View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Chairman: Mr J. Bowden
Clarkson Wright & Jakes Valiant House, 12 Knoll Rise Orpington, Kent, BR6 0PG
e-mail: john.bowden@cwj.co.uk
ANNUAL REPORT 2017
1. Summary
1.01 Under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (as amended), the Biggin Hill Airport Consultative Committee is constituted from representatives of users of the Airport, local authorities and residents’ associations. 1.02 The aims of the Committee are:-
(a) to consult with and inform the local community of developments and plans for the Airport;
(b) to allow the efficient functioning and economic development of the Airport, its airport business community, its resident workforce, while moderating its impact upon local communities and the environment;
(c) to ensure that the Airport plays an active role in supporting the economic activities and objectives of the local and regional communities (business and residential).
1.03 The Committee meets four times a year in January (when the Annual General Meeting is also held), April, July and October. 1.04 All meetings were held at the Airport and, as usual, were well attended. 2. Membership
2.01 There were a number of changes that took place during the year namely that:
o Rob Shirley who had represented commercial users resigned because he was no longer working at the Airport. He has not yet been replaced;
o Vic Endacott due to business commitments was unable to attend all of the Committee’s meetings and the Reverend John Musson now represents Bromley Residents Federation and Cudham Residents Association. Vic Endacott now deputises when necessary and able;
o Councillor Richard Parry, the Chairman of the Noise and Safety Sub-Committee stood down as a member of Kent County Council. He does an excellent job as Chairman of the Sub-Committee and I was pleased when the Committee agreed that he would be appointed as an ex-officio member of the Committee in order that he could continue to serve in that role. A
2
replacement representative of Kent County Council is in the process of being appointed to the Committee;
o Councillor Mark Watson was appointed to represent Croydon Council in place of Councillor Toni Letts who was unable to continue as a member of the Committee because she is now the Mayor of Croydon Borough;
o Councillor Martin Allen had been appointed as the representative of Tandridge District Council with Councillor Keith Jecks, the previous representative, as his substitute;
o Councillor Cameron McIntosh was appointed to represent Surrey County Council in place of Councillor David Hodge. Councillor Hodge stood down as he has been unable to attend many meetings since he became the Leader of Surrey County Council.
2.02 As suggested above, substitute members are permitted and a number attended in place of appointed members who were unable to attend meetings during the year.
3. Complaints and movements 3.01 I have already mentioned the Noise and Safety Sub-Committee in this report. It meets prior to meetings of the Committee and Richard Parry provides very full and clear reports of the results of its discussions of complaints at our meetings. 3.02 Of the complaints that are received regarding Biggin Hill movements, there were 194 that related to Biggin Hill movements during the year from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017. This is over twice as many as in the previous year and which I referred to in the last Annual Report. There were only 23 in the first half of the year and the increase appears to have a lot to do with the ease with which members of the public are now able to raise issues about aircraft movements using the new Noise Monitoring and Track Keeping System which became operational in April 2017. There is a local pressure group, Flightpath Watch, that is opposed to any expansion of the Airport and which encourages its members to use the system. Currently, all complaints are being investigated and responded to. 3.03 The new system allows the Sub-Committee to have accurate information about whether pilots contravene the Airport’s regulations and, of these 194 complaints, 44 of the movements involved contraventions. 3.04 In the year up to the end of September 2017 there were a total of 50,430 aircraft movements at the Airport. Therefore, the number of genuine complaints continues to be extremely low relative to the number of movements. 3.05 The Committee is provided with a map at each meeting showing from where complaints emanate to enable members to identify whether there are any consistent patterns of which it should be aware. It also enables members to ask for information about any complaints in areas that they represent or in which they live. 3.06 At the July meeting we received a paper setting out the Airport’s policy on processing noise complaints which is now posted on the Airport’s website. Increasingly, sanctions are being used against pilots who do not comply with the Airport’s regulations including being banned from using the Airport.
