;:'Ho'We"er~,he.li~qR!~~,iTlitst
cQll1plywith any routes or:altitudes,speFificallyprescribed for h,~l,ic,gpi~r~~y,t~e, .
FAA AdmJnistrator (* 1,91; 110 (d)) (Pan 91 also contains the regulidionsfor ' '
ANCA~sphase~out of Stage 2, aircrnft, in Subpart I ~~ 91.801-.875), ,
o 14 CI'.R. Part 13S::0perating Rcquirements:Conimuter'andOn-demand
Operations
No person may operate 3 Coni in ere ial helicopter over a congesteciarea' anmaltitude
of less than 300 feet above the surface, c/<cept,when necessary for takeoff and
laiidiIig(~135,203).' , ,
,,~>
,/
, o,c:,,14G.f,R;'p~rtJ50- AirportNoise,CompatibiliJyPlanning" . ,
. : ----.::::<~-~:t~;:~~~(::0t~t1~t~~,~~~~:~~:.~!;;'i~:~~l~;~.":~,-:~:!:':'P':/';:, ;: :';::~.~<;~;:,~.:;;.j> ' : ,:;,,;.:':" . .' ;", . J~it:~:~}'l'~~~~:::::f:j-~~~~~~~;S.ti~'ii:~:~:i~;',*-:,~:~~ ::, ,: ':". . _ ;,. _ _'''~ .,: . "f" .:_:: .~.~' -'.': .
, This Partfl,e.ffti~~,the;~~quirement5 and,m~th6d~"ldgy:roiaifpiJn;~,~ls~,~o!JlP~~ib,i1.ity' ,
studies. it defines the': Y early [)ay-N ig$ki\iMage souildlevd"(Cdn)\as\tl1~stan(jard for
measurement of cUl11ulativ~ Il~ise e/(P9siJre for all su~h'nois~studies. (Also see,
discussion'above:regardi~gASNA!inthe~'.rytajor.;~~~tP~es'c:,:Os.~cti~n;):. ,,' , , ," '"
28
FAA Advisory Circulars
Unlike the federal aviation regulations, directives ill the advisory circulars are not
binding: rather, they provide approved guidelines for implementing the regulations
and criteria that are often regarded as standards for the industry.
. Advisory Circular N(l. 36-1 G - Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign
Aircraft
Provides noise data on hel icopters certified to fly in the U.S. and inc ludes noise
levels at takeoff, landing and overflight. Appendix 10 gives noise data for the
heavier hel icopters (over 6,000 pounds) and shows that their noise levels (for take
on: flyover, and approach) range between 85 to 99 EPNd8-highly problematic
noisc levels If close to residenccs or working environments. Appendix) I has data
for the smaller helicopters, measured in SEL, flnd shows their noise range during
flyover to be mostly between 79 to 85 SEL.
II Advisory Circular 91-66 - Noise Abatement for Helicopters
Provides guidelines to assist pilots, operators, and others to achieve noise reduction
wilen operating helicopters.
For all the regulations just cited, there flrc currently no Fedcral--or City or
St(lte-noisc rcgulations that directly! im it hellport noise impacts.
HOW LOCAl AUTHORITIES CAN CONTROL HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
AND MmGATE THEIR IMPACTS
First and foremost. local authorities call prohibit heliports in theirzoning code.' or
require a spet.:ial permit (as is the case in New York City). If a heliport is
established, but the locality would like to keep control of the facility, it should nut
accept federal money lor any construction project. Avoiding federal funds can be a
First andfi}remost,
local authorities can
prohihil heliports in
the zoninK code: or
require a special
permit (as is the case
in New York City).
29
costly step to reduce federal control, but it seems to work. Accepting federal money
establishes a contractual relationship that allows the FAA to impose federal
conditions on what the local jurisdictioll may do at the heliport at least during the life
of the improvement or grant project. The New York City heliport case appears to
suggest that it Can work.
The following paragraphs provide 'Ill ick summary answers to some often-asked
questions asked by local authorities that are interested in mitigating helil:opter noise
impacts. They arc meant as an introduction only, i.e.. as the start of answering these
questions. NRDC strongly urges the reader to consult with legal counsel before
proceeding further with any local noise mitigation strategies.
Can local Noise Ordinances Help in Setting Noise Limits?
Local jurisdictions Illay lIotllSC their police powers to try to control aircraft and
airport noise without risk of Cederal preemption:'. That may mean that such local
codes as applied to airpolis and heliports Can be preempted. The NYC Noise Code,
for example, sets ambient noise limits, but the city does not believe it can be used to
control heliport nOise. One reason given is that transportation facilities are exempt.
Can Flight !Paths Be ControSIed?
No. FI ight paths are clearly n prt:empted area, and cannot be controlled. However,
the FAA says it will work with the local communities, ifslIfficient pressure is
brought to bear 011 it. in setting nl~w routes to reduce noise, as it did regarding some
changes to helicopter sightseeing routes over New York City. However, the FAA's
track record is mixed. for route changes that reduce noise in one community result in
increased noise elsewhere.
30
"
.
Can Minimum Altitudes Be Set?
No. Only the FAA can set minimum altitudes, and it has been resistant to enacting
lllillilllUI11 fIltitudes for Ilt:licoptcrs, even when they are clearly needed. However.
Congress has gotten involved in the isslIe (because of public pressure for restoration
of quiet in the parks) by passing the 1987 National Parks Overflight Act (Pub. L.
100-91). This Act rcqu ires the FAA, among other provisions, to control helicopter
fl ights over the Grand Canyon.
