Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-00-rpt (Annual Noise Report)PREPARED BY SHARON,.WILLIAMS- SUBMITTED TO HANSCOM FIELD ADVISORY COMMISSION November 2012 S, 3 �f ' rz Connecting with our communities MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ ..............................1 CHAPTER1 SUMMARY .............................................................................. ..............................2 CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ANNUAL REPORT AND THE EVALUATIONOF NOISE .................................................... ..............................4 2.1 The Use of Contours to Evaluate Noise Exposure ....................... ..............................4 2.2 Developing EXP to Evaluate Changes in Noise Exposure .......... ..............................5 2.3 The Significance of Changes in EXP ........................................... ..............................6 2.4 Upgrading EXP Calculations ....................................................... ..............................6 2.5 UP Focus: With Single Engine Piston (SEP) vs. Without SEP, With Military Aircraft vs. Without Military Aircraft, Departure EXP vs. Arrival EXP ...................7 2.6 The Report on 2011 Noise Exposure ........................................... ..............................7 CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION FOR DETERMINING OPERATIONS AND NOISE EXPOSURE.............................................................................. ..............................8 CHAPTER 4 2011 OPERATIONS, 7 a.m. -11 p. m ...................................... .............................10 CHAPTER 5 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. OPERATIONS ...........................:............. .............................17 CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS .............................................. .............................20 6.1 2011 EXP Version 6. 1 ................................................................. .............................20 6.2 EXP Comparisons for Study Years, 1978 -2011 .......................... .............................22 6.3 Analysis of Changes in Annual EXP for Study Years, 1978 - 2011 .......................... 27 CHAPTER 7 NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM ........................................ .............................30 CHAPTER 8 NOISE ABATEMENT POLICIES ....................................... .............................32 MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page ii List of Figures FIGURE 4.1 List of Tables FIGURE 4.2 TABLE 3.1 Data Sources for Civilian Aircraft ............................................... ..............................9 FIGURE 4.3 TABLE 4.1 Annual FAA Tower Counts for 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Since 1978 .. .............................11 FIGURE 5.1. TABLE 4.2 Annual Estimated Operations by Aircraft Type, 7 a.m. -11 p. m .............................12 FIGURE 6.1 TABLE 4.3 Estimated Average Daily Departures *, 7 am.-1 1 p.m. by Single Engine Piston Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 1978-2001 ........... 25 Aircraftfor Study Years ............................................................. .............................14 Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 2000-2011 TABLE 4.4 2011 Monthly Average Daily Departures by Non - Single Engine Piston Aircraft.. 14 TABLE 4.5 Annual Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft for Study Years .............16 TABLE 5.1 11 p.m. to 7 am. Operations Since Nighttime Fee was Instituted ..........................18 TABLE 5.2 Breakdown. of 2011 11 p.m. to 7 am. Operations ...................... .............................19 TABLE 6.1 2011 Monthly Variations in Departure EXP 6. 1 ........................ .............................20 TABLE 6.2 Contributions to Civilian Departure EXP for 2011 Operations . .............................22 TABLE 6.3 Civilian Departure EXP Comparisons, 1978 - 2001 .........:.......... .............................23 TABLE 6.4 Civilian Departure EXP Comparisons, 2000 - 2011 .................... .............................24 TABLE 6.5 EXP 6.1 Values for 2000 and 2005 through 2011 ..................... ................:............26 TABLE 7.1 Measured DNL Levels -1995, 2000 and 2005 Through 2011 .. .............................31 List of Figures FIGURE 4.1 Annual FAA Tower Counts for 7 am. to 11 p.m. Since 1978 ... ............................:11 FIGURE 4.2 Monthly Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft, 2011 ............................15 FIGURE 4.3 Annual Variations in Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft ..................17 FIGURE 5.1. Annual 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Operations since Nighttime Fee was Instituted ..............19 FIGURE 6.1 2011 Monthly Averages in Departure Noise Exposure EXP 6. 1 ............................21 FIGURE 6.2 Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 1978-2001 ........... 25 FIGURE 6.3 Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 2000-2011 ........... 25 FIGURE 6.4 Average Daily Jet Departures by SEL Groups, 2000, 2005, 2010 & 2011 .............27 FIGURE 6.5 Stage 2 Jet Activity, 2000 - 2011 ................................................. .............................29 FIGURE 7.1 Measured DNL Values -1995, 2000, and 2005 through 2011 .. .............................32 Appendices APPENDIX A Noise Terminology Used at Hanscom Field and DNL Noise Contour Maps APPENDIX B 2011 Average Daily Operations and Noise Exposure by Aircraft Type APPENDIX C 1995, 2000 and 2005 through 2011 Measured DNL (dBA) at Hanscom Noise Monitoring Sites MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page INTRODUCTION Each year, the Massachusetts Port Authority prepares a noise report for L.G. Hanscom Field, a tool used by Massport to report on aircraft activity and the noise environment at the airport. It includes a historical perspective on why and how noise impact reports have been presented since 1982, and continues with data on the numbers and types of operations and overall noise exposure for the most recent calendar year. This report has been prepared to present data on Hanscom Field's 2011 operations. Comparable data from previous study years (1978, 1981, and 1983 through 20 10) demonstrate trends in aviation activity and noise levels. The Massachusetts Port Authority The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) operates Boston Logan International Airport, L.G. Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and public terminals in the Port of Boston. Massport is a financially self - sustaining public authority whose premier transportation facilities generate over $8 billion dollars in economic activity every year and support over 20,000 direct jobs, which enhances and enables economic growth and vitality in New England. Massport is committed to providing safe, secure and efficient transportation facilities that afford travelers and businesses the freedom to travel and conduct business throughout the world while enabling Massachusetts and New England to compete successfully in the global marketplace. No state tax dollars are used to fund operations or capital improvements at Massport facilities. L. G. Hanscom Field In 1941, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts purchased land northwest of Boston for the proposed Boston Auxiliary Airport, and the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Administration oversaw construction of the original runways and facilities. The completed facility was immediately leased by the Army Air Corps for advanced pilot training in support of America's war effort. In 1943, the new airport, geographically bounded by Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln, was officially dedicated as Laurence G. Hanscom Field. In 1956, the Massachusetts legislature created the Massachusetts Port Authority and gave it control of Hanscom Field. In 1959, Massport began managing the civil terminal area while the U.S. Air Force leased and operated the airfield for continued use by military and civilian aircraft. In 1974, the Air Force canceled its lease of the airfield, and Massport became responsible for operating and maintaining the airport. The Air Force continued to use its own property and to lease various parcels of land that were owned by Massport, all of which abutted the airfield. Hanscom Air Force Base has become an important research and development facility in Massachusetts. Although military operations at Hanscom have dropped to approximately one percent of the aircraft activity, the airfield continues to be a valuable resource for the Base and must be maintained at current and future military standards. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 2 Today, L. G. Hanscom Field plays an important role in New England's regional aviation system by serving as a premier general aviation (GA) reliever for Logan International Airport. Hanscom helps ease congestion at Logan by accommodating private, pilot training, business, charter, light cargo, air taxi, medical, and military aircraft activity all of which serve the diverse flying needs of government entities, corporations and businesses, research and development firms, and educational institutions, as well as individuals. This full service GA facility serves as a vital link to domestic and international destinations for local companies. Additionally, commercial service to select markets has been periodically available at Hanscom in aircraft with no more than 60 seats, consistent with Massport's 1980 General Rules and Regulations for Lawrence G. Hanscom Field. On -going improvements of infrastructure and procedures ensure that Hanscom is a well - equipped, safe, and secure facility for serving the diverse needs of its users, while standing ready to support the future economic growth of the region. Massport recognizes the interest that the residential and aviation communities have in its planning and operation "of the airport and has a long history of sharing information with interested parties. Massport is committed to continuing its relationship with the Hanscom Field Advisory Commission (HFAC), a committee consisting of representatives from the surrounding communities, area -wide organizations, airport users, and Ex Officio members from the FAA, Hanscom Air Force Base, and Minute Man National Historical Park. The annual noise report is presented to HFAC each year. CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY The first noise report for L.G. Hanscom Field was prepared in 1982, and it compared data for 1978 and 1981. Annual updates were started in 1984 (based on the previous year's data), making this the thirtieth Hanscom noise report. Starting with the first report, 1978 has been used as the base year for evaluating changes in noise exposure. Chapters 2 and 6 review how this has been done, despite updates in the noise and performance data used to calculate noise exposure at Hanscom Field. This compilation of data provides a long term historical perspective on the airport's aircraft activity. The annual reports focus on the noise generated by civilian aircraft departures, including single engine piston aircraft. This approach was an outgrowth of input from aviation and residential representatives as the early noise reports were being developed. EXP, a metric that estimates cumulative noise exposure at Hanscom, is used as the screening tool to evaluate the changes in noise levels. This report presents the supporting data for calculating EXP, including total numbers of operations and fleet mix by time of day. It also discusses noise levels for military operations and arrival noise levels, and it includes data from the permanent noise monitoring system for 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page Massport's data management systems compile information from a number of sources and include estimates and formulas to develop the operations and noise data discussed in this report. Results of this evaluation show the following: 1. The 2011 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Tower count, which includes all arrivals and departures for both civilian and military aircraft activity between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., shows 162,999 operations, 0.5 percent fewer than in 2010. 2. While military flights represented approximately one percent of the total activity, they contributed 33 percent of the total departure noise exposure. Tower counts indicate that military operations decreased 21 percent in 2011, as compared to 2010. 3. The civilian portion of the FAA tower counts, which has consistently represented approximately 99 percent of the total activity during the study years, decreased 0.2 percent as compared to 2010. Data indicate increases in all civilian aircraft categories with the exception of Local (touch & go). Civilian activity contributed 67 percent of the departure noise exposure. 4. The estimated 159.4 average daily single engine piston (SEP) departures, including touch and goes, represented 71.4 percent of the 2011 operations and indicate a two percent decrease in SEP activity as compared to 2010. 5. Non - single engine piston (non -SEP) civilian aircraft, which dominate changes in civilian noise levels, averaged 60.2 daily departures in 2011. This represented a 4.6 percent increase in activity, as compared to 2010. 6. Business jet activity, which represented 17 percent of the total activity, increased two percent in 2011 and contributed 86.7 percent of the civilian departure noise. Despite the decrease in Stage 2 jet operations (the noisiest civilian aircraft) from 11 percent of the jet fleet in 2000 to 1.1 percent in 2011, Stage 2 jets contributed over 13 percent of the civilian jet departure noise in 2011. 7. Turboprop operations, which represented 4.2 percent of the total 2011 activity, increased 20.7 percent. 8. Use of the airfield between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. decreased from 1,832 arrivals and departures in 2010 to 1,828 arrivals and departures in 2011. Jets (67 percent) and . helicopters (15 percent) dominated this nighttime activity. A nighttime field use fee was instituted in 1980 to discourage use of the field during these hours. Of the 741 different aircraft that were subject to the fee in 2011, 48 conducted more than five operations. There were 326 operations exempt from the fee, of which 99.1 percent were medical flights. Helicopters were used for the majority of the medical flights. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 4 9. Using EXP Version 6.1, the 2011 departure noise exposure for civilian aircraft was 109.1 decibels (dB), which represents a decrease of 0.1 dB compared to 2010. Civilian departure EXP levels since 1978 indicate that noise exposure in 2011 is the lowest of all the study years -to -date. lo. This report includes a comparison of 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 noise levels recorded at six noise - monitoring sites located in the communities and on the airfield. The reported noise levels include civilian and military aircraft noise as well as community noise. Changes in noise levels at the sites, based on available data, range from a 0.1 dB increase to a 0.9 dB decrease when comparing 2011 to 2010. 