3
3.07 Starting from the July meeting we have been receiving reports by Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP which provides noise contours for the operations at the Airport following the changes to the operating hours. 3.08 Richard Parry consistently reports that the complaints have been handled fairly and well by the Airport Managing Director. 4. 19 January 2017 meeting 4.01 The first meeting of the calendar year is always preceded by the Annual General Meeting at which the Annual Report is received. The most notable issues dealt with at the business meeting are referred to below. 4.02 Northolt Airport - I mentioned in the previous Annual Report that, at the request of the Committee, I had sent a letter to the Prime Minister and also to Liam Fox, MP and Michael Fallon MP about the unsuitability of Northolt Airport for the use of business aviation. I advised the Committee that I had not received a reply to that letter. The subject of Northolt airport came up at each meeting during 2017 and, regrettably, at the time of writing this report, I have still not received a reply. 4.03 We learnt at this meeting that RAF Northolt was preparing to spend an estimated £45m on installing arrestor beds and resurfacing the entire runway. It was suggested that these improvements were intended to obviate some of the safety shortfalls that have been highlighted. 4.04 Noise and Track Keeping System – the newly-installed system had undergone extensive testing and evaluation and a problem that had been identified was to be resolved imminently. The consultants for Bromley Council would then be checking that the limits on noise contours were being complied with. The Committee was informed that the system would be well publicised and a guide for the public on how to make use of it would be published. 4.03 Proposal for the new runway 03 Instrument Approach Procedure - members heard that the implementation of the revised runway 03 GPS approach could be delayed until late in the third quarter of 2017. At the October meeting we heard that it was probable that the revised procedure would not be introduced before March 2018 4.04 Runway 29/11 - we heard that, following a consultation with airport users, the decision had been taken to close the little-used runway 29/11. Whilst the light aircraft community was opposed to closure, business aviation had been in favour. 4.05 Proposed airport hotel - previous annual reports had referred to this proposal and the Committee was informed that finance had been obtained to fund its construction, subject to contract. It was hoped that construction would begin in late 2017. 4.06 College Update - previous Annual Reports had also referred to the proposed Aviation College and the Committee was informed that it was intended that it would have a workshop/hangar and ancillary accommodation. 5. 20 April 2017 meeting 5.01 This meeting covered many of the issues discussed at the previous meeting but included discussions on two Government consultation documents (paragraph 5.05 below).
4
5.02 RAF Northolt - we heard that expert analysis of the RAF Northolt obstacle environment had been commissioned to identify the exact areas where it does not comply with civil safety standards. The Committee noted that the only practical way to mitigate the obstacles would be to shorten the runways. 5.03 New runway 03 GPS approach - the Committee received a report setting out the proposal that had been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority for approval. 5.04 Noise and Track Keeping System - this was the item but took up the most time at this meeting and the Committee received a very interesting presentation on how to use the new system which was now fully operational. Members were pleased to learn that complaints and comments could still be made by telephone, letter, email, etc. and that any raised by such methods would be entered into the system. It is still the case that not everyone has access to or is able to use a computer. 5.05 Government Consultation – National Policy Statement and UK Airspace Strategy - we received a briefing paper on the following Government documents:
o Draft Airports National Policy Statement: New Runway Capacity and Infrastructure at Airports in the South-east of England and
o Upgrading UK Airspace - Strategic Rationale. 6. 27 July 2017 meeting
6.01 This was the longest meeting of the year when the main discussions arose from the increased activity at the Airport and environmental issues. 6.02 Variation of Airport operating hours - in earlier Annual Reports there have been references to the Airport’s application to extend its operating hours. The revised hours finally came into force on 1 May 2017 and the Committee learnt that, as anticipated, had resulted in business aviation operations on the Airport being boosted. 6.03 Tenants and businesses at Biggin Hill - I referred in the last Annual Report to Bombardier becoming a tenant at the Airport and members were advised that it was now operational with approximately 80 staff engaged. Further staff recruitment was taking place and at our October meeting the Airport Managing Director reported that the company was fully operational and had employed 100 staff and was continuing to recruit staff. 6.04 Business aviation continued to be displaced from major hub airports and the Committee heard that Airports such as Biggin Hill were being expected by Government to take the surplus business aviation activity. This would inevitably displace light aviation. One flight training company had already moved its circuit training operations elsewhere. In June it had had been decided to limit the number of training circuits that take place at the Airport on safety grounds. 6.05 Technical Training College - the Committee learnt that London South East Colleges had submitted a bid for £9m to build a dedicated campus for aerospace and technology skills at Biggin Hill London Aerospace & Technology College (LATC). Ahead of the building of the campus, which was expected to take place in 2019, London South East Colleges was launching 30 placements in Level 2 Diploma courses in Aerospace and Aviation Engineering to be run by City and Guilds and which started in September. 6.06 Environment - the new Noise Action Plan was mentioned in the 2016 Annual Report and it was noted that it was being used to improve the behaviour of pilots of
5
aircraft using the Airport and contained some of the most stringent noise controls of any UK airport. A number of initiatives were being used to control noise as activity grows. Biggin Hill Airport had more controls and was quieter than any other commercial airport in the UK. Ground noise was now controlled by measures set out in the Ground Noise Action Plan to contain aircraft ground noise within the Airport boundary. Air quality monitoring activity around the boundary of the Airport had found air quality to be good. 6.07 Noise contours - as mentioned in paragraph 3.06 above, this was the first meeting at which the Committee received a paper that advised that Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP which set out noise contours for the operations at the Airport following the changes to the operating hours. They showed that noise emanating from all movements were well within the limits set. 7. 19 October 2017 meeting 7.01 This was a less substantial meeting than the July one. The discussions included the following. 7.02 Quasi-public transport operations - we heard that new European Aviation Safety Agency regulations had permitted private pilots to advertise their services on websites such as SkyUber and Wingly and to invite members of the public to share the cost of their flight, or to propose a flight themselves. This had resulted in some private pilots establishing themselves as quasi-public transport operators, unlicensed and without the requisite expertise to conduct such operations safely. The Committee shared the Airport company’s view that this is hazardous and undesirable from a security perspective. Although no action had yet been taken by the Airport, such flights would be likely to be prohibited from using the Airport. 7.03 RAF Northolt - referring to paragraph 4.02 above, members were informed that the Airport company had received no response to its letter to the Civil Aviation Authority which had enclosed its consultant’s report setting out the safety issues at RAF Northolt. The Airport Managing Director advised, however, that he had subsequently been informed that the substantive reply would be received shortly. I look forward to hearing at the next meeting if the company has, in fact, had the reply. John Bowden
Chairman
Report to London Biggin Hill Airport Biggin Hill Kent TN16 3BN A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
LONDON BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT
ANNUAL REPORT 2017
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
2
Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP is an integrated
practice of Architects, Acousticians, and Construction
Technologists, celebrating over 50 years of continuous
practice.
Architects: Design and project management services
which cover all stages of design, from feasibility and
planning through to construction on site and
completion.
Acoustic Consultants: Expertise in planning and
noise, the control of noise and vibration and the sound
insulation and acoustic treatment of buildings.
Construction Technology Consultants: Expertise in
building cladding, technical appraisals and defect
investigation and provision of construction expert
witness services.
This report and all matters referred to herein remain confidential to the Client unless specifically authorised otherwise, when reproduction and/or publication is verbatim and without abridgement. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part or relied upon in any way by any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the express written authorisation of Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP. If any third party whatsoever comes into possession of this report and/or any underlying data or drawings then they rely on it entirely at their own risk and Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP accepts no duty or responsibility in negligence or otherwise to any such third party. Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP hereby grant permission for the use of this report by the client body and its agents in the realisation of the subject development, including submission of the report to the design team, contractor and sub‐contractors, relevant building control authority, relevant local planning authority and for publication on its website.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
3
Contents Page No.
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 The Airport ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Noise Contours .............................................................................................................................. 5
4.0 RSIS Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Noise from individual Aircraft Operations ...................................................................................... 6
6.0 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure A11103/R01/01: 2017 Summer Daytime (07:00‐23:00) Noise Contours
(57, 63, & 69 dB LAeq,16h)
Figure A11103/R01/02: 2017 Summer Late Evening (22:00‐23:00) Noise Contours
(57, 63, & 69 dB LAeq,1h)
Figure A11103/R01/03: 2017 Summer Early Morning (06:30‐07:00) Noise Contours
(57, 63, & 69 dB LAeq,30mins)
Appendix A: Glossary of Acoustic and Aviation Terminology
Appendix B: Noise Contour Methodology
Appendix C: Validation of Noise Contour Methodology
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bickerdike Allen Partners LLP (BAP) have been retained by London Biggin Hill Airport (LBHA) to
provide information in relation to noise for an annual report. This comprises:
airborne aircraft noise contours for the 92 day summer period in 2017,
dwellings eligible under the airport’s Residential Sound Insulation Scheme (RSIS),
an assessment of compliance with the early morning period maximum noise limits for
aircraft.
A glossary of acoustic and aviation terms can be found in Appendix A.
2.0 THE AIRPORT
London Biggin Hill Airport lies immediately to the north of Biggin Hill village, with much of the
remaining area immediately surrounding the airport primarily farmland. New Addington lies a
distance to the west of the airport, and Orpington a distance to the northeast.
The airport has a single operational runway which is 1.8km long and aligned southwest–
northeast. The former cross runway, which is orientated approximately east west, is now only
used by some helicopter movements.
On 1st May 2017 the airport operating hours were revised following agreement with the London
Borough of Bromley. The agreement included a number of measures that the airport are
required to undertake. For example the airport has installed a dedicated noise monitoring and
track keeping system, a Bruel and Kjaer ANOMS Noise Desk system, which is directly accessible
to the public. Noise contours reflecting the aircraft activity have also been regularly produced
for the airport and reported to the Noise and Safety Sub Committee of the Biggin Hill Airport
Consultative Committee.
The agreement also includes the introduction of an area limit for the summer period daytime
noise contour at a value of 57 dB LAeq,T . For the daytime, late evening and early morning periods
there are also 57 dB LAeq,T contour areas that the airport has to use reasonable endeavours to
keep below.
A Residential Sound Insulation Scheme (RSIS) has also been introduced which provides a grant
for sound insulation enhancement to bedroom windows of those residences at which a noise
level in excess of 90 dB SEL occurs at an annual average frequency of once or greater per early
morning period of (06h30 to 07h00).
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
5
The noise monitoring and track keeping system is also used to monitor the noise from individual
flights. Where these exceed set noise levels during the early morning period of (06h30 to 07h00)
the operators may be subject to fines, and restrictions may be introduced on operations by the
aircraft type.
The 2017 performance against these three measures is detailed in the following sections.
3.0 NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours have been produced for the 2017 summer period using the actual movements
during period, 16th June to 15th September inclusive. This is the usual period taken when
producing noise contours in the UK and usually represents a worst case as airport traffic is
generally highest during the summer.
The noise contours have been produced, as detailed in Appendix B, using the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) prediction methodology, the Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 7.0d.
The methodology has been validated using measured noise data from the Noise Monitoring
Terminals (NMTs) installed at LBHA, as detailed in Appendix C.
The daytime contours are shown in Figure A11103‐R01‐01 and compared with a contour
indicative of the area limit, and one indicative of the reasonable endeavours area limit. The late
evening and early morning contours are shown in Figures A11103‐R01‐02 and A11103‐R01‐03
respectively with contours indicative of their reasonable endeavours limits.
The contour areas, at 57 dB LAeq,T, are given in Table 1 and compared with their respective limits.
Also included are the areas of the 63 dB and 69 dB contours which are also shown on the figures.
Contour (LAeq,T)
Summer Contour Area by Period (km2)
Daytime
(07:00‐23:00)
Late Evening
(22:00‐23:00)
Early Morning
(06:30‐07:00)
2017 Summer: 57 dB 2.1 0.3 0.5
2017 Summer: 63 dB 0.7 0.1 0.2
2017 Summer: 69 dB 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
Daytime Limit: 57 dB 4.3 ‐ ‐
Reasonable Endeavours Limits: 57 dB 2.9 1.3 2.2
Table 1: Area of Noise Contours
The 57 dB daytime contour is well within the 4.3 km2 Daytime limit, and is within limit of
2.9 km2, which the airport are required to take reasonable endeavours to stay below. The late
evening and early morning 57 dB contours are well below their respective limits of 1.3 km2 and
2.2 km2, which the airport are required to make reasonable endeavours to stay below.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
6
4.0 RSIS ELIGIBILITY
The Residential Sound Insulation Scheme (RSIS) provides a grant for sound insulation
enhancement to bedroom windows of those residences at which a noise level in excess of 90 dB
SEL occurs at an annual average frequency of once or greater per early morning period of (06h30
to 07h00).
In the period 1st May to 31st December 2017, since the airport operating hours were revised,
there were 107 movements in the early morning period. This equates to an average of 0.5
movements per night, which is too few to reach the eligibility threshold of once per early
morning period on average. No properties are therefore currently eligible under the RSIS.
5.0 NOISE FROM INDIVIDUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
The noise monitoring and track keeping system includes Noise Monitoring Terminals (NMTs) to
the north (NMT1) and south (NMT2) of the airport in locations overflown. The results obtained
from the NMTs for individual aircraft operating during the early morning period (06:30‐07:00)
have been compared to the noise limits set out in Table 2 below.
Where an aircraft operation is found to have exceeded the noise limits at either NMT in the
early morning period, the incident will be raised with the Safety and Noise Review Board
(SANARB) and after their consideration the operator may be subject to a fine.
Where an aircraft type is found to consistently exceed the noise limits at either NMT, early
morning operations by that aircraft type will be curtailed until it can be demonstrated that it
can routinely comply with the limits.
NMT No. Operation Noise Limits,
dB(A) SEL
1 Arrivals 86
Departures 96
2 Arrivals 92
Departures 94
Table 2: Early Morning Period Operation Noise Limits
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
7
In 2017 the early morning operation noise limits were exceeded on 2 occasions as shown in
Table 3 below. Both of the exceedances were from helicopter arrivals measured at NMT1.
NMT Operation Date Time Aircraft Type Noise Level,
dB(A) SEL
Noise Limit,
dB(A) SEL
1 Arrival 30th Nov 06:49 Aerospatiale AS‐355 89.5 86
1 Arrival 4th Dec 06:30 Augusta Westland AW109 88.9 86
Table 3: Early Morning Period Operation Noise Limit Exceedances
To check if these aircraft types will consistently exceed the early morning noise limits all their
results, including those that occurred during the daytime have been considered as detailed in
Table 4. The average noise level for the Aerospatiale AS‐355 is 82.9 dB(A) SEL, which is well
within the NMT1 arrivals noise limit of 86 dB. The average noise level for the Augusta Westland
AW109 is 84.0 dB(A) SEL, which is also within the limit. This indicates that both aircraft types do
not consistently exceed the early morning operations noise limit.
NMT Operation Aircraft Type Number of NMT
Results
Average Noise Level,
dB(A) SEL
1 Arrival Aerospatiale AS‐355 28 82.9
1 Arrival Augusta Westland AW109 430 84.0
Table 4: Typical Noise Levels of Aircraft Types which Exceeded the Noise Limits
6.0 SUMMARY
BAP have produced noise contours for the 92 day summer period in 2017 for London Biggin Hill
Airport using the actual aircraft movements. The results of the contouring exercise have been
reported and figures showing the extent of the contours relative to the airport have been
produced. The area of the 57 dB contour for the daytime period is well below the contour area
limit, and is within the limit which the airport are required to take reasonable endeavours to
stay below. The late evening and early morning 57 dB contours are well below their respective
limits, which the airport are required to make reasonable endeavours to stay below.
An assessment of dwellings eligible under the airport’s residential sound insulation scheme has
been undertaken and found that there were insufficient movements in the early morning period
to meet the eligibility requirements, therefore there are no eligible dwellings.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
8
An assessment of early morning period operation noise limits for aircraft as measured at the
NMTs has been undertaken. The noise limits were exceeded on two occasions in 2017, both by
helicopter arrivals measured at NMT1. The average noise levels for both helicopter types are
however below the noise limits, indicating that both aircraft types do not consistently exceed
the early morning operations noise limits.
Duncan Rogers David Charles Peter Henson
for Bickerdike Allen Partners Associate Partner
This drawing contains Ordanance Survey data © CrownCopyright and database right 2017.
DRAWN: CHECKED:
DATE: SCALE:
FIGURE No:
121 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6RGEmail: mail@bickerdikeallen.com T: 0207 625 4411www.bickerdikeallen.com F: 0207 625 0250
REVISIONS
Biggin Hill AirportRegular Reporting
Airborne Aircraft Noise Contours2017 SummerDaytime (07:00-23:00)
DR DC
April 2018 1:50000@A4
A11103-R01-01
L Noise ContoursAeq,16h
57 dB 2017 Summer63 dB 2017 Summer69 dB 2017 Summer
57 dB Indicative Limit Contour
57 dB Reasonable EndeavorsIndicative Limit Contour
57 dB 2017 Summer63 dB 2017 Summer69 dB 2017 Summer
57 dB Reasonable EndeavorsIndicative Limit Contour
This drawing contains Ordanance Survey data © CrownCopyright and database right 2017.
DRAWN: CHECKED:
DATE: SCALE:
FIGURE No:
121 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6RGEmail: mail@bickerdikeallen.com T: 0207 625 4411www.bickerdikeallen.com F: 0207 625 0250
REVISIONS
Biggin Hill AirportRegular Reporting
Airborne Aircraft Noise Contours2017 SummerLate Evening (22:00-23:00)
DR DC
April 2018 1:50000@A4
A11103-R01-02
L Noise ContoursAeq,1h
57 dB 2017 Summer63 dB 2017 Summer69 dB 2017 Summer
57 dB Reasonable EndeavorsIndicative Limit Contour
This drawing contains Ordanance Survey data © CrownCopyright and database right 2017.
DRAWN: CHECKED:
DATE: SCALE:
FIGURE No:
121 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6RGEmail: mail@bickerdikeallen.com T: 0207 625 4411www.bickerdikeallen.com F: 0207 625 0250
REVISIONS
Biggin Hill AirportRegular Reporting
Airborne Aircraft Noise Contours2017 SummerEarly Morning (06:30-07:00)
DR DC
April 2018 1:50000@A4
A11103-R01-03
L Noise ContoursAeq,30m
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
A.1
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC AND AVIATION TERMINOLOGY
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
A.2
Sound
This is a physical vibration in the air, propagating away from a source, whether heard or not.
The Decibel, dB
The unit used to describe the magnitude of sound is the decibel (dB) and the quantity measured
is the sound pressure level. The decibel scale is logarithmic and it ascribes equal values to
proportional changes in sound pressure, which is a characteristic of the ear. Use of a logarithmic
scale has the added advantage that it compresses the very wide range of sound pressures to
which the ear may typically be exposed to a more manageable range of numbers. The threshold
of hearing occurs at approximately 0 dB (which corresponds to a reference sound pressure of 2
x 10‐5 Pascals) and the threshold of pain is around 120 dB.
The sound energy radiated by a source can also be expressed in decibels. The sound power is a
measure of the total sound energy radiated by a source per second, in Watts. The sound power
level, Lw is expressed in decibels, referenced to 10‐12 Watts.
Frequency, Hz
Frequency is analogous to musical pitch. It depends upon the rate of vibration of the air
molecules which transmit the sound and is measure as the number of cycles per second or Hertz
(Hz). The human ear is sensitive to sound in the range 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). For acoustic
engineering purposes, the frequency range is normally divided up into discrete bands. The most
commonly used bands are octave bands, in which the upper limiting frequency for any band is
twice the lower limiting frequency, and one‐third octave bands, in which each octave band is
divided into three. The bands are described by their centre frequency value and the ranges
which are typically used for building acoustics purposes are 63 Hz to 4 kHz (octave bands) and
100 Hz to 3150 Hz (one‐third octave bands).
A‐Weighting
The sensitivity of the ear is frequency dependent. Sound level meters are fitted with a weighting
network which approximates to this response and allows sound levels to be expressed as an
overall single figure value, in dB(A).
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
A.3
Environmental noise descriptors
Where noise levels vary with time, it is necessary to express the results of a measurement over
a period of time in statistical terms. Some commonly used descriptors follow:
LAeq,T The most widely applicable unit is the equivalent continuous A‐weighted sound
pressure level (LAeq,T). It is an energy average and is defined as the level of a notional
sound which (over a defined period of time, T) would deliver the same A‐weighted
sound energy as the actual fluctuating sound.
SEL The total noise energy produced from a single noise event, normalised to a 1‐second
duration. This is equal to LAeq + 10log(T).
Sound transmission in the open air
Most sources of sound can be characterised as a single point in space. The sound energy
radiated is proportional to the surface area of a sphere centred on the point. The area of a
sphere is proportional to the square of the radius, so the sound energy is inversely proportional
to the square of the radius. This is the inverse square law. In decibel terms, every time the
distance from a point source is doubled, the sound pressure level is reduced by 6 dB.
Road traffic noise is a notable exception to this rule, as it approximates to a line source, which
is represented by the line of the road. The sound energy radiated is inversely proportional to
the area of a cylinder centred on the line. In decibel terms, every time the distance from a line
source is doubled, the sound pressure level is reduced by 3 dB.
Factors affecting sound transmission in the open air
Reflection
When sound waves encounter a hard surface, such as concrete, brickwork, glass, timber or
plasterboard, it is reflected from it. As a result, the sound pressure level measured immediately
in front of a building façade is approximately 3 dB higher than it would be in the absence of the
façade.
Screening and diffraction
If a solid screen is introduced between a source and receiver, interrupting the sound path, a
reduction in sound level is experienced. This reduction is limited, however, by diffraction of the
sound energy at the edges of the screen. Screens can provide valuable noise attenuation,
however. For example, a timber boarded fence built next to a motorway can reduce noise levels
on the land beyond, typically by around 10 dB(A). The best results are obtained when a screen
is situated close to the source or close to the receiver.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
A.4
Meteorological effects
Temperature and wind gradients affect noise transmission, especially over large distances. The
wind effects range from increasing the level by typically 2 dB downwind, to reducing it by
typically 10 dB upwind – or even more in extreme conditions. Temperature and wind gradients
are variable and difficult to predict.
Aviation terms
Nominal Tracks
Using recognised international design techniques, tracks across the ground can be delineated
for departing and arriving aircraft. These tracks are nominal because they can be influenced by
the wind, ATC instructions, the accuracy of navigational systems and the flight characteristics of
individual aircraft. In UK it is usual to permit a 1500m swathe to be established about the
nominal track for the purposes of assessing whether an aircraft has stayed on track.
Dispersion
Due to the effect of the wind, aircraft speed, and pilot choice differing aircraft tracks about the
nominal track are flown; this is known as dispersion around a nominal track.
Altitude
Height of aircraft above sea level.
Noise Footprint
A noise contour which joins points on the ground which receive the same maximum noise level
from the nearby airborne aircraft; often for night studies 90 dB(A) SEL is the level used.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.1
APPENDIX B
NOISE CONTOUR METHODOLOGY
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.2
NOISE CONTOUR METHODOLOGY INM Software
The noise contours have been produced using the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
prediction software, the Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 7.0d. This evaluates aircraft
noise in the vicinity of airport’s using flight track information, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft profiles
and terrain data. The INM can be used to produce noise exposure contours as well as predict
noise levels at specific user‐defined sites.
London Biggin Hill Airport (LBHA) data relevant to the INM study is taken from the latest edition
of the UK Aeronautical Information Package.
A 3.0° approach angle is used for all aircraft, soft‐ground attenuation is assumed and the INM
default headwind of 14.8 km/h is used. The local ground topography has been incorporated into
the model.
Flight Tracks
A set of nominal tracks have been developed based on published procedures. These comprise
one departure route, one arrival route and one circuit route from each end of the runway.
Arrivals using Runway 21 make a straight approach from the north‐east to the runway. Arrivals
using Runway 03 initially follow the same route as arrivals using Runway 21 before circling to
the west of the airport and then lining up with Runway 03.
Departures on Runway 03 turn east approximately 1.5km after the end on the runway.
Departures on Runway 21 turn west shortly after the end of the runway, circle back and cross
the runway at its approximate mid‐point and then head east. Circuit routes for both runway
ends are to the west of the airport.
All aircraft on departure are allocated a departure route to follow. In practice, this route is not
followed precisely by all aircraft. The actual pattern of departing aircraft is dispersed about the
route’s main track. The degree of dispersion is normally a function of the distance travelled by
an aircraft along the route after take‐off and also on the form of route. The INM model allows
this dispersion about the departure tracks to be taken into account. The effect on the contours
is to slightly widen but shorten the contours where departure noise dominates.
When considering many departures, it is commonly found that the spread of aircraft
approximates to a normal distribution, the shape or spread of which will vary with distance
along the route. A simplified mathematical model can be adopted to represent a normal
distribution of events, based on standard deviations. Aircraft noise modelling commonly
assumes that there are five dispersed tracks associated with each departure route.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.3
The allocation of movements adopted in this case to the main and sub tracks is as follows:
53.3% departures along the main track;
22.2% departures split equally along two inner sub tracks either side of the main track
and offset by a distance of 1.355 standard deviations;
1.15% departures split equally along two outer sub tracks either side of the main track
and offset by a distance of 2.71 standard deviations.
The resultant dispersion model for all routes is shown in Table B1.
Distance from SOR (km)
Outer Track Displacement (m)
Distance from SOR (km)
Outer Track Displacement (m)
End of Runway 0 7.5 1007
3.5 105 8.0 1109
4.0 211 8.5 1184
4.5 323 9.0 1260
5.0 434 9.5 1324
5.5 556 10.0 1387
6.0 678 10.5 1444
6.5 792 11.0 and above 1500
7.0 905
Table B1: Assumed Dispersion (All Departure Routes)
Flight Profiles
For departure movements the INM software offers a number of standard flight profiles for most
aircraft types, particularly for the larger aircraft types. These relate to different departure
weights which are greatly affected by the length of the flight, and consequently the fuel load. In
the INM software this is referred to as the stage length. The stage length increases in increments
of 500 nmi up to 1500 nmi and then in increments of 1000 nmi. The INM software assumes all
aircraft take off with a full load irrespective of stage length. As the stage length increases, the
aircraft has to depart with greater fuel, and so its flight profile is slightly lower than when a
shorter stage length is flown.
For many of the aircraft types operating from LBHA, their small size results in only one stage
length being available. For the remainder the stage length was chosen based on their
destination.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.4
Aircraft Operations
The aircraft movement data, provided by LBHA, has been assessed in relation to aircraft type,
flight profile and runway usage for input into the Integrated Noise Model (INM) software.
The basis for the 2017 noise contours are the actual movements during the 92 day summer
period, 16th June to 15th September inclusive. Detailed information was provided for all aircraft
movements. The 113 movements by military aircraft, which were generally associated with the
Festival of Flight in August, have been excluded. This leaves 13,573 movements in the daytime
period (07:00‐23:00), of which 38 occurred in the late evening period (22:00‐23:00), and a
further 36 movements in the early morning period (06:30‐07:00). There were no movements in
the period 23:00‐06:30.
The INM software includes noise information for many common aircraft types, but it does not
include every aircraft type. This means that substitutions are required where an alternative
aircraft type is used to model the actual type. For larger aircraft this generally does not involve
a change but for the smaller types, and in particular the general aviation aircraft, substitutions
occur. Where INM has no guidance, an aircraft type has been assigned based on the aircraft size
and engine details. For a small number of aircraft their aircraft type was given as “ZZZZ” in the
movement log. The aircraft types for these aircraft were determined using their registrations.
Table B2 gives a full list of the aircraft type codes, as provided by the airport, and the
corresponding INM aircraft types that were used to model the aircraft. This includes the
substitutions made.
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type Aircraft Type
Code INM Type
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type
8E GASEPF CW12 GASEPF M209 GASEPF
A019 A109[1] CZAW GASEPF M20J GASEPV
A109 A109[1] D250 GASEPF M20K GASEPV
A119 A109[1] D328 DO328 M20P GASEPV
A139 SA330J[1] DA20 GASEPF M20R GASEPV
A169 S76[1] DA40 GASEPV M20T GASEPV
A210 GASEPF DA42 BEC58P M6 GASEPF
A22 GASEPF DA62 BEC58P MATA GASEPF
A318 A319‐131 DA90 BEC58P MATS GASEPF
A319 A319‐131 DAK DC3 MD50 H500D[1]
A36 GASEPF DC3 DC3 MD60 B407[1]
A365 SA365N[1] DFLY BEC58P MD90 B407[1]
A565 SA365N[1] DH1 GASEPF MD92 B407[1]
AA5 GASEPF DH60 GASEPF ME08 BEC58P
AA53 GASEPF DH8 DHC8 ME10 GASEPV
AA5A GASEPF DH82 GASEPF ME18 BEC58P
AA5B GASEPF DH87 GASEPF MESS GASEPF
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.5
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type Aircraft Type
Code INM Type
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type
AA5C GASEPF DH90 BEC58P MI24 Military
AA5L GASEPF DHC1 GASEPF MOR2 GASEPF
AC11 GASEPV DHC6 DHC6 MOTH GASEPF
AC14 GASEPV DO24 BEC58P MU2 CNA441
AC95 CNA441 DO27 GASEPF NG5 GASEPF
AEST BEC58P DO28 GASEPF OA28 PA28
AG5B GASEPF DOVE BEC58P OV10 Military
AH64 Military DR10 GASEPF P10 GASEPV
AJET Military DR11 GASEPF P149 CNA206
AS32 S61[1] DR14 GASEPF P180[2] DC3/SD330[3]
AS35 SA355F[1] DR15 GASEPF P18A GASEPF
AS50 SA350D[1] DR20 GASEPF P210 CNA206
AS55 SA355F[1] DR21 GASEPF P28 PA28
AS65 SA365N[1] DR25 GASEPF P28A PA28
ASTR IA1125 DR30 GASEPF P28B GASEPV
AT6 GASEPV DR40 GASEPF P28R GASEPV
AT72 DO328 DR46 GASEPF P28T GASEPV
AT75 DO328 DR49 GASEPF P28U GASEPV
AUS GASEPF DR50 GASEPF P2A GASEPF
AUST GASEPF DRAG BEC58P P30 PA30
AW39 SA330J[1] DRUF SA365N[1] P32A GASEPV
B06 B206L[1] E121 DHC6 P32R GASEPV
B06L B206L[1] E135 EMB145 P32T GASEPV
B09 GASEPF E145 EMB145 P46 GASEPV
B100 CNA441 E170 EMB170 P46T GASEPV
B17 Military E300 GASEPF P51 BEC58P
B190 1900D E35L EMB145 P68 BEC58P
B200 GASEPF E500 CNA20T P68C BEC58P
B205 B212[1] E50P CNA510 P8A PA28
B206 B206L[1] E545 CNA55B PA18 GASEPF
B207 GASEPF E550 CNA55B PA20 PA30
B208 GASEPF E55L CNA55B PA22 GASEPF
B209 GASEPF E55P[2] CNA510 PA23 BEC58P
B269 GASEPF EA50 ECLIPSE500 PA24 GASEPV
B350 CNA441 EC12 SA341G[1] PA26 PA28
B36T GASEPV EC13 EC130[1] PA27 BEC58P
B407 B407[1] EC20 SA341G[1] PA28 PA28
B429 B429[1] EC30 EC130[1] PA29 PA30
B461 BAE146 EC35 EC130[1] PA30 PA30
B462 BAE146 EC45 B429[1] PA31 PA31
B600 GASEPF EC55 SA365N[1] PA32 GASEPV
B733 737300 EGKH CNA172 PA34 BEC58P
B737 737700 EGMD BEC58P PA38 GASEPF
B738 737800 EGNE PA28 PA39 PA30
BA46 BAE146 EGSE PA28 PA46 GASEPV
BANS GASEPF EGTE GASEPF PAY1 PA31
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.6
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type Aircraft Type
Code INM Type
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type
BD20 GASEPF EGTF PA28 PAY2 PA31
BDOG CNA206 EGXP Military PAY3 PA42
BE10 CNA441 EN28 R44[1] PAY4 PA42
BE19 1900D EN48 H500D[1] PC12[2] CNA208
BE20 CNA441 ERCO GASEPF PITS GASEPF
BE23 GASEPF ESTR GASEPF PITT GASEPF
BE24 GASEPF EUFI Military PIVI GASEPF
BE30 DO228 EUPA GASEPF PL4H GASEPF
BE33 GASEPV EV97 GASEPF PNR3 Military
BE35 GASEPV EVOT CNA208 PNR4 GASEPF
BE36 GASEPV EXC R22[1] PPA3 PA31
BE40 MU3001 EXEC R22[1] PREM LEAR35
BE55 BEC58P EXHL R22[1] PREN CNA206
BE58 BEC58P EXPL B407[1] PRM1 LEAR35
BE60 PA31 EXTR GASEPF PROC GASEPF
BE76 BEC58P F16 Military PS28 GASEPF
BE90 CNA441 F2TH[2] CL600 PT2S GASEPF
BE9L CNA441 F406 CNA441 PTS1 GASEPF
BE9T CNA441 F70 F10062 PTS2 GASEPF
BF10 BEC58P F8L GASEPF PUP GASEPF
BL17 GASEPV F900[2] CNA680/
F100062[3] R200 GASEPF
BL8 GASEPF FA10 LEAR35 R21 GASEPF
BN2T 1900D FA20 FAL20 R22 R22[1]
BO08 GASEPF FA22 GASEPF R300 GASEPF
BO20 GASEPF FA50 F10062 R44 R44[1]
BO6 B206L[1] FA78 F10062 R66 R44[1]
BO7 B407[1] FA7X[2] F10062 RANG B206L[1]
BREE GASEPF FA8X F10062 RAPI BEC58P
BREZ GASEPF FALC GASEPF RB20 GASEPF
BS10 CNA441 G109 GASEPF REAR GASEPF
BU81 GASEPF G115 GASEPF RJ70 BAE146
BULL CNA206 G150 IA1125 RJ85 BAE146
C10T CNA206 G280 CL601 RV10 GASEPF
C115 CNA172 G58 BEC58P RV3 GASEPF
C120 GASEPF G8L GASEPF RV4 GASEPF
C130 Military GA7 BEC58P RV6 GASEPF
C150 CNA172 GA8 CNA206 RV7 GASEPF
C152 CNA172 GALX CNA750 RV8 GASEPF
C172 CNA172 GAZL SA341G[1] RV9 GASEPF
C177 CNA172 GL5 GV RWIN GASEPV
C180 CNA206 GL5T GV S05R GASEPF
C182 CNA182 GLAS GASEPF S22T GASEPV
C183 CNA182 GLEX[2] GV S2A GASEPF
C185 CNA206 GLF2 GII S2B GASEPF
C195 GASEPV GLF3 GIIB S2C GASEPF
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.7
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type Aircraft Type
Code INM Type
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type
C196 GASEPV GLF4 GIV S355 SA355F[1]
C206 CNA206 GLF5[2] GV S365 SA365N[1]
C208 CNA208 GLF6 GV S600 GASEPF
C210 CNA206 GROB GASEPF S76 S76[1]
C24R GASEPF GULL GASEPV S76