NRDC believes that both the FAA and Congress should bc pressured on this
issue to bri ng rei ief not on Iy to nationa I parks, but to local ities im pacted with heavy
volumes of helicopter traffic, such as the NYC region.
i
Can A ~ SurviwA Legal Challenge?
Th is is yet another unclear area of the law of federal preemption. Yes, a curfew can
survive a challenge, as New York City's has. The curfew must be instituted by the
proprietor. however. It is still not entirely clear, hut that the FAA III ight attempt to
challenge under A NCA sllch curfews and regulations, as improper restrictions
affecting tl ights.
Can A Municipality Ban Certain Helicopter Operations Altogether?
It is not clcnr whether such a ban could withstand a federal preemption challenge.
NYC closed its 60'" Strcc.tHeliport and imposed a weekend curfew at East 34111 Street
that WflS upheld. But, having taken federalllloney for the Downtown Manhattan
Hcl ipon, the City cannot d iscrim inate agai nst the types of he licopters llsi ng the site.
To our knowledge, the question has not been tested hy any court.
Who Can Enforce and How?
As mentioned above, localities can refuse to zone for heliports. Communities have
" -
also successfully placed flight restrictions 011 hospital hel ipads or prohibited them.
::::.<. . ': .t~..' ':
At least in the Second Circuit, a proprietor has the authority Lo add conditions to a
31
EflA needs 10 play {/
slronger role in Ihe
en!'! /'Onme nl af
impacts o(helicoplers
(and aircraji
KeneralzY).
special perm it for a hel iport (as N YC did at its 34\h St. Heliport) or it can rescind a
special permit for heliport operations (as the City did on the LIse of the Pan Am
building heliport after nn accident in 1977).
WHAT ROLES DO OTHER fEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES PLAY?
Whi Ie the FAA has primary responsibil ity in hel icopter matters, several other
agencies and groups play important roles. Some, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, should play larger roles than they do.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
During the 19705, EPA was extensively involved in noise issues and research. This
research cu/1lI fnated in a rcpO/i, mandated by Congress in the Noise Control Act. that
addressed the noise levels the agency deemcd necessary to protect the public health
and welfare." However. despite its important work on the public health implications
of noise, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was denied
funding in 1981 and basically eliminated. Since the dissolution ofONAC, EPA',
involvement in aircraft Iloise issues has been largely limited to environmental review
of federal projects in accordance \vith theNhiional Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and comments filed under Section 309 oUhe Clean Air Act.
U ndcr N EP A and Scction J 09, EP A' sadm inistrator reviews and comments on
proposed major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. In addition. EPA is authorized,. under the Noise Control Act of 1972
and Quiet COllllllunities Act of 1978, to devclop and submit recommendations to the
FAA regarding noise produced by aircraft and aircraft-related activities.
EP A has prescribed air emission standards for certification of aircraft engines,
but has not prescribed such standards for helicopter engincs. Toxic air pollutants in
emissions from aircraft (lre currently unregulated under the Clean Air Act.
;l
32
EPA needs to playa stronger role in the environmental impacts ofhclicopters
(and aircraft generally). As we enter the next centul)' with 11 1I1ll qers of aircraft and
helicopters continuing to grow-thus offsetting much of the tedlllological noise and
nir-emissiolls reductions already achieved-reducing the environmental and public
health impacts of air travel and airports and heliports is essential.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA plays a crucial governmental research role in aeronautical technology that
currently includes a major aircraft noise and air emission reduction program, III
what is often joint research with the FAA, the Department of Defense, and industry,
NASA is pursuing inllovative engine technology aimed at producing cleaner-burning
and quieter engines,'" The ultimate objective of the noise program is to achieve a 10
EPN d B reduction in aircraft noise by the end of the century compared to 1992
technology and 20 EPNdB within 20 years.'? NASA is also cOHducting noise
research applicable to helicopters,'" This NASA research program, including
rotorcra n research. is urgently needed and should be SllPPol1ed and funded.
State AgencIes: The Tri-State Area
Approval of the state in New York, or a license by the state in Connecticut and New
Jersey is required tor heliports."" A NYS heliport must have municipal approval; in
addition, undcr New York General Business Law S 249, before a municipality can
approve a private heliport, the NYS Department of Trunsportation (NYSDOT) must
determine thaI the heliport complies with certain standards. These standards are
twofold: thai the heliport does not impact public transportation corridors or public
bu ildings: and that the volume, character. ancl direction of traffic at the heliport will
not constitute a menace to safety of operations at other airpdrtsih the'vicinity, Air
space approvalll1ust be granted by the FAA, and NYSOOT 're'li'b'soll the FAA forthe
safety analysis orthe heliport.""
33
Approvalo/fhe
slate in NevJl
York, or a license
hy Ihe Slate in
Conneclicutand
New Jersey, is
required./hr
heliports.
/
f
. . ~ I
""-:" . '.
In 1990, NYS DOT in conjunction with the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey produced a Downstale New York Helicopter System Plan (hereafter
Downstate Plan), The Downs(all: Plan includes a survey of heliports rhroughout thc
New York downstate region, an origin and destination survey, and forecasts of
heliport systel11 needs.'" At that timc, DOT reported lOR airports and helicopter
facilities in the downstate area, only eight or which wcrc true public heliports. Six
of these eight were in the New York City area."2 Since that time, several urlhe
hcl iports in the survey have closed. NYS DOT has not done any follow up to this
report"" and current origin and destination data for the New York metropol itan area
apparently do not exist. Evcn the NYC Helicopter Masla Plan, discussed in
Chapter 3, docs not fill this particular data gap.
:
34