11. In addition to the data analyses, this report discusses policies that have impacted noise levels at Hanscom during the study years. The 1978 Hanscom Field Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (The Master Plan) and the 1980 General Rules and Regulations for Lawrence G. Hanscom Field include the policies and regulations that continue to guide Massport as it operates Hanscom Field. Since the adoption of these documents, Massport has worked closely with the HFAC and the Hanscom Area Towns Committee (HATS), as well as other interested parties, to balance its commitment to regional transportation and the business community with the need to recognize and minimize the airport's impact on the surrounding communities. Concepts for a new initiative to reduce touch and go traffic over Minute Man National Historical Park have resulted in an average of 21 percent fewer flights over the Park since the inception of the program in 2009. CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ANNUAL REPORT AND THE EVALUATION OF NOISE This chapter of the report discusses the development of measures used to evaluate noise exposure at Hanscom. Each step was discussed with the HFAC, and the current approach was adopted through general consensus at the HFAC meetings. The first noise report was prepared in 1982 by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (FIN4MH), noise consultants for Massport, to evaluate the effectiveness of the noise rules that Massport had implemented in 1980. The firm continued to prepare noise reports until 1987, when Massport assumed the responsibility. In preparing the annual document, Massport utilizes the basic approach and format of the original BA/1M H reports and includes some background information written by H1 /1MR. Each year, Massport has a noise consultant review the noise data and annual report. FFvRV1H reviewed the data and report for 2011. 2.1 The Use of Contours to Evaluate Noise Exposure The most frequently used measure to characterize noise exposure around an airport is referred to as the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn), which is most commonly depicted by MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 5 using contours on a map to connect points of equal noise exposure. Creating DNL contours requires detailed knowledge of the fleet of aircraft using the airport, the types of aircraft engines, the climb performance characteristics, information on the frequency of runway use, and the flight paths of the aircraft as they depart and approach the field. These data are entered into. a computer noise model to produce the contours. DNL is used widely throughout the United States and is the metric used by the FAA for assessing noise impacts. DNL is discussed in more depth in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes maps from previous studies showing the 1978, 1987, 1995; 2000, and 2005 DNL contours for Hanscom. The 1978 contours were developed in 1981 using the computerized modeling program called Noisemap; the 1987 contours were developed in 1988 using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) 3.9; the 1995 contours were developed in 1996 using INM 5.0; the 2000 contours were developed in 2002 using INM 6.0c; and the 2005 contours were developed in 2006 using INM 6.1. The contours include the effects of civil and military aircraft as well as touch - and -goes. Touch and goes are a procedure used by flight schools to train students to land and depart. Time Above is another metric sometimes used to describe the noise experience by reporting the amount of time that noise levels exceed a given threshold. Time Above is described in Appendix A, which includes the 2000 and 2005 Time Above contours. 2.2 Developing EXP to Evaluate Changes in Noise Exposure In addition to creating DNL contours, FRv1MH used the 1982 report to define a screening procedure, or metric, that could be used to routinely evaluate the effect of changes in the aircraft fleet mix and numbers of operations. A database management system was developed to calculate the metric (called EXP), which has been used since 1982 as a first -round screening procedure. Although EXP does not show how noise levels change in specific communities, it does provide a tool for distinguishing civilian noise from military noise while indicating changes in the total noise exposure and expected changes in DNL. This is accomplished by having EXP use the same FAA noise data for the aircraft types, and the same manner of logarithmically summing noise used in calculating DNL, as discussed in Appendix A. This includes applying a "noise penalty" of 10 decibels for each 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. aircraft event to account for its more intrusive nature. Each aircraft type is assigned to a group, with each group characterized by a similarity of size, the number and type of engine(s), climb performance, and ultimately, noise level characteristics. Using FAA noise and performance data, arrival and departure Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) are assigned to each group. The SELs used for EXP are in A- weighted decibels and represent the amount of noise generated 15,000 feet from start of take -off roll. There is additional discussion of SEL in Appendix A. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 6 The total departure noise exposure on an average day is calculated for each group by: 1. Logarithmically multiplying the representative SEL for the group by the average number of daily departures by those aircraft, applying the "noise penalty" to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations, and creating a "partial" departure EXP; and 2. Logarithmically adding all "partial" EXPs for the entire fleet to obtain, a single number estimate of departure noise exposure. 2.3 The Significance of Changes in EXP Because EXP applies the same methodology used for calculating DNL, it continues to be used as a first round procedure to estimate changes in noise levels at Hanscom. In the mid- 1980s, HFAC and Massport discussed the significance of changes in EXP, and it was agreed that an increase of 1.5 dB above the 1978 base year noise level would indicate the need for further study. Although civilian departure EXP has never exceeded the 1978 EXP by 1.5 dB, Massport completed a Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) based on 1985 data, an update of the GEIR based on 1995 data, an Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) based on 2000 data, and an ESPR update based on 2005 data. The GEIRs and ESPRs include noise contours and additional noise metrics, providing comprehensive analyses of noise impacts. Furthermore, it is anticipated that updates of the ESPR, with detailed noise analyses, will continue to be produced. The next scheduled ESPR will be based on 2012 data. It is increasingly complex to compare current noise levels to noise levels from 25 years ago because the FAA routinely updates the Integrated Noise Model, which is the basis of calculating EXP. However, EXP still allows for an annual evaluation of changes in the noise level from one year to the next and identifies trends in those changes. 2.4 Upgrading EXP Calculations Until 1987, the EXP calculations relied primarily on SELs from the U.S Air Force's Noisemap noise and performance database, which was available in 1982 when EXP was developed. In 1987, the FAA released a revised and expanded set of noise and performance data (Version 3.9) for the Integrated Noise Model (INM), and Massport moved from using Noisemap to the INM. The FAA continues to support a process of updating its aircraft noise and performance data for modeling aircraft noise using the INM. As a result, Massport has periodically upgraded the SEL values used in EXP. From 1987 through 1995, EXP Version 3.9 (EXP 3.9) was used. EXP Version 5.1 (EXP 5.1) was used starting in 1996. EXP Version 6.Oc (EXP 6.0c) was introduced in the 2002 report for the years starting in 2000, and EXP Version 6.1 (EXP 6.1) was introduced in the 2005 report. The numbers in each version link to the RS TM version that was used. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 7 2.5 EXP Focus: With Single Engine Piston (SEP) vs. Without SEP, With Military Aircraft vs. Without Military Aircraft, Departure EXP vs. Arrival EXP When EXP was first developed, it was calculated for civilian and military non -SEP aircraft departures with the capability of using either subgroup for comparisons. SEP operations were excluded from the data for reasons discussed in detail in early reports. When residents became interested in the effect of the noise generated by these small aircraft, a method for estimating their usage was developed for future use and was applied to all the study years retroactively. In 1988, HFAC members discussed the need to focus on one number when comparing EXP from one year to the next. It was agreed that the emphasis should be on civilian aircraft, and the civilian component should include the estimated SEP operations. It was also agreed that Massport would begin to track arrival EXP. However, the focus on departures would still be used as the best representation of the noise impact because changes in departure EXP more closely reflect changes in DNL than changes in arrival or total EXP. 2.6 The Report on 2011 Noise Exposure This report incorporates the results of the agreed -upon methodology for evaluating the noise impact, as it applies to 2011 Hanscom operations. It includes operational data for the study years (1978, 1981 and 1983 through 2011) and analyzes the change in noise exposure since 1978. It focuses on the effect of civilian aircraft departures, including SEP, with supplementary information on FAA tower counts, 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations, the. impact of military activity, and arrival EXP. In addition to being considered a good indicator of changes in DNL and changes in the general level of total noise exposure generated by the airport, it also provides a historical perspective, because comparative data are available for most years since 1978. Data from the permanent noise monitoring system became available during the 1990s, providing information on the measured noise experience at six locations. Methods of data collection for determining operations and noise exposure are reviewed in Chapter 3 of this report. A discussion of the 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. operational levels for 2011 is presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 focuses on operations conducted between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. when a nighttime field use fee is in effect. Chapter 6 presents noise exposure levels (using the EXP noise metric), and Chapter 7 discusses the permanent noise monitoring system and the data generated by the system. Massport policies that address aircraft noise are reviewed in Chapter 8. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION FOR DETERMINING OPERATIONS AND NOISE EXPOSURE Page Hanscom Field serves various categories of civilian and military aircraft, and data are compiled to track their noise impact. Input to the files used to develop operations and noise data come from several sources, which are listed below. Massport strives to use the best available data sources to track aircraft operations at Hanscom Field. With recent upgrades to the Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MOMS), Massport decided to leverage the database of aircraft operations within the NOMS as the main source data for tracking operations at Hanscom Field. 2011 represents a transition year in this process. FAA flight strips were used from January to September. Data from the NOMS were used for October through December and will be used in subsequent years. A two month side -by -side test showed excellent agreement between the final operations obtained using the two methods. Sources of Data: 1. FAA Flight Strips: used to record non -SEP Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) departures from Hanscom between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and all IFR arrivals and departures between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. Pilots fly using either IFR or Visual Flight Rule (VFR) procedures. When flying IFR, a flight plan is filed with the FAA, resulting in a flight strip identifying the aircraft type and time of the operation at the origin and destination FAA towers. When there is VFR weather, pilots may choose to fly without filing a flight plan. The majority of jets fly IFR, regardless of the weather. Many turboprops and twins also fly IFR. 2. Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MOMS): provides arrivals and departures to and from Hanscom at all times of day. Radar flight tracks record the exact times of arrival and departure. Identifying information for the aircraft, such as the operator and aircraft type, are matched to each flight using data from the aircraft's transponder and electronic FAA flight plan and registration databases. Aircraft in the NOMS database without identifying information, such as some VFR flights, cannot be used. 3. FAA Monthly Tower Reports: used to provide the number of aircraft operations at Hanscom Field between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. The Hanscom FAA tower personnel maintain a count of all aircraft that operate at Hanscom when the tower is open. This includes VFR and IFR arrivals and departures. Prior to 1993, it also included aircraft that flew through the Hanscom air space (over flights) but did not use the airport. The FAA tower count is traditionally used to quantify the activity level for the airport, despite the exclusion of operations between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. when the FAA tower is closed and the previous inclusion of over flights. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 9 4. Estimates of Civilian. VFR non -SEP Aircraft: used to supplement IFR activity by civilian twin- engine pistons (twins), turboprops (turbos), and helicopters between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Pilots of some turboprops and twin- engine aircraft and most helicopters fly VFR. They communicate with the FAA tower, and the tower tallies the operation, although there is no written record of the aircraft type or specific time of the operation. Estimates are incorporated into the database programs to provide a reasonable representation of the noise generated by civilian non -SEP VFR operations between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 5. An Estimate of Civilian SEP Activity between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The number of civilian SEP aircraft operations is estimated by subtracting the civilian IFR and estimated flights for jets, helicopters, twins, and turbos from the Tower counts for non - military operations. Prior to 1993, the FAA Tower counts included all communications with aircraft that flew through the Hanscom air space, whether or not they used Hanscom, making the estimated number of SEP operations derived by this method conservatively high. Starting in 1993, the approximations are closer to the actual number of arrivals and departures since over flights are no longer included. 6. Nighttime Field Use Logs: Massport records all operations between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when the FAA tower is closed. These logs are used to supplement the NOMS data. TABLE 3.1 Data Sources for Civilian Aircraft (January — September 2011) 7 a.m.-10 p.m. 10 n.m: 11 P.M. 11 P.m.-7 a.m. DEPARTURES: FAA flight strips + an estimate for civilian VFR Non -SEP turbos, twins & helicopters FAA flight strips Massport records FAA count for non - military operations minus civilian SEP non -SEP IFR & estimated VFR activity FAA flight strips Massport records Difference between total departures & ARRIVAL'S' 10 p.m. -7 a.m. arrivals FAA flight strips Massport records MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY TABLE 3.2 Data Sources for Civilian Aircraft (October - December 2011) Page 10 CHAPTER 4 2011 OPERATIONS, 7 a.m. -11 p.m. As discussed in Chapter 3, the FAA tower counts are traditionally used to report the official number of operations for an airport. At Hanscom, they include military operations and, until 1993, an unidentified percentage of over flights. During the study years, the Tower has not been open from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., so those counts do not include operations conducted between those hours. Including night (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) operations would increase the total by approximately two percent. Night activity is discussed in Chapter 5. Table 4.1 presents the Hanscom Tower counts since 1978, showing 162,999 operations for 2011. This indicates a 0.5 percent decrease.as compared to 2010. For thirty years prior to 1993, the Tower counts consistently exceeded 200,000, and in 1970 they peaked at more than 300,000. They also exceeded 200,000 from 2000 through 2002. However, from 1993 through 1999, and again from 2003 through 2011, tower counts have remained below 200,000. 7 a.m. -10 p.m. 10 L.M. -11 p.m. 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. NOMS + an estimate for civilian VFR turbos, NOMS supplemented by Non -SEP twins & helicopters NOMS Massport records NOMS + sufficient additional operations to NOMS supplemented by SEP reach FAA count for total civilian activity NOMS Massport records CHAPTER 4 2011 OPERATIONS, 7 a.m. -11 p.m. As discussed in Chapter 3, the FAA tower counts are traditionally used to report the official number of operations for an airport. At Hanscom, they include military operations and, until 1993, an unidentified percentage of over flights. During the study years, the Tower has not been open from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., so those counts do not include operations conducted between those hours. Including night (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) operations would increase the total by approximately two percent. Night activity is discussed in Chapter 5. Table 4.1 presents the Hanscom Tower counts since 1978, showing 162,999 operations for 2011. This indicates a 0.5 percent decrease.as compared to 2010. For thirty years prior to 1993, the Tower counts consistently exceeded 200,000, and in 1970 they peaked at more than 300,000. They also exceeded 200,000 from 2000 through 2002. However, from 1993 through 1999, and again from 2003 through 2011, tower counts have remained below 200,000. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY TABLE 4.1 Annual FAA Tower Counts for 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Since 1978 Page 11 Year TouverCount .Year .. T_owerCount .. Year,,: Tower Count . Year Tower Count: 19781 235,750 1987 239,154 1996 179,497 2005 169,955 1979 225,805 1988 228,725 1997 188,087 2006 172,457 1980 218,502 1989 238,340 1998 183,185 2007 165,907 1981 213,698 1990 232,678 1999 197,302 2008 165,889 1982 215,984 1991 213,637 2000 212,371 2009 149,911 1983 219,466 1992 203,755 2001 205,436 2010 163,737 1984 229,130 1993 196,138 2002 218,248 2011 162,999 1985 247,434 1994. 187,550 2003 194,885 1986 232,110 1995 190,282 2004 180,804 The tower counts in Table 4.1 have been plotted in Figure 4.1 to illustrate the annual fluctuations and overall decline since 1978, including the high of 247,434 operations in 1985 and the low of 149,911 operations in 2009. Decreases in SEP operations have been the predominant influence on Hanscom's general decline in activity. FIGURE 4.1 Annual FAA Tower Counts for 7 a.m. toll p.m. Since 1978 300,000 250,000 N C 200,000 i Q. 150,000 O 100,000 C C < 50,000 0 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2006 2008 2011 The FAA maintains separate tallies for "local" (i.e. touch - and -go) operations and military activity in its daily counts. A touch - and -go is the pattern used to practice landing and departing, most frequently conducted by the flight schools. The aircraft is brought in for a landing, continues on the runway for a departure, circles the field and repeats the procedure without stopping. The FAA tower tallies each touch -and -go as two operations, since there is an arrival and a departure. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 12 Starting in 1987, Massport has combined the FAA tower counts with the data collected in Hanscom's database system in order to estimate the breakdown of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. civilian activity by aircraft type for both IFR and VFR operations, as shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Annual Estimated Operations by Aircraft Type, 7 a.m. -11 P.M. CIVILIAN x MILITARY TOTAL. rt Local a, ( Siri les' Twm :. Piston t . 4. � _Turf'o :# ;:Jet.. Hel F '..}, 1987 72,999 134,461 5,309 6,443 10,034 7,294 2,613 239,153 1988 66,669 127,233 5,968 8,800 10,216 7,258 2,581 228,725 1989 72,067 132,368 5,697 8,767 9,656 7,294 2,491 238,340 1990 76,732 124,756 5,658 7,582 8,630 7,262 2,058 232,678 1991 80,805 102,478 5,476 6,666 8,368 6,942 2,902 213,637 1992 83,427 92,328 4,940 5,579 8,105 6,834 2,542 203,755 1993 85,872 82,756 4,489 4,571 8,838 6,811 2,801 196,138 1994 86,287 74,294 4,581 4,223 9,345 6,819 2,001 187,550 1995 861048 76,685 4,589 3,997 9,592 6,804 2,567 190,282 1996 76,735 74,872 4,536 4,250 10,390 6,915 1,799 179,497 1997 76,217 83,515 4,157 3,733 11,248 6,912 2,305 188,087 1998 681506 81,976 5,797 4,524 13,583 6,878 1,921 183,185 1999 73,483 88,137 5,426 5,697 16,108 6,885 1,566 197,302 2000 75,676 90,323 5,097 12,848 20,226 6,914 1,287 212,371 2001 72,605 84,803 4,858 13,580 22,839 5,499 1,252 205,436 2002 76,849 82,282 5,295 14,598 30,788 7,012 1,424 218,248 2003 71,696 70,912 4,750 9,057 30,352 6,978 1,142 194,887 2004 1 60,794 63,755 4,818 10,155 33,021 7,066 1,195 1501804 2005 58,535 57,894 4,265 9,008 32,345 7,004 904 169,955 2006 59,222 58,198 4,352 8,828 33,251 7,014 1,592 172,457 2007 56,731 51,776 4,196 10,355 34,522 6,889 1,438 165,907 2008 65,906 50,063 3,988 6,881 30,656 6,805 1,590 165,889 2009 60,263 46,478 3,963 5,588 25,482 6,830 1,307 149,911 2010 66,038 1 52,631 1 3,451 5,704 27,293 6,825 1,795 163=162,999 737 2011 60,268 56,059 3,542 6,886 27,838 6,987 1,419 MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 13 Comparing 2011 to 2010, the FAA tower count for military operations, which represented approximately one percent of the activity in 2011, decreased 21 percent. The civilian portion of the FAA tower counts, which has consistently represented approximately 99 percent of the total activity during the study years, decreased 0.2 percent as compared to 2010. Data indicate increases in all civilian aircraft categories with the exception of Local (touch & go). The level of jet activity is particularly relevant because jets dominate the civilian noise exposure. Business jet use has traditionally been impacted by the economic health of the area, as illustrated in Table 4.2. Jet activity levels declined during the slow economic years around 1990. This was followed by a steady increase starting in the mid -1990s through 2000 when the economy was recovering and then flourishing. As the economy slumped in 2001, the year started with a decline in jet operations. The events of September 11, 2001 (9/11) created a new factor that impacted aircraft activity, particularly business jet activity levels. Despite the economic downturn, there was a surge in business jet use after 9/11 as businesses began reevaluating the use of commercial airlines for their travel needs. This resulted in a net increase in business jet use in 2001 and an additional 34 percent increase in 2002. Jet use continued to climb from 30,788 in 2002 to 34,522 in 2007, when jets represented 2 1. 0 percent of Hanscom's total activity. The economic recession that hit in 2008 caused business jet activity levels to decrease 11.2 percent in 2008 and 16.9 percent in 2009. In 2010, as the economy showed signs of a recovery, business jet activity increased 7.1 percent. In 2011, jet activity increased 2 percent as compared to 2010 and represented 17 percent of total activity. There was also an increase in turboprop activity in 2011. Turboprop operations represented 4.2 percent of the 2011 total activity and increased 20.7 percent as compared to 2010. Twin pistons and helicopters are the other non -SEP civilian aircraft that are tracked by Massport. Estimated twin piston aircraft activity in 2011 increased 2.6 percent as compared to 2010, and represented 2.2 percent of the operations. Estimated helicopter activity in 2011 increased 2.4 percent as compared to 2010, and represented 4.3 percent of the operations. SEP aircraft have always dominated aircraft activity at Hanscom. SEP operations include touch - and -go, local activity, which peaked in 1978 when the FAA logged 94,641 touch -and- goes. Touch - and -go operations are included in Massport's estimates for single engine piston aircraft activity for two reasons: 1) since 1980, touch - and -goes have not been allowed in aircraft over 12,500 pounds at Hanscom, and 2) they are mostly conducted by the Hanscom flight schools using SEP aircraft. In recent years, touch -and -go operations have represented 50 to 60 percent of the SEP activity. In 2011, estimated SEP activity, including touch - and -goes, represented 71.4 percent of the operations and decreased two percent as compared to 2010. Table 4.3 shows the estimated average daily departures for SEP aircraft between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. for the study years. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 14 The 159.4 estimated average daily departures in 2011 represented a decrease of two percent as compared to 2010. The highest study year for SEP activity was 1985, with 297.3 estimated 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. average daily departures. TABLE 4.3 Estimated Average Daily Departures *, 7am - llpm by SEP Aircraft Year SEP Departures Year SEP Departures r Year ,SEP Departures Year ' SEP Departures �r. 1978 282.0 1989 280.1 1997 218.9 2005 159.6 1981 242.6 1990 276.0 1998 206.2 2006 160.8 1983 258.0 1991 251.1 1999 221.6 2007 148.6 1984 270.4 1992 240.2 2000 227.0 2008 158.4 1985 297.3 1993 231.1 2001 213.7 2009 146.2 1986 278.4 1994 219.8 2002 219.8 2010 162.6 1987 284.2 1995 223.0 2003 195.5 2011 159.4 1988 264.9 1996 207.2 2004 170.2 Jul 51.07 *Estimated Average Daily Departures = Total Annual Operations from FAA tower counts divided by two, minus the daily departures of aircraft other than single engine piston aircraft divided by 365 days (366 leap yr) While the tower counts, along with the influence of the SEP operations on those counts, provide one perspective on Hanscom's activity levels, it is the non -SEP operations, particularly the jets, that are the major source of changes in noise levels. Table 4.4 shows a summary of the 2011 estimated average daily departures by non -SEP aircraft. These non -SEP departures have been separated by day and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. hours, which are the blocks of time used in noise exposure calculations for DNL and EXP, both of which are discussed in Appendix A. The average daily departures are for the identified and estimated civilian aircraft and the identified military aircraft. They are listed month -by -month to show seasonal variations in activity. TABLE 4.4 2011 Monthly Average Daily Departures by Non - Single Engine Piston Aircraft AY r GNILIAN " . -iOpm -7am x *_ ?OTALr ., ;,;DAY, MILITARY b10pm -7am TOTAL § CNILIAN &'MILITARY '..tDAY .10pm -7am, TOTALS; Jan 49.62 2.81 52.43 "0.68 0.00 0.68 50.30 2.81 53.11 Feb 55.55 3.50 59.05 '0.46 0.00 0.46 56.01 3.50 59.51 Mar 57.98 3.19 61.17 0.71 0.00 0.71 58.69 3.19 61.88 Apr 62.37 2.90 65.27 0.60 0.00'.- 0.60 62.97 2.90 1 65.87 Ma 65.56 3.42 68.98 1.10 0.03 1.13 66.66 3.45 70.11 Jun 62.87 2.74 ' ! 65.61 0.80 0.00 '! 0.80 63.67 2.74 66.41 Jul 51.07 2.35 53.42 0.58 0.00:' 0.58 51.65 2.35 54.00 Au 55.14 2.45:., !. ! 57.59 1.00 0.03 ! 1.03 56.14 2.48 58.62 Se 61:63 187 64.50 0.67 ! 0.00 0.67 62.30 2.87 65.17 Oct 59:98 2.64 62.62 0.42 0.00 ! " 0.42 60.40 2.64 63.04 Nov 59.97 2.96 62.93 0.43 0.00:: 0.43 60.40 2.96. 63.36 Dec 51:04 1.26 '' 52.30 `0.77 0.00; ! 0.77 51.81 1.26 53.07 20'11 ,,,_ x_, 57.44 =. 2 72 �: 60.16 , . _0 68 .. 0.00. 0 .fi8, .:5812,x '2.72 MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 15 The data show that the busiest month for civilian non -SEP activity was May, which averaged 68.98 daily departures, while the low occurred in December with 52.30 daily civilian non -SEP departures. The civilian non -SEP activity averaged 60.16 daily departures during the year. The identified military operations peaked in May with 1. 13 average daily departures. The lowest military level was in October with 0.42 average daily departures. Military non -SEP activity averaged 0.68 daily departures in 2011. Figure 4.2 shows a plot of the data in Table 4.4, demonstrating the monthly variability of non -SEP departures for both civilian and military activity. It is difficult to distinguish the civilian levels from the combined total for civilian and military activity because of the civilian aircraft dominance. The combined civilian and military level peaked in May, with 70.11 average daily departures. The slowest month was December, with 53.07 average daily departures. Civilian and military non -SEP activity averaged 60.84 departures during the year. FIGURE 4.2 Monthly Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft, 2011 80 N v 70 i 60 CL 50 W' Civil 40 Military 30 t All 20 10 L Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 4.2 reflects the influence of the seasons on non -SEP activity, showing peak activity levels during the spring and fall and a decline during the summer. The spring and fall peaks are common, although this is in contrast to the 2008 experience when there was a decline in the summer without a fall recovery, an influence of the late 2008 downturn in the economy. Table 4.5 shows the comparison of the 2011 data for non -SEP activity to previous study year totals. The 60.16 average daily civilian departures are 2.9 percent more than in 2010. Non -SEP civilian activity peaked in 2002 with 79.96 average daily departures. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY TABLE 4.5 Annual Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft for Study Years Page 16 Figure 43 plots the annual non -SEP departure activity for the study years from 1978 through 2011, demonstrating the dominance of the civilian activity over the past 30 years. It shows that the non -SEP activity levels remained relatively stable between 1978 and 1998 and then increased to a peak in 2002 with 81.65 average daily civilian and military departures. CIVILIAN ; , ..., ' MILITARY `= ': CIVILIAN I MILITARY M . DAY, `. 10pii7am .TOTAL' ` .DAY . 10pm -lam ;TOTAL _'DAY,.. r `ldpm -lam ''.TOTAL`'. 1978 35.55 2.11 37.66 3.32 0.03 3.35 38.87 2.14 41.01 1981 45.77 1.44 47.25 3.24 0.04 3.28 49.01 1.48 50.49 1983 39.82 0.91 40.73 1.76 0.01 1.77 41.58 0.92 42.50 1984 40.63 1.72 42.35 1.12 0.01 1.13 41.75 1.73 43.48 1985 38.68 1 0.73 39.41 2.22 0.04 2.26 40.90 0.77 41.67 1986 37.02 0.67 37.70 1.81 0.03 1.84 38.83 0.69 39.52 1987 39.61 1.00 40.61 2.13 0.04 2.17 41.75 4.04 42.79 1988 43.67 1.73 45.40 2.15 0.08 2.23 45.82 1.83 47.65 1989 42.72 1.71 44.43 2.45 0.08 2.53 45.17 1 1.78 46.95 1990 39.61 1.16 40.77 1.77 0.06 1.83 41.38 1.22 42.60 1991 37.27 1.00 38.27 2.39 0.13 2.52 39.66 1.13 40.79 1992 34.48 1.03 35.51 2.24 0.06 2.30 36.72 1.09 37.81 1993 33.55 0.90 34.45 2.49 0.11 2.60 36.04 1.02 37.06 1994 33.99 0.92 34.91 2.12 0.08 2.20 36.10 1.01 37.11 1995 34.01 1.15 35.16 2.06 0.10 2.16 36.07 1.24 37.31 1996 35.25 1.70 36.95 1.74 0.09 1.83 36.99 1.79 38.78 1997 35.38 2.04 37.42 1.75 0.04 1 1.79 37.12 2.08 39.20 1998 41.71 2.05 43.76 2.08 0.11 2.19 43.79 2.16 45.95 1999 46.31 2.27 48.58 1.81 0.04 1.85 48.12 2.31 50.43 2000 60.83 2.91 63.74 1.35 0.06 1.41 62.18 2.97 65.15 2001 65.27 2.77 68.04 1.56 0.00 1.56 1 66.83 2.77 69.60 . 2002 76.50 3.46 79.96 1.66 0.03 1.69 78.16 3.49 81.65 2003 69.18 1 3.00 72.18 4.34 0.02 1.36 70.52 3.02 73.54 2004 72.01 3.47 75.48 1.30 0.01 1.31 73.31 3.48 76.79 2005 68.32 3.32 71.64 0.85 0.02 0.87 69.17 3.34 72.51 2006 68.52 4.24 72.76 0.80 0.02 0.82 69.32 4.26 73.58 2007 71.06 4.28 1 75.34 1.01 0.02 1.03 72.07 4.30 76.37 2008 61.00 3.19 64.19 0.89 0.02 0.91 61.89 3.21 65.10 2009 53.92 2.57 56.49 0.90 0.02 1 0.92 54.82 2.59 57.41 2010 55.65 2.84 58.49 0.78 0.03 0.81 56.43 2.87 59.30 2011 57.44 2.72 60.16 0.68 0.00 0.68 58.12 2.72 60.84 Figure 43 plots the annual non -SEP departure activity for the study years from 1978 through 2011, demonstrating the dominance of the civilian activity over the past 30 years. It shows that the non -SEP activity levels remained relatively stable between 1978 and 1998 and then increased to a peak in 2002 with 81.65 average daily civilian and military departures. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 17 FIGURE 4.3 Annual Variations in Average Daily Departures by Non -SEP Aircraft 2 90 80 70 EZ ° 60 - E— Civilian 60 - - o-- Milita 4 N 0 Q 30 — A, All n) 20 co 10 o a, 4 1978 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 1979,1980, AND 1982 DATA UNAVAILABLE Business jet and turboprop operations caused the post 1998 non -SEP increases. There were more than 60 average daily non -SEP departures annually between 2000, the first full year after commuter service was re- introduced at Hanscom in turboprop aircraft, and 2008, when the commuter service was terminated. The peak year, 2002, was influenced by a 50 percent increase in jet activity during the first twelve months after the events of September 11, 2001, plus it was in 2002 that Hanscom experienced its highest number of commuter operations in turboprops. The 2011 increase in non -SEP activity, as compared to 2010, resulted primarily from a modest economic recovery after 2009. CHAPTER 5 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. OPERATIONS Hanscom Field is a public facility and is open for use 24 hours a day. However, aircraft using the airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. communicate with the FAA's Boston approach control facility because the Hanscom FAA control tower is closed. Therefore, this activity is not included in the Hanscom FAA tower counts discussed in Chapter 4. In the summer of 1980, Massport instituted an 11 p.m, to 7 a.m. airfield use fee to help minimize noise exposure by discouraging use of the field between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The fee is based on aircraft weight and doubles for aircraft that conduct more than five night operations in a calendar year. From 1980 until 1989 the fees were $20 for aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less and $150 for aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds. In 1988, there was a review of the nighttime field use fee. In 1989, the Massport Board voted to increase the fees to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase between 1980 and 1989 and to institute an annual CPI increase, effective each July 1. In 2011, there was a 2.7 percent CPI MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 18 increase so the 2011 fees increased from $53 to $55 for aircraft up to 12,500 pounds and from $391 to $401 for aircraft over 12,500 pounds. Records for activity between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. were not maintained prior to the institution of the night field use fee. Table 5.1 shows the history of these operations starting with 1981, the first full year they were logged. Activity levels fluctuated in the early 1980s and then increased to just over 1,000 in 1988 and 1989. In 1990, nighttime activity decreased and subsequently remained below 1,000 annual operations through 1995, a likely reflection of the depressed economy and the fee increases. TABLE 5.1 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Operations Since Nighttime Fee was Instituted Year ,. , 14 °p.m:- 7a.m.: Year,' 11 �p.m: -7 1981 585 1997 1,495 1982 532 1998 1,390 1983 640 1999 1,622 1984 759 2000 1,918 1985 442 2001 1,674 1986 466 2002 2,170 1987 850 2003 1,743 1988 1,098 2004 2,006 1989 1,053 2005 1,894 1990 773 2006 2,324 1991 797 2007 2,284 1992 702 2008 1,910 1993 689 2009 1,735 1994 735 2010 1,832 1995 919 2011 1,828 1996 1,159 NOTE: The above totals include aircraft operations that are exempt from the fee, with the exception of some missing exemption figures in 1983 and 1984 and possibly in 1981 and 1982. Since exemptions for other years in the 1980s represented a small number of nighttime operations, the totals in the table area are assumed to closely reflect the number of night operations for each year. Since 1996, the number of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations has consistently exceeded 1,000, partially due to night activity by medical air ambulance services, which transport critically ill or injured patients. In 2011, there were 323 night air ambulance services, which is a 24 percent decrease compared to 2010. Total night operations decreased from 1,832 in 2010 to 1,828 in 2011. All categories increased with the exception of helicopters. The data in Table 5.1 are plotted in Figure 5.1, illustrating the fluctuations in 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. activity. They demonstrate that there has been a general upward trend that became more pronounced after 1995. Since 1999 there have been fluctuations between a low of 1,622 in 1999 to a high of 2,324 in 2006. Four of those years exceeded 2,000 operations. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 19 FIGURE 5.1 Annual 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Operations since Nighttime Fee was Instituted 2500 N C 2000 n� L IN, :��4 CL 1500 1 1000 _2) z a- 500 0 z a 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 Table 5.2 provides an overview of the 2011 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations by aircraft type, arrivals and departures, and significant flight times. It also shows a breakdown of the number of operations by fee amount levied for each category of aircraft. Those aircraft being charged $110 or $802 conducted more than five operations in the calendar year. TABLE 5.2 Breakdown of 201111 p.m. to 7 a.m. Operations Of the 1,828 night operations, 326 were exempt. Medical flights, dominated by the medical evacuation service based at Hanscom, represented 99.1 percent of the exemptions. Exemptions also included operations by military aircraft and Hanscom -based aircraft that used the airport between 11 p.m. and 7. a.m. due to unavoidable circumstances, such as weather, mechanical, or FAA delays. There were 741 different aircraft that were subject to the nighttime fee. Of those, 48, or 6.5 percent, conducted more than five nighttime operations that were subject to the fee. 60 percent of the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations were arrivals; 40 percent were departures. Over 25 percent of the night operations occurred between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. while more than 26 percent were between 11 p.m. and midnight. The remaining 49 percent were between midnight and 6 a.m. TIME'O.F. OPERATION;, :' F.EE:DISTRIBUT.ION1 s. :. TOTAL E,d 3z £ 1 PM-16 6 to 7 n Ar: Dep4{ $401 $802 Ezemp . , . ,. . 12 AM ..., AM, OtFier ,. $55,. $110 , _ Jet 755 475 319 327 584 531 5 9081 215 49 !1,230 Piston 68 75 46 48 48 124 7 0 0 12,:; ' 143 Turbo 123 56 45' 31 1'03 130 13 22 0 14 179 Helis 1 1481 128 7511. 56 146 25 0 0 0 251 276' TOTAL' 1 1,0941 734 485 462 881 332 25 930 215 326 ': 11828 Of the 1,828 night operations, 326 were exempt. Medical flights, dominated by the medical evacuation service based at Hanscom, represented 99.1 percent of the exemptions. Exemptions also included operations by military aircraft and Hanscom -based aircraft that used the airport between 11 p.m. and 7. a.m. due to unavoidable circumstances, such as weather, mechanical, or FAA delays. There were 741 different aircraft that were subject to the nighttime fee. Of those, 48, or 6.5 percent, conducted more than five nighttime operations that were subject to the fee. 60 percent of the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. operations were arrivals; 40 percent were departures. Over 25 percent of the night operations occurred between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. while more than 26 percent were between 11 p.m. and midnight. The remaining 49 percent were between midnight and 6 a.m. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 20 Jets conducted the largest number of night operations by a single aircraft category, representing 67 percent of the activity. Helicopters represented 15 percent, turboprops 10 percent and pistons represented eight percent of the night activity. CHAPTER 6 NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS As discussed in Chapter 2, the 1982 HMMH noise study defined a screening metric, referred to as EXP, to use in evaluating changes in noise exposure without resorting to complex noise exposure contours for each application. It is the logarithmic sum, in decibels (dB), of the total aircraft noise on an average day for the aircraft that used Hanscom. The estimate is made for a point on the ground 15,000 feet from brake release for departures. A "noise penalty" of 10 dB is applied to operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to be consistent with the development of DNL noise contours. 6.1 2011 EXP Version 6.1 Noise exposure, represented by the EXP metric, is calculated monthly and annually at Hanscom. As discussed in Section 2.4, EXP version 6.1 (EXP 6.1) is currently being used to calculate noise exposure. Table 6.1 presents the monthly departure EXP 6.1 values, including the effects of SEP aircraft, for 2011. Those portions of the noise attributable to civilian and military aircraft are separated in the table to show the relative contributions of each. TABLE 6.1 2011 Monthly Variations in Departure EXP 6.1 <i 14 �` Mopp. nth.., Ewe -� .i.� �4 S �i : ��. EXP61cwith :SEPAIRCRAFT�G.f,.�:�� Civilian &,1Vlilitary _ . �. Jan. 109.6 92:1 109.7 Feb. 110.1 91.8 110.1 Mar. 109.3 105:3 110:8 Apr. 109.2 105,5 110:7 May 109.6 110.0 112.8 Jun. 109.T:.,!-, 110.8 113:0 J ul. 108.2 107.0 110.6 Aug. 108.5 109' 7 112.1 Sep. 110.2 105:7 111.5 Oct. 108.6 93:7 1 08.7 Nov. 108.8 89.6 108:9 Dec. 107.5 87-8: 107.6 MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 21 Civilian departure EXP for 2011 was 109.1 dB, 67 percent of Hanscom's total (civilian and military) departure noise energy. It fluctuated between a low of 107.5 dB in December and a high of 110.2 dB in September. The low and high in EXP levels frequently do not correlate with the low and high for non -SEP activity levels. Although non -SEP activity dominates noise exposure, the high for civilian non -SEP activity, as seen in Table 4.4, occurred in May, while September had the highest noise exposure. The low for non -SEP aircraft activity was December, which does correlate with the low for noise exposure. This lack of correlation in May and September is because EXP factors in the fleet mix and the nighttime "noise penalty ", not just the numbers of operations. Military EXP shows more variation in departure noise levels than the civilian portion. This reflects the high noise levels of many military aircraft; a few operations by a particularly noisy aircraft can cause EXP to increase significantly. Military aircraft are exempt from the noise abatement measures that are applicable to civilian aircraft and have some of the highest SEL values of any aircraft that use the airport. Military departure EXP totaled 106.0 dB in 2011, with its lowest level in December and its highest level in June. The June high reflects activity by a variety of military aircraft, from the KC135, which is equivalent to a Boeing 707, to a number of fighter jets. Fighter jets have the highest SEL of all the aircraft types in EXP. In 2011, military aircraft generated 33 percent of Hanscom's total noise energy despite representing slightly less than one percent of the aircraft activity. Military activity has consistently represented less than two percent of the activity during the study years, while its contribution to the noise energy has ranged from 11 percent to 47 percent. The departure EXP 6.1 data from Table 6.1 are plotted in Figure 6.1, which demonstrates that military noise levels vary more than the civilian portions. The highest total (civilian and military) EXP during the year was 113.0 in June, when the military level exceeded the civilian portion. The lowest total departure noise exposure during the year was 107.6 dB in the month of December. FIGURE 6.1 2011 Monthly Averages in Departure Noise Exposure EXF 6.1 115 110 � -.... _ 105 0 a j 100 j'ft - ♦- civilian T — �— Military r —Civ. & Mil. c 90O 0 85 X 80 W Jan. Mar. May Jul. Sep. Nov. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 22 Appendix B shows a detailed table of 2011 EXP 6.1. It includes the average daily departures and arrivals as well as the departure and arrival SELs for each civilian and military aircraft group. The aircraft types listed for each group are representative of those included in the group, and the partial EXP specifies the noise impact for that group of aircraft. As explained in Chapter 2, changes in departure EXP more closely reflect changes in DNL than do changes in arrival EXP, so this report focuses on civilian departure EXP for primary comparative purposes. However, arrival EXP is being calculated and is included in Appendix B. Table 6.2 presents the decibel contribution of several aircraft categories to civilian departure EXP 6.1, illustrating the effect of civilian jets. Although civilian jets comprised 17 percent of the civilian operations, they had the highest partial departure EXP and represented 79.6 percent of the civilian departure noise energy. This reflects the relatively high SEL values assigned to them. By contrast, single engine piston aircraft comprised 71.4 percent of the civilian activity but contributed only 14.4 percent of the civilian departure noise energy. They have a relatively low SEL but have the second highest partial EXP because of the large number of operations by these aircraft. TABLE 6.2 Contributions to Civilian Departure EXP for 2011 Operations Partial EXP 6� 1 Aircraft Categoryt,y e ,. k Contnbut�on to Clv�lian Departure_Noise Exposure Jets 1.08.1 dB Turboprops 89.6 dB Helicopters 94.5 dB Twin Engine Pistons 90.5 dB Single Engine Pistons 100.7 dB _r :;a!TOTALCIVILIAN EXP. :.1.09 1, dB 6.2 EXP Comparisons for Study Years, 1978 -2011 Massport has incorporated periodic upgrades of the noise and performance data used to produce EXP. Because the importance of EXP is not in its specific value, but rather in the change in EXP from one year to the next, methods have been developed to incorporate the upgrades while presenting a reasonable representation of the changes in noise levels since 1978. Table 6.3 shows civilian departure EXP for the study years from 1978 through 2001. It also identifies the different EXP versions that were used and the changes in EXP for each year as compared to the base year. Between 1978 and 1987, Noisemap was used to calculate the SEL values for EXP. The results for the first year and the last year of that timeframe showed 112.5 dB for civilian aircraft departures. The resulting zero in the "Difference from Base Year" column indicates equal civilian departure noise exposure, and this equal noise exposure allowed MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 23 1987 to serve as an alternate base year for future comparisons. Applying EXP Version 3.9 to 1987 data showed EXP for civilian departures was 112.0 dB. From 1988 to 1995, EXP 3.9 was calculated, and the difference from 112.0 dB indicated the year -to -year difference from the base year. TABLE 6.3 Civilian Departure EXP Comparisons, 1978 -2001 Annual" Base Year Difference ,.from EXP l EXP, t, It : Base.Year - r Noisemap 1978 112.5 Original Base Year 1981 111.3 112.5 -1.2 1983 111.8 112.5 -0.7 1984 112.2 112.5 -0.3 1985 111.9 112.5 -0.6 1986 111.8 112.5 -0.7 1987 112.5 112.5 0.0 Version 3.9 1987 112.0 Alternate Base Year 1988 112.4 112.0 0.4 1989 111.6 112.0 -0.4 1990 110.8 112.0 -1.2 1991 110.7 112.0 -1.3 1992 111.4 112.0 -0.6 1993 110.6 112.0 -1.4 1994 111.4 112.0 -0.6 1995 111.6 112.0 -0.4 Version 5.1 1987 112.1 Alternate Base Year 1996 112.0 112.1 -0.1 1997 112.3 112.1 0.2 1998 113.1 112.1 1.0 1999 113.0 112.1 0.9 2000 113.4 112.1 1.3 2001 112.5 112.1 0.4 The 1996 transition to EXP 5.1 was facilitated by calculating the 1987 data using EXP 5.1. Table 6.3 shows the civilian departure EXP 5.1 for 1987 was 112.1 dB, and from 1996 to 2001 the differences between EXP 5.1 for those years and EXP 5.1 for 1987 were calculated. Because 1987 noise levels had been determined to be equal to 1978 using Noisemap, this allowed for a continued ability to represent the annual change in EXP as compared to 1978. Past methodologies were not practical for the transition to EXP 6.Oc that occurred in 2000. EXP 5.1 was applied to the data for 2000 and 2001 but neither equaled EXP 5.1 in 1987, and there was a risk in assuming that EXP 6.Oc SELs, which were developed for 2000 flying procedures and aircraft, could be accurately applied to 15 year old data. Consequently,; it was determined that EXP 5.1 and prior versions would illustrate the changes from 1978 to 2001 while future versions would illustrate changes from 2000 forward. EXP 6.Oc was used to track changes in noise between 2000 and 2005, as seen in Table 6.4. EXP 6.1 was introduced starting in 2005, and Table 6.4 shows civilian departure EXP 6.1 for the year MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 24 2000, as well as for the years 2005 through 2011. As discussed in 2005 Noise Exposure Levels at L. G. Hanscom Field, the differences in SEL levels for civilian aircraft groups between EXP version 6.Oc and 6.1 were minimal. As a result, the annual civilian departure EXP was not affected by the version that was used. This is demonstrated in Table 6.4 by the equal EXP level for 2000, using Versions 6.Oc and 6.1 for both years, and again for 2005, using Versions 6.Oc and 6.1 for both years. Consequently, it is reasonable to compare the results of either version to the other for the civilian component without further adjustments. TABLE 6.4 Civilian Departure EXP Comparisons, 2000 -2011 y An- d' ence from f EXP; from 2000 from' 2001 Previous Year � A 1 4 4 1 Version 5.1 2000 113.4 2001 112.5 -0.9 n/a -0.9 Version 6.Oc 2000 112.3 2001 111.6 -0.7 n/a -0.7 2002 112.4 0.1 0.8 0.8 2003 111.9 -0.4 0.3 -0.5 2004 111.9 -0.4 0.3 0.0 2005 111.4 -0.9 -0.2 -0.5 Version 6.1 2000 112.3 2005 111.4 -0.9 -0.2 -0.5 2006 111.0 -1.3 -0.6 -0.4 2007 111.3 -1.0 -0.3 0.3 2008 110.2 -2.1 -1.4 -1.1 2009 109.2 -3.1 -2.4 -1.0 2010 109.2 -3.1 -2.4 0.0 2011 109.1 =3.2 -2.5 -0.1 Because the upgrades in FAA noise data that are used to generate EXP make it difficult to make a direct comparison of current noise levels to the 1978 noise experience, it has been determined that identifying a range to represent the increase or decrease in civilian departure EXP is a reasonable alternative. Table 6.3 shows a 0.4 dB increase in noise between 1978 and 2001, and Table 6.4 shows a 2.5 dB decrease in noise between 2001 and 2011, indicating that civilian departure EXP for 2011 is 2.1 dB less than 1978. Alternatively, Table 6.3 shows a 1.3 dB increase in noise between 1978 and 2000, and Table 6.4 shows a 3.2 dB decrease between 2000 and 2011, indicating that civilian departure EXP for 2011 is 1.9 dB less than 1978. In other words, 2011 civilian departure EXP ranges from 1.9 to 2.1 dB less than the noise exposure in 1978. A comparison of 2011 civilian departure EXP with previous study years indicates that 2011 experienced the lowest noise levels of all the study years. The next lowest years were 2009 and 2010 with 2.0 dB below 1978. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 25 The EXP differences from the base year for the study years 1978 through 2001 shown in Table 6.3 are plotted in Figure 6.2 to demonstrate the way EXP changed through 2001. Figure 6.2 illustrates a decrease in civilian departure EXP between 1978 and 1981, a subsequent general upward trend through 1988, a decline in the early 1990s, and a consistent increase from 1993 through 1998. From 1998 to 2001, EXP fluctuated at levels between 0.4 dB and 1.3 dB above the 1978 base year. Figure 6.2 also demonstrates that until 2001, 2000 was the study year with the highest civilian departure EXP, while 1993 was the lowest of those study years. FIGURE 6.2 Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 1978 -2001 � 1.5 X 1 c`a > 0.5 m0 Base Year Level C3 a, c Z= 0.5 ca ri- o X -1 w s c -2 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Note: 1979, 1980 and 1982 data unavailable The EXP differences from 2000 for the study years 2001 through 2011, as shown in Table 6.4, are plotted in Figure 6.3 to demonstrate the way EXP has changed since 2000. As in Figure 6.2, Figure 6.3 illustrates the decrease in EXP between 2000 and 2001. It also shows an increase in 2002, when 2002 exceeded 2000 by a tenth of a decibel, making it the study year with the highest civilian departure EXP to -date. This was followed by a general decrease in civilian departure noise exposure to the lowest recorded level in 2011. FIGURE 6.3 Differences Between Civilian Departure EXP for Study Years 2000 -2011 CD 0.5 CL -0.5 w -1.5 as - -2.5 -3.5 2000 2001 2002 20032004 20052006 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011 MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 26 Table 6.5 looks at the eight years for which EXP 6.1 was used to calculate EXP. It shows the civilian and military components as well as the total noise exposure for both departures and arrivals. Although all of this data is tracked, the noise report has never tried to analyze annual changes in EXP for military aircraft, arrivals, or total activity. Rather, it focuses on changes in the civilian portion for departures, which is highlighted in the table. TABLE 6.5 EXP 6.1 Values for 2000 and 2005 through 2011 Version 6.1 CIVILIAN COMPONENT, WITH SINGLES 2000 112.3 dB 109.1 dB 2005 111.4 dB 108.8 dB 2006 111.0 dB 109.1 dB 2007 111.3 dB 109.3 dB 2008 110.2 dB 108.4 dB 2009 109.2 dB - 107.9 dB 2010 109.2 - dB 108.0 dB 2011 109.1 dB 108.2 dB MILITARY COMPONENT 2000 106.8 dB 99.0 dB 2005 108.4 dB 94.5 dB 2006 107.1 dB 94.2 dB 2007 109.9 dB 96.2 dB 2008 106.1 dB 95.1 dB 2009 107.2 dB 96.0 dB 2010 107.9 dB 95.9 dB 2011 106.0 dB 92.7 dB TOTAL EXP (INCLUDING MILITARYAND SINGLES) 2000 113.4 dB 109.5 dB 2005 113.2 dB 109.0 dB 2006 112.5 dB 109.2 dB 2007 113.6 dB 109.5 dB 2008 111.6 dB 108.6 dB 2009 111.3 dB 108.2 dB 2010 111.6 dB 108.3 dB 2011 110.8 dB 108.3 dB MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 27 6.3 Analysis of Changes in Annual EXP for Study Years, 1978 -2011 The fluctuations in civilian EXP over the past 32 years demonstrate three major influences on noise exposure: 1) the number of jet operations, since jets dominate the noise exposure, as discussed in Section 6.1; 2) whether the jet operations operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when the "noise penalty" is applied, as discussed in the introduction of this chapter and in Appendix A; and 3) the amount of noise energy generated by each jet operation, which is reflected in the SEL assigned each jet type, as discussed in Appendix A. Because civilian departure EXP is dominated by jet activity, it is useful to look at the number of operations conducted at Hanscom Field by the jets in each SEL group, and to see how they compare to previous years.. Figure 6.4 shows the level of activity for each jet SEL group for 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011. It demonstrates that most of the jet operations occurred in aircraft with SELs of less than 94 dB. Included in these aircraft are the Very Light Jets, small, relatively inexpensive aircraft with some of the smallest noise footprints of all the jets that use Hanscom. FIGURE 6.4 Average Daily Jet Departures by SEL Groups, 2000, 2005, 2010 & 2011 Civilian Jets, 2000, 2005, 2010 & 2011 SEL Values from EXP Version 6.1 Representafne Jets in each SEL Group W 82.0 - Citation 750 82.1134 2 16 :3 14 83.0 - Eclipse 500 ca Z d) 12 84.6- Canadair 61 862- Glohal Ex, G3 p 86.7 - Canadair 60 10 i - 872 -8738 _ 0 8 I 87.3- Citation 500 889- Citation 650 i 89.4-A320, A319 O 6 i 90.9- Westwind24 _ 912 -BE40, Lear 55 Z 4 - 91.9- MI13,C550 Q 93A -Fait. 50 & 90 2 94A -DC9 N t _ _ 95.4 -9737 - 96.9 -Fait 20,SBR -80 Q 820 83.0 86.2 87.0 88.8 90.9 91.2 93.0 95.6 95.9 97.2 103.8 96.7- Genencjet 972.63 SEL values in dBA 103.8-B727 51age3 1052- Lear23,SBR40 ■ 2000 o2005 ■ 2010 m2011 The noise energy levels of the Hanscom fleet have been influenced by federal and Massport regulations directed at reducing noise exposure for residents both nationally and around Hanscom. The FAA first issued noise standards for civil aircraft in 1969, when regulations established that minimum noise performance levels must be demonstrated for new turbojet and transport category large airplane designs. In 1977, more stringent standards were adopted, and Stage 1, 2, and 3 classifications were introduced. Stage 1 airplanes do not meet either the 1969 or 1977 standards. Stage 2 airplanes meet the 1969 standards but do not meet the 1977 standards. Stage 3 airplanes meet the 1977 standards. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 28 Over the years, the FAA also adopted regulations that phased out the use of Stage 1 and 2 aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds. However, most jets using Hanscom weigh less than 75,000 pounds, so the impact was minimal. In 1980, Massport adopted rules to address some of the noise issues being discussed with'the communities around Hanscom. These rules included a phase out of Stage 1 civilian jet operations in aircraft over 12,500 pounds, a fee to discourage 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. activity, and restrictions on touch and. go operations. Figure 6.2 clearly demonstrates the initial impact of these rules. The 1981 civilian departure EXP decreased 1.2 dB as compared to 1978, the only previous study year. This initial decrease was followed by an upward trend in civilian departure EXP caused by an overall increase in jet activity resulting from a strong economy. As discussed earlier, by 1987 the noise exposure equaled 1978, and the 1988 exposure exceeded the base year for the first time. Between 1988 and 1993, the slow economy resulted in an overall decrease in civilian departure EXP that was influenced by a decline in business jet operations, including fewer Stage 2 jets. In 1993, when civilian departure EXP dropped to the lowest level of all the 1978 to 1993 study years, there were increases in business jet activity as compared to 1992, but Stage 2 jet operations decreased. From 1993 through 2000, EXP for civilian departures showed an upward trend caused by annual increases in business jet operations. In most years, that included more Stage 2 jet activity and more jet activity between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Although the number of Stage 2 jet operations was increasing, the percentage of Stage 2 jets began to decrease during these years. In 1995, Stage 2 jets represented 18 percent of the jet fleet. By 2000, Stage 2 jet activity had dropped to 11 percent of the jet operations. Starting in 2000, natural attrition of Stage 2 aircraft translated into an overall decline in EXP. The turnover from Stage 2 to Stage 3 aircraft helped counteract the noise generated by the overall increases in business jet activity. However, there were two years (2002 and 2007) when civilian departure EXP increased as compared to the previous year's noise level. • In 2002, there were increases, as compared to 2001, in both Stage 2 and Stage 3 jet activity during the daytime hours and between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. when the nighttime noise penalty is applied in the noise calculations. These increases reflected a reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 that resulted in many businesses turning to private aircraft rather than flying commercially. Thus, 2002 EXP increased as compared to 2001 and became the study year with the highest noise level to -date. • In 2007, Stage 3 jet operations increased while Stage 2 jet activity decreased during the nighttime and daytime hours. As a result, 2007 was the first year that an increase in noise level was driven by increases in Stage 3 jet operations, which occurred during both the daytime and nighttime hours. This experience provides a window to the future. Assuming current trends continue, changes in noise levels at Hanscom will increasingly reflect increases and decreases in the noisiest Stage 3 jet activity levels, coupled with the fluctuations in jet activity during the nighttime hours. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 29 Although total jet activity increased 38 percent between 2000 and 2011, Stage 2 jets decreased over 85 percent, and in 2011, they represented only 1.1 percent of the jet fleet. Figure 6.5 illustrates the 2000 through 2011 activity levels for the Stage 2 EXP jet groups. There were decreases by all groups of Stage 2 aircraft in 2011 as compared to 2000. FIGURE 6.5 Stage 2 Jet Activity, 2000 -2011 In 2011, Stage 2 jets comprised 11 percent of the total civilian noise energy for departures and 13 percent of the civilian jet noise energy for departures. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which included the phase out of all non -stage 3 aircraft by December 31, 2015. This mandatory federal phase out of Stage 2 jets that weigh less than 75,000 pounds will facilitate more rapid noise reduction at airports nationally. Massport's support of this phase out is discussed in Chapter 8. As discussed in Chapter 4, an important influence on jet activity levels is the economy. Predictably, the positive economic trends of the mid to late 1980s and again in the mid to late 1990s and into 2000 resulted in increased business jet activity at Hanscom Field. Helping counteract the noise generated by the increases in jet operations in the 1980s was the phase out of most Stage 1 jets at Hanscom Field, and in the 1990s there was some turnover from Stage 2 to Stage 3 jets as businesses upgraded their equipment. For jets over 75,000 pounds, the upgrades were required nationally by the year 2000. To meet this mandate, some aircraft operators upgraded to new Stage 3 aircraft while others installed hush kits that reduced the noise footprint of a non -Stage 3 aircraft and brought it below the Stage 3 noise threshold. Stage 2 Civilian Jets, 2000 -2011 SEL Values from EXP Version 6.1 1.2 d 5 1.0 `m m 0.8 Representative Jets ❑ in each SE_ Group 95.9 - DA02 m 0.6 ¢ 95.9- SBR_80 ❑ 9Z2 -G3 99.6 - G2 ° 0.4 s 105.2- Lear23,SBR-40 z m a 0.2 $ 0.0 95.9 95.9 97.2 99.6 105.2 SEL values in dBA 02000 02001 ■2002 02003 ■2004 02005 ®2006 02007 V2008 M2009 a2010 E2011 In 2011, Stage 2 jets comprised 11 percent of the total civilian noise energy for departures and 13 percent of the civilian jet noise energy for departures. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which included the phase out of all non -stage 3 aircraft by December 31, 2015. This mandatory federal phase out of Stage 2 jets that weigh less than 75,000 pounds will facilitate more rapid noise reduction at airports nationally. Massport's support of this phase out is discussed in Chapter 8. As discussed in Chapter 4, an important influence on jet activity levels is the economy. Predictably, the positive economic trends of the mid to late 1980s and again in the mid to late 1990s and into 2000 resulted in increased business jet activity at Hanscom Field. Helping counteract the noise generated by the increases in jet operations in the 1980s was the phase out of most Stage 1 jets at Hanscom Field, and in the 1990s there was some turnover from Stage 2 to Stage 3 jets as businesses upgraded their equipment. For jets over 75,000 pounds, the upgrades were required nationally by the year 2000. To meet this mandate, some aircraft operators upgraded to new Stage 3 aircraft while others installed hush kits that reduced the noise footprint of a non -Stage 3 aircraft and brought it below the Stage 3 noise threshold. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 30 CHAPTER 7 NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM In the late 1980s, Massport and the surrounding communities agreed that a permanent noise monitoring system (NMS) could contribute to a more complete picture of the noise environment around the airport by adding data to the existing EXP metric. EXP looks at total noise on an average day, with a focus on civilian departure EXP, and doesn't consider runway use, for example. In the early 1990s, five noise monitors were installed on and around the airport. A sixth monitor was installed in late 1994. Data for all the monitor sites became available in 1995. Given the age of Massport's original noise monitoring system and the advancement of technology in this field, in 2004, Massport decided to upgrade its system. Massport requested proposals and subsequently selected Rannoch Corporation; now ITT Exelis Corporation, to replace the system's microphones and software. Hanscom staff members began experiencing the benefits of the new system in 2007 and have been able to provide callers with more information about disturbing flights than had been available in the past. An interactive website is being developed. The data from the monitors shown in this report are Day -Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) in A- weighted decibels, both of which are described in Appendix A. These are actual measured levels, so they include military and civilian aircraft as well as community noise. In April of 2009, the Site 34 monitor on DeAngelo Drive in Bedford was hit by a vehicle, which caused substantial damage. Because a tree that had grown near the site could potentially contaminate data and because there had been similar incidents in prior years, Massport determined that a new location needed to be identified for installing a replacement. This led to a review of possible locations, which included discussions with Bedford representatives and taking noise measurements and analyzing flight tracks at numerous alternative sites. It was determined that DeAngelo Drive was the best acoustical location, which led to selecting a site that was close to the old site but away from trees and set back from the road. This work was completed in 2010. Table 7.1 shows the readings at the six sites for 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011. Footnotes identify the number of months included in the data. Appendix C shows the readings for those years by month. Appendix C also includes a map showing the locations for the monitors. Data for the years not included in this report can be found in previous annual noise reports, available in Massport's offices. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 31 TABLE 7.1 Measured DNL Levels -1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 Site No. 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 31 67.2 66.5 68.3 66.9 66.3 32 66.7 64.5 64.1 63.6 63.7 33 57.1 55.7 56.1 56:1 55.2 34 60.1 59.7 60.6 60.7 60.1 35 60.5 60.2 59.2 60.2 59.8 36 62.4 62.8 62.3 61.8 61.9 A comparison of the 2010 and 2011 annual DNL values at six sites shows increases of 0.1 dB at Site 36 (Concord) and Site 32, located at the approach end of Runway 29. Site 33 (Lincoln) decreased 0.9 dB, Site 34 (Bedford) decreased 0.6 dB, Site 35 (Lexington) decreased 0.4 dB, and Site 31, located at the approach end of Runway 11, decreased 0.6 dB. The measured changes must be looked at carefully for both aviation and non - aviation influences. Aviation influences include the noise levels generated by specific aircraft and runway use, which determines which monitors are impacted by a particular flight. Military aircraft activity can cause particularly high readings because of the high noise levels of some military aircraft, such as fighter jets. Some months are influenced by military events that result in increased military activity at Hanscom: an Air Force Air Show generated high noise levels in June of 1995; in October of 1995, there was a test of navigational equipment, which required a military KC135 (Boeing 707 equivalent) to conduct multiple low approaches over the airport; fighter jets operated out of Hanscom in order to conduct fly -overs at special events, including Red Sox games in April 2005 and April 2010, and Marine week in 2010. This military activity is known to have contributed to the monitor readings in those years but is only partially reflected in military EXP because only the military IFR events are accounted for in the computer modeling. Readings may also reflect non - aviation noise sources. In 1995, Sites 31 and 32 experienced noise from the use of tree removal equipment. Construction noise influenced readings at Site 31 in 2005 and 2010. Site 36 is also influenced by noise from the near -by wastewater treatment facility, which produces background noises that contribute to the readings. As a result, Site 36 consistently shows the highest recorded levels at an off - airport location. The data in Table 7.1 are plotted in Figure 7.1, which demonstrates the fluctuations in measured noise at the six sites for 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011. Sites 31 and 32 consistently have the highest readings because they are located on the airport at the ends of Runway 11/29. They are the least likely to be influenced by consistent community noise and therefore are likely to have the closest correlation to noise levels shown in noise contours. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 32 FIGURE 7.1 Measured DNL Values -1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 70 65 Q 60 55 0 50 45 40 DNL Levels at Noise Monitor Sites 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2011 Site 31 Site 32 Site 33 Site 34 Site 35 Site 36 13'95 Woo 13'05 Elio ■111 Note: 2010 includes seven months of data at Site 34. CHAPTER 8 NOISE ABATEMENT POLICIES Site Locations (See Appendix C for map) Site 31— Runwayl l Site 32 — Runway 29 Site 33 — Lincoln Site 34 — Bedford Site 35 — Lexington Site 36 — Concord Massport operates Hanscom as a safe and secure, well- equipped, modern airport that serves the diverse needs of its users and accomplishes its role in the regional transportation system, while being sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding communities. Massport encourages meaningful public participation and expends considerable resources in an attempt to strengthen its relationship with its neighbors. Towards this effort, Massport strives to disseminate accurate information on a timely basis, mitigates environmental impacts whenever and wherever possible, and prepares in -depth environmental studies and/or analyses during its planning and project review processes. In 2009, Massport began a new initiative to reduce noise over the Minute Man National Historical Park. Most touch and go operations circle to the south of the airport, potentially taking the aircraft over areas of the Battle Road Trail that are used by the Park for outdoor programs and interpretive talks. In a partnership with the Park, the FAA, the flight schools and Hanscom pilots, it was determined that small aircraft could increase the use of a tight touch and go pattern that keeps the aircraft over the airfield rather than over sensitive park areas. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 33 This touch and go initiative is the latest of many efforts to minimize aircraft noise that began over 30 years ago. In 1978, the Massport Board adopted the Hanscom Field Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (The Master Plan). This official policy statement regarding the future development and management of Hanscom Field was developed by Massport staff in conjunction with the Governor's Hanscom Field Task Force. The Task Force, which represented neighboring towns, airport users, state legislators, public interest groups and other stakeholders, was established to ensure that all concerns were considered in a plan that would guide Massport's operation and maintenance of the airport. The plan's 12 policy statements fall under four broad categories, as follows: Growth: 1. The character of the airport 2. Airport activity and runway facilities 3. Certified passenger air carrier operations 4. Passenger commuter operations 5. Cargo operations 6. Airport improvements 7. Aircraft noise Land use: 1. Aviation related land use 2. Other Massport properties Ground access: 1. Ground access Planning process: 1. Hanscom Field Advisory Committee 2. Airport System Planning One outgrowth of The Master Plan was the formation of the HFAC. Another was the Massport Board's adoption of the 1980 General Rules and Regulations for Lawrence G. Hanscom Field, which was designed to address noise issues. The rules for Hanscom included phasing out the use of most Stage 1 aircraft, limiting touch - and -go operations to aircraft under 12,500 pounds, limiting touch -and -go activity to the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., limiting commercial air carrier passenger service to aircraft with no more than 60 seats, and establishing the nighttime field use fee. It also provided parameters for the use of Ground Power Units and updated the definition of commuter aircraft that had been referenced in The Master Plan. The Master Plan and the 1980 Rules (available in Massport offices) continue to guide Massport for Hanscom related decisions. Massport continues its diligent enforcement of the rules, while actively sharing data, plans, and policies with the aviation and residential communities. Massport staff members participate at all HFAC meetings and attend Hanscom Area Towns MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 34 Committee (HATS) meetings, as well as other forums where their presence is requested or seems warranted. Massport has also completed a series of environmental studies, which inform staff in planning Hanscom's future and provide the communities with extensive data related to the airport,. as follows: a Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) based on 1985 activity levels, a GEIR Update based on 1995 activity levels, an Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) based on 2000 activity levels, and an ESPR based on 2005 activity levels. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs found all of these documents to adequately comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Massport is currently gathering data for the next ESPR, which will be based on 2012 data. The GEIR/ESPR documents include a comprehensive analysis of base year noise levels and look at potential future noise levels assuming a series of future scenarios. These reports are available for review in the Massport offices and in the libraries of the four contiguous towns. From 1998 through 2000, Massport staff worked closely with the Noise Working Group, an outgrowth of the then current GEIR Update. The group, which included aviation and residential community members, formed two subgroups, one to develop noise abatement/mitigation recommendations and the other to review and recommend metrics to be used to describe the Hanscom Field noise environment. The recommendations were submitted to Massport in late 2000. In 2001, Massport began taking steps to implement most of the recommendations that were directed to Massport.l Table 6.4 in this report is an example of a metric requested by the Noise Working Group. Implementation of the upgraded noise monitoring system and the ESPRs respond to some of the other Noise Working Group requests. While Massport began actively encouraging quiet flying techniques in the 1980s, the Noise Working Group's initiatives resulted in a more robust noise abatement awareness program. In 2001, Massport distributed "Fly Friendly" videos to all Hanscom pilots, flight schools, and Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)2. Massport is now asking all pilots who receive a Hanscom ID badge to watch a video about quiet flying techniques. The quiet flying techniques are also described on Massport's website, on posters that are prominently displayed by the flight schools and the FBOs, and on handouts that are available for pilots to include with their airport flight materials. Airfield signage also promotes quiet flying. On another front, Massport was an active participant in Sound Initiative, an organization spearheaded by general aviation airports that supported federal legislation to phase out Stage 2 aircraft operations in the United States. In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and 1 Some of the recommendations were directed to Hanscom Air Force Base, the Noise Working Group, or the FAA. 2 A full- service FBO is a company that handles a range of needs for based and transient aircraft, their operators and their passengers. These include cleaning, maintaining, fueling, and parking/hangaring aircraft, providing flight planning services for the pilots, and arranging for the specific needs of those flying. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY Page 35 Reform Act, which included the phase out of all non -stage 3 aircraft by December 31, 2015. Section 506 of the Act prohibits the operation, within the 48 contiguous states, of jets weighing 75,000 pounds or less that do not comply with Stage 3 noise levels. Massport's operation of Hanscom Field assists Massport in meeting its responsibilities to the regional transportation system, to the business community and to the economic viability of the region. At the same time, Massport recognizes the issues that are raised by the surrounding communities and strives to work through HFAC to find mutually acceptable mechanisms to minimize and /or mitigate those issues. MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY APPENDIX A (l) Noise Terminology Used at Hanscom Field DNL Noise Contour Maps Time Above Contour Maps Excerpts from: 2000 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report and Draft 2005 L. G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report Noise Terminology Noise, often defined as unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental issues associated with aircraft operations. Aircraft are not the only sources of noise in an urban or suburban environment where interstate and local roadway traffic, rail, industrial, and neighborhood sources also intrude on the everyday quality of life. Nevertheless, aircraft are readily identified by their noise and are typically singled out for — special attention and criticism. Consequently, aircraft noise problems often dominate analyses of environ- mental impacts. To help understand and interpret these impacts, it is important to be familiar with the various metrics that are used to describe the noise from an aircraft and from the collection of noise events that comprise an airport noise environment. This introductory section describes those commonly used noise metrics, in increasing complexity. They include the: • Decibel (dB) • A- weighted decibel, or sound level (dBA) 7 -3 • Sound Exposure Level (SEL) • Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) • Day -Night Sound Level (DNL) • Time Above (TA) The Decibel, dB Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as pleasant (music, for example) or unpleasant (aircraft noise, for example) depends largely on the listener's current activity, experience, and attitude toward the source of that sound. It is often true that one person's music is another person's noise. The loudest sounds the human ear can comfortably hear have one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) times the acoustic energy of sounds the ear can barely detect. Because of this vast range, any attempt to represent the intensity of sound using a linear scale becomes unwieldy. As a result, a logarithmic unit called the decibel (dB) is used to represent the intensity of sound. This representation is called a sound pressure level. A sound pressure level of less than 10 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet conditions. Normal conversational speech has a sound pressure level of approximately 60 to 65 dB. Sound pressure levels above 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels. A- weighted Sound Level, dBA Additionally, not all sound pressures are heard equally well by the human ear. Some tones are easier to detect than others and are perceived as being louder or noisier. Thus, in measuring community noise, frequency dependence is taken into account by adjusting the very high and very low frequencies to approxi- mate the human ear's reduced sensitivity to those frequencies. This adjustment is called "A- weighting" and is commonly used in measurements of environmental noise. Figure 7 -1 shows A- weighted sound levels for some common sounds. In this document, all sound pressure levels are A- weighted and, as is customary, are referred to simply as "sound levels," where the adjective "A- Figure 7 -1 Common A- weighted Sound Levels Common Outdoor Noise Level Common indoor Sound Leveles dB(A) Sound Levels it ylol Rock Band Commercial Jet Flyover at 1000 Feet 100 Gas Lawn glover at 3 Feet - Inside Subway Train (New York) ..:' Diesel Truck at 50 Feet 90 Food Blender at 3 Feet 7 -4 Concrete Mixer at 50 Feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet Shouting at 3 Feet Air Compressor at 50. Feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 Feet Lawn Tiller at 50 Feet Normal Speech at 3 Feet sa Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime so- Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime an Small Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Quiet Rural Nighttime __ I Bedroom at flight 20 Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Ya - Threshold of Hearing -a- weighted" has been omitted. Sound levels are designated in terms of A- weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA. With A- weighting, a noise source having a higher sound level than another is generally perceived as louder. Also, the minimum change in sound level that people can detect outside of a laboratory environment is on the order of 3 dB. A change in sound level of 10 dB is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sound's loudness, and this relationship holds true for loud sounds as well as for quieter sounds. Sound Exposure Level, SEL A further complexity in judging the impact of a sound is how long it lasts. Long duration noises are more annoying than short ones. The period over which a noise is heard is accounted for in noise measurements and analyses by integrating sound pressures over time. In the case of an individual aircraft flyover, this can be thought of as accounting for the increasing noise of the airplane as it approaches, reaches a maximum, and then falls away to blend into the background (see Figure 7 -2). The total noise dose, or exposure, result- ing from the time- varying sound is normalized to a one - second duration so that exposures of different durations can be compared on an equal basis. This time - integrated level is known as the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), measured in A- weighted decibels. Figure 7 -2 Illustration of Sound Exposure Level 90 80 70 W. sa 50 40 SEL Noise Dose q� 1 Second 1 Minute i 7 -5 Because aircraft noise events last longer than one second, the tune- integrated SEL always has a value greater in magnitude than the maximum sound level of the event — usually about 7 to 10 dB higher for most airport environments. SELs are used in this study as a means of comparing the noise of several significant aircraft types; they are also highly correlated with sleep disturbance, an impact that is discussed in Appendix G. The remaining noise metrics discussed in this section refer to the accumulation of exposure caused by multiple noise events over time. While such metrics are often viewed as downplaying the importance of individual aircraft operations, they are extremely good indicators of community annoyance with complex noise environments, and they have become widely accepted as the most appropriate means of evaluating land use planning decisions. Equivalent Sound Level, Leq The most basic measure of cumulative exposure is the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). It is a measure of exposure resulting from the accumulation of A- weighted sound levels over a particular period (as opposed to an event) of interest such as an hour, an eight -hour school day, nighttime, a single 24 -hour period, or an average 24 -hour period. Because the length of the period can differ, the applicable period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing the metric. Such durations are often identified through a subscript, for example Leq(8) or Leq(24). Conceptually, the Leq may be thought of as the constant sound level occurring over the designated period of interest and having as much sound energy as that created by the actual rising and falling sound pressures from multiple noise sources as they become more or less pronounced. This is illustrated in Figure 7 -3 for the same representative one - minute of exposure shown earlier in Figure 7 -2. Both the dark and light gray shaded areas have a one - minute Leq value of 76 dBA. It is important to recognize, however, that the two representa- tions of exposure (the constant one and the time - varying one) would sound very different from each other were they to occur in real life. Figure 7 -3 Illustration of Equivalent Sound Level i so 7 -6 80 70 m y ao 60 50 40 = 76 j Second 1 Minute Often the Leq is referred to misleadingly as an "average" sound level. This is not true in the traditional sense of the term average. Because decibels are logarithmic quantities, loud events dominate the calculation of the Leq. For example, if an aircraft produced a constant sound level of 85 dBA for 30 seconds of a minute then immediately disappear, leaving only ambient noise sources to produce a level of 45 dBA for the remaining 30 seconds, the Leq for the full minute would be 82 dBA—just 3 dBA below the maximum caused by the aircraft, not the 65 dBA suggested by normal averaging. More typical timeframes of interest are daytime, nighttime, and annual average 24 -hour exposure levels, but all of these same principles of combining sound levels apply to those periods as well. Loud noise events occurring during any timeframe are going to have the greatest influence on the overall exposure for the period. The Day -Night Sound Level, DNL The most widely used cumulative noise metric is a variant of the 24 -hour Leq known as the Day -Night Sound Level, or DNL, a measure of noise exposure that is highly correlated with community annoyance. The long -term (yearly) average DNL is also associated with a variety of land use guidelines that suggest mom where incompatibilities are expected to exist between the noise environment and various human activities. Because of these strengths, the metric is required to be used on airport noise studies funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In simple terms, DNL is the equivalent sound level for a 24 -hour period, modified so that noises occurring at night (defined specifically as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) are artificially increased by 10 dB. This "penalty" reflects the added intrusiveness of nighttime noise events as community activity subsides and ambient noise t levels get quieter. The penalty is mathematically equivalent to multiplying the number of nighttime noise events by a factor of ten. �i The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified DNL as the most appropriate means of evaluat- ing airport noise based on the following considerations': k • The measure should be applicable to the evaluation of pervasive long -term noise in various defined areas and under various conditions over long periods of time._ 7 -7 • The measure should correlate well with known effects of the noise environment and on individuals and the public. • The measure should be simple, practical and accurate. In principal, it should be useful for planning as well as for enforcement or monitoring purposes. • The required measurement equipment, with standard characteristics, should be commercially available. • The measure should be closely related to existing methods currently in use. • The single measure of noise at a given location should be predictable, within an acceptable toler- ance, from knowledge of the physical events producing the noise. • The measure should lend itself to small, simple monitors, which can be left unattended in public areas for long periods of time. Despite these origins, the lay public often criticizes the use of DNL as not accurately representing communi- ty annoyance and land use compatibility with aircraft noise. Much of that criticism stems from a lack of understanding of the measurement or calculation of DNL. One frequent criticism is based on the feeling that people react more to single noise events than to "meaningless" time - average sound levels. In fact, DNL takes into account both the noise levels of all individual events occurring during a 24 -hour period and the number of times those events occur. The logarithmic nature of the decibel causes noise levels of the loudest events to control the 24 -hour average, just as they were shown to do in the previous discussion of shorter -term Leqs. Most federal agencies dealing with noise have formally adopted DNL, though they also encourage the use of supplemental noise metrics to aid the public in understanding the complex noise environment of an airport. For example, Massport frequently uses the Sound Exposure Level, maximum sound level, or times above threshold sound levels to help describe the environments around Hanscom Field and Logan International Airport. Even so, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise ( FICON), comprised of member agencies such as the FAA, Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Department of Veterans Affairs, reaffirmed the appropriateness of DNL in 1992. The FICON sum- mary report stated, "There are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for the present DNL. cumulative noise exposure metric ".' The Federal interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) recently supported the use of supplemental metrics in its statement that "supplemental metrics pro- vide valuable information that is not easily captured by DNL DN'L can be measured or estimated. Measurements are practical only for obtainin- DNL values for a rela- tively limited number of points, and, except in the case of a permanently installed noise monitoring system, only for relatively short time periods. Most airport noise studies are based on computer - generated Dl\Ti esti- mates, depicted in terms of equal- exposure noise contours, much as topographic maps have contours of equal elevation. L Time Above a Threshold, TA Because. analyses of decibels are complex and often unfamiliar to the public, the FAA has developed a sup - plemental noise metric that is non -logarithmic: the amount of time (in minutes or seconds) that the noise source of interest exceeds a given A- weighted sound level threshold. Every time a noise event goes above 7 -8 a given. threshold, the number of seconds is accumulated and added to any previous periods that the noise exceeded the threshold. These time- above - thresholds, or Time Above (TA), are usually reported for a ?4- hour period_ Note that TA does not tell the loudness of the various noise events. Just as a single value of the A- weighted sound level ignores the dimension of time; so the TA ignores the dimension of loudness. Nevertheless, TA call. be helpful in better understanding a noise environment. ti �rl _ � `.__ L a J rte_ -J .-' .�� � .' sl a u W � `F - = S � - '1� \�•Y _ - -ei o a G a u c u^a - r - U t.Q a, W 4'\, �u a co N 7= Z Lr tz .��`h,� . - K 4- ��r ;J rty - R Y , , l am• e . a �"r i ".` x l�- y! c :'y. uE : r _ l - : � � ^� :- �r . - 4 � + � ti� '�.- � r �l . 'l .. "�. ,+- - -• : � • t � � 1 �r '". �-� rti ��--��s t t t r� •:. � . , � .\ �- - �^ .. . �; tar � i � ' �[ ''�nF - r- � \ y m; I � � i a , SF�• �x ~s�i\ . � �);t y✓ y - „ . • ° 4 � -- ° - -f J te r1 te� n-- e�r 4 . i a ( {f ( r fa �f k,ki >:f - � - 1 - �F ' \ t � P � � -v r ' � f\ 1�' " r �( t !. ` � ,~^JI f f f ` l . 7 �l uf t � �f � �� 'a`j 'r � � - _ � _ iG t - 1 � '.3L 1 . . 4 -_ v [ l g - t ° X-UtiL < ' x .v ��+� � i 4 . E 4 • i ti � r ( . - 0 f -v � Es � a - �c-t krx �_ F '`�s . ti ,'��Y ; � -J�'c.� am - * C, `7 � f +�1 L i� � v ` -t ; 7 Vi4. � �'T - . • ' � • .,_ c _� . € ° c P - -z-� - -x- � � s -� `'e �� e. a� u .-F i te :r � '_ -- ` + e '� I ! - - / I • rtei ' 2 ti- G v � _E ✓ /- � _�r � � t j Ul IP - { --\ _ - - _ .. . j �� Kam' ' � � Y _ '� � f ! _ _ 1 ♦ --"",^ '` �� /• \ ly'�- -r s �-•` �� °:�� a �. 6 ',, f i r r 7 t =r - r �� 4��� ~ �J � - .�- ''"` _r ,� _ ,� :.,.. sk. J"� \ 111 � ,= l G `= `^__._._ -• -' [ :�x I ���� r �y � #' -..a -_ c '.,, _ � � fit} 1" 5 � 1 � t f \a �:.- -- s ..•• i l �r.� Alp 0 c Alto" V `• - pia`' � _ r � � r� - f-- + -� � � I a . `""` r "� .. �.. _ a� - � •k� ;"�.Y J ;. �+ � , ' k � �' J t �^ Nab \ 'y 1 00— Alp V. t � ; c r-- N LL 1 8 U _I CD Z tS7 O R _-t- c t.. =.s Ili 317 �i' m E i u ao� µN'5 s ''> _ t� On i ilk [ ( its ATN+ CZ SIR V ILL 0.• N� C e- WKS =.s Ili 317 �i' m E i u ao� µN'5 1 ` = 11 S � -Fh-y� n^ i � w' 1 - r: -r �aJ W ,_,__�'F t EI .r- •� O p I �,.. 7 ` F\ 1 .✓^' -mil h h- - �--� -• -�y "� N %. \Y _ ' Car„ � ¢'� 1 ` _ '•� ��4 � t ��.f( ^1 � w .__ = - -� � 7� ✓� I .� � �{ '' 1 1 � I 0 L LL co CD Ln v _ x cnl CD CD uJ m t° fn f — - CEO IF ` l 3 O J O Z - O CD CD ^ =3 `Yll N CD N W Syr ca CD CD CD CD 0 0 co Cc LO LO 7 In LO m c c E TO Co -tE CL 0 0 0 ° O U U ¢ N X-'_:--', �o c0 3 °o o Nm Flo mom II p to v 1 N C-D 01- R vim. �. q : ` � a , !y •�< r-" -°�, 4Z' iz It 'z s: rli a gat _ a , � y I. .r s U _ m L Q-4 y✓ m �J Fm E5 E r2 Jr MIT IX AMM rj ft `=e ' r mn c+ <d E tt ei� 'r' -Y oz) o --i LL_ IL O j .4w s rtk t x— r i .s r 7 O 1 t 7 t ? m CID iR of t k Q u) N tt rW�-: -tea f -•- _pr rh'�-`sl� � `y." ter- _. ti _ • � � _�.� � wq~� CD CD Qom_ Y� N ° O 1 f t6 p O CD N C N C {�% i me I—t i IV - :. !' •• 1 V C° cD .� E IF L ��t T ar '. ZY I ._..." % r In mv r`n.. 1 I L 0ll cc ca �, ✓ I � U G = r f }y V 11 z o Ln- ca _ d J C3 1 i1 e. v =c CD v co c Lo 72 o p• 0 O E m U U Q N m o �r 4,�� IBM R M LL LO Lo �. - -- •sz. ',.. � .. _ , °_= a'G`�.4`.�s.'&� __�rolb }�.�. -_. ti. N,: ' y ,•.t Yr � J.. '� Y V E _ _ _ Y 6 ` - � +.,, � It,..l � L , ♦ .`; J -s� v N J � -.P Ss -- N j f, 1 _ r �3 N yr! -.• �C .! 1 { "�.�.� :H V S� -. - r it � .■' - ♦ 1 v r`r-I '_ 'i..r.' .'S& of -<; � �'� S� � ♦t � � ^ I �� _ - 1 I I � Y 8 r S .l Fes.. _ - o- o ■ r 41ir r t nv ■ _ s 5 if r o u) bn N CD 75 7 y � v ■ I 1 z .......... 1 v W cu cc '0Q";� O O N — N C E N 0 co ca U- jL o cn cL N o cc t— u -a ®.. _ 1 „t iL d p - °- c o o a p 'rn y 3 c c d G -a 1- :'S. .`� •� 1 �� -� i 14 .�- V i ��. A�♦ S � U � V 1- N N O APPENDIX B 2011 Average Daily Operations and Noise Exposure by Aircraft Type APPENDIX B 2011 Average Daily Operations and Noise Exposure by Aircraft Type AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURES, ARRIVALS, AND EXP 6.1 FOR 2011 Reference Dep. SEL: 15,000 R Tram Aircraft Representative Brake Release Group Types (in dB) DEPARTURES Day Night Total lopm -7am Partial EXP 6.1 Reference Am. SEL: 8,000 R from Landing Threshold (in dB) Day ARRIVALS Night Total 10pm -7am Partial EXP - 6.1 1 C500, C501 87.3 1.38 0.03 1.41 89.6 83.0 1.36 0.05 1.41 85.5 2 MU3, C550, C560 91.9 5.37 0.27 5.64 100.9 84.5 5.26 0.37 5.63 94.0 2M T47 (MILITAR)l 91.9 0.01 0.00 0.01 70.7 84.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 63.3 3 BE40, LR35, LR55, DAIO &200 91.2 8.97 0.47 9.44 102.6 85.6 8.86 0.61 9.47 97.4 H25 -700 & 800, N265 -65 0.00 3M C -21 (MILITARY) 912 0.10 0.00 0.10 813 85.6 0.10 0.00 0.10 75.7 4 DA02 95.9 0.02 0.00 0.02 82.9 96.1 0.02 0.00 0.02 79.4 4M HU25 95.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.3 96.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.5 5 LR23, 24, 25, N26540 & 60, H25 -40C 105.2 0.08 0.01 0.09 97.2 97.5 0.08 0.01 0.09 89.9 5M T- 37, 38, & 39 (MILITARY) 105.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.1 97.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 71A 6 BACA 11 97.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 97.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 7 G3 972 0.15 0.00 0.15 90.8 90.6 0:16 0.00 0.16 83.7 7M C20 97.2 0.02 0.001 0.02 79.1 90.6 0.02 0.00 0.02 72.5 8 G4 82.1 3.28 0.26 3.54 89.8 86.1 3.11 0.43 3.54 94.8 8M C20B, G4 (MILITARY) 82.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 86.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 9 CL60, DA2000, GALX 86.7 4.33 0.29 4.62 95.3 85.0 4.25 0.38 4.63 94.0 10 CL61 & 64, CARJ 84.7 3.49 0.17 3.66 91.8 86.0 3.41 0.25 3.66 93.7 11 UNKNOWN/MISC JETS (G.A.) 96.7 0.11 0.02 r 0.13 92.1 99.1 0.11 0.03 0.14 95.7 1IM UNKNOWN/MISC JETS (MIL) 100.4 0.01 0.00 0.01 77.9 89.0 0.01 0.00 r 0.01 67.4 12 C140 (MILITARY) Obsolete 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 13 C141 (MILITARY) 104.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 108.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 14 DC -9 94.4 0.02 0.02 0.04 87.0 91.1 0.02 0.06 0.08 88.8 14M C9, T -43 (MILITARY) 99.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 78.2 92.2 0.01 0.00 0.01 70.9 15 8707 Obsolete 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 15M C -5A, KC -135, C137 (ML) 103.6 0.06 0.00 0.06 93.1 99.8 0.06 0.00 0.06 90.3 16 Aaft moved to att. Groups 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 17 HELICOPTERS (GA.) 83.4 9.52 0.32 9.84 94.5 87.9 9.49 0.42 9.91 99.3 17M HELICOPTERS (MILITARY) 80.8 0.04 0.00 0.04 66.5 89.4 0.04 O.DO 0.04 75.1 18 G159, CV60 - HVYTURBOS 89 -9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 94.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 IBM C130- HVYTURBOS(MILITARY) 93 -1 0.10 0.00 0.10 83.0 93.5 0.10 0.00 0.10 83.4 19 BE20,30- TURBOS 81.9 5.10 0.06 5.16 89.5 91.1 5.07 0.10 5.17 98.9 19M C12, T44, C26 -TURBOS (MIL) 81.9 0.20 0.00 020 75.4 91.1 0.20 0.00 0.20 84.6 20 TWIN PISTON -BE56, C310 (GA.) 82.6 4.75 0.14 4.89 90.5 83.7 4.81 0.08 4.89 91.2 20M T1MN PISTON - C45,T42 (MIL) 82.6 0.00 0.00 ODD 0.0 83.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 21 SINGLES -INC. LOCALS (GA.) 78.5 162.19 0.25 162.44 100.7 79.4 162.06 0.39 162.45 101.6 21M SINGLES (MILITARY) 782 0.06 0.00 0.06 66.3 79.4 0.06 0 -00 0.06 67.5 22 WW24,VWV25 90.9 1.62 0.07 1.69 94.7 82.5 1.59 0.10 1.69 86.7 23 FK2B -Moved to Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 24 A-4,6, F- 14,15,16,18 (ML) 117.0 0.07 0.00 0.07 105.7 93.2 0.07 0.00 0.07 81.9 25 C650 88.8 0.22 0.00 022 83.1 82.5 0.21 0.00 021 77.4 26 DA50, DA90 93.0 2.28 0.13 2.41 98.5 87.4 2.26 0.15 2.41 93.2 27 CV58- TURBO 81.9. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 28 DC3,CV24- HVYTWWPISTONS 94.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 95.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 28M DC3- HVY TWIN PISTONS (MIL) 94.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 95.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 29 AC6T, BE90, PA31T- TURBOS 75.3 0.49 0.02 0.51 73.7 81.9 0.50 0.01 0.51 79.9 30 SF34 -TURBO 77.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.6 84.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 692 31 B727 (STAGE 2) Obsolete 0.00 0.00 0.00 OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 32 B727 (STAGE 3) 103.8 0.00 0.01 0.01 94.12 94.7 0.01 0.01 0.02 80.84 33 BEST, ND26 - TURBOS 83.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 85.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 34 8737 95.6 0.02 0.01 0.03 84.1 91.8 0.02 0.01 0.03 82.7 35 DH8 70.3 0.04 0.00 0.04 60.2 81.1 0.04 0.01 0.05 72.0 36 A320, A319 89.5 0.02 0.00 0.02 75.7 91.1 0.02 0 -00 0.02 77.3 37 GLEX, G5 862 2.26 0.18 2.44 92.3 86.5 2.20 0.24 2.44 932 37M C37, G5 86-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.1 86.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.4 38 SBR1 -80 95.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.8 96.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.9 39 G2 99.6 0.19 0.00 0.19 92.9 92.3 0.17 0.01 0.18 87.1 40 C750 82.0 2.03 0.11 2.14 86.8 89.1 1.98 0.15 2.13 94.6 41 8738 91.1 0.18 0.05 023 89.1 92.4 0.17 0.08 0.25 92A 42 8757 87.0 0.03 0.00 0.03 71.4 91.0 0.03 0.00 0.03 78.2, 43 EA50, C510 83.0 1.48 0.07 1.55 86.3 87.4 1.43 0.13 1.56 91.7 TOTALS CIVILIAN W/O SINGLES 57.44 2.72 60.16 108A 56.67 3.70 60.37 106.9 CIVILIAN W /SINGLES 219.63 2.97 222.60 109.1 218.74 4.09 222.83 1082 MILITARY 0.68 0.00 0.68 106.0 0.68 0.01 0.69 92.7 TOTAL W/O SINGLES 58.05 2.72 60.77 110.4 57.29 3.71 61.00 107.3 TOTAL W /SINGLES 220.31 2.97 22328 110.8 219.42 4.10 223.52 108.3 APPENDIX C 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 & 2011 Measured DNL (dBA) at Hanscom Noise Monitoring Sites LO N Ihr -7 Lq V' O m 1•hN m m M rr mN M m N m 1• m m N (O -�t m m m N G m v m o m N m m m mmm N m m m m m m N 'm m m m m m Omf N N m m V' T Cl! It m m 1, r m M. N 1-, m N m N Cl) m a) O - m� V m O N m M N 7 m O m N .mmmm m m N m m m m m m O 1- m m m m m � O aoi cl O m lh m m m m m m m a) r M •7 m 0 7 N c•) I- m m r O m m m 'V' m � N 10 m N m N m N o (D ED m m o m m m m m m o r m m m m m Z Z >o Z I j ti V m O O M a1 O 11 a) r m I r m N m 0 m to •7 m M r N _ r- m v M N �O O V m O M m m m m m m U m m m m m m O f` m m m m m U U U O O m m M V' O m Ci p m N ti m t` m O d: a) m m m m IT m Cl) m N - m M m m O N r- r r O W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m (A (!J (n M w amj 1- V N Ih m p a) m O N N aD p N Cl! Cl! M V O M M M M N m [t to O m r Ih N O N m N -O m m m m m m 3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m W Q Q Q U W a m ti r m M n p m m m V m N m0 r a) m M m r 'rC- m V h m r - mNmmm N - m rmm 1-m -O m m m m m m 3 m m m m m m 7 m m m m m m 0 7 W m M a) m M m r °O m O m M V M p Q) 7 0 m r m a� m m m m V V m ((i M Ih 0 a) (`7 v m M M M r 'p r t• m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C W R 75 n m N m� m M N p0 m m N m r r N O) aI r m N N W 7 N m m m N U- m m m m O M mqr m N r- N mmmmmm of ca mmmmmm m m m m m m 0 = ca Z 0 O LO a M N (O r is r p O co q. m M ; R v N N O O O T C t-- N CO m N N «O m M m O O M O m m m O W 4 a7 D O `d CO m m m m m 'C m o_ m m m m m m CO CO m CO m CO 3 Q o m Q O a m E Q O C N A2 0 amj (q a) r O m L t- O M m -: r,-: m m m M T N m m m N Q C m m m O N ' r m •7 m m O M O R? 7 m m N 0 m m m m m p m R m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 i (0 r r O a V N U C L W m 01 M '7 O R 00 a) a7 d) h M M p N C ti "r I` m r .L4') . m N V' m O M M O M a1 t: r W �' O m m m m m 0 mmmmmm 0 m m m m m m g r. LL C LL ID IL W .O - 00 c a E m ro mMm ; °° mm10wI-m o I�mmmh.l� Wa m m h m N 3 O rl: N 4 m a) M m M M a) m c m m m m m a m mmmmmm m mmmmmm y a w ca O m ° --a -� 00 O 'o U m m C (/l O C W - m C ' p N M W U W W ` a ❑ C J y(c' « J a U �o ' d a 'W d ' d y 3 R U U`° O O C U - a ❑ O � N N 6 ` U a N QOm o i ' m -N O ° Q C O C a m` U c W -0 0 c (D a 0 c O c O N of 7aj O Q C CO 7O N C - U N Y O N m O `6 m a m o Q N O Q O o 0 0 0 W > J L ' O W m O W O O J 0 J N J d 6 E o ca o o O c m o U 0 ° c a) Q N 0-0 5R C: 0 a -0 0 0 c 0 s N C O 0 0 u E 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 U m J m J U n 0` U m J m J U U m J 03 J U __ Q M '� C (p ❑ L O M M M M M M ❑ Lp M N M M M R M m N M m U 0 M M M M M M ( 2 m M + O a] m r 1- N m MP,� N r m O p m M m m O r p m M m O m N m m m m m to N m m mmm m O r ti O h m N lh r--: m N U m m m 0 U M N m m m N W mmmm m m m m m m m m O r aI r• h M m m Y �-- 7 O m m m > m M m r o o N > V N m 0 N Zm m m m m m Z m m m m m m 0 O r C M OD h ti M M R r M 0 m-'r 7 0 j� V' m o o m m m m m m o m m m m m m O C O O m r m m N r m m M m M N m v m m m M (r0 m m m m m W W mmmmm m O m (O a1 V L r O r N m ti m F- rnl-mmmmm • N t!1 m 6 « 01 m m m O O N mmmmmm w U Q Q a .ca O r m r r O) Mr- a W _ O m� V: N M [t r f` O a1 W r m m m m r mmmmm(om•E ' I�mmmmm O) C � r _ m W Q n M rm N 7 m? m m M C ON C m m m m m m C N 3 m c'im o m m m m m m m p � J N O r m N V: W m M O r -`- O m m CO N m m (a L C (OO co N L •Q u (m m p o ( (° O o (O m N Q a C R p_mmm m N m C m (h C C Q mm 4 C6 m r O r m mmmmm Q OC R - T W O r 3 O I� ER M W m m W OI - m m 0) m m 0 - m C > m L m m� C m m O m 0 N Co O N N R r r 0 X M ° h Mv- r r 0 L N N m C m to m (j 4 4 m m m d)mmm mm'aUtiQ LLmmmmmm a N QQ 0 l y m >' o U o m a m�co V O m (U O N w C C a o U =co mW��� Wwwm�m� m M m m M h 7 n O L d O C O _ a O C co >, a O C C d �GW E 0 Y _ 2 C n C C O N p N O N � c L - Y C ( CL m a oQ n m oQ U O N U O (p J c C o Oc -` • ("� M ❑ (q J m J ❑ m d C 6 i v rn v - O v m o c a `J -2 '2 c O o 0 ' R o° C-0 U=aX o o CrGgU Ca 0.0 c 0 N C W 0 0 0 R c 0 0 0 U m J m J U. i U m J m J U w❑I(n nnn nn ac co (N+�(Mi (�+� rmi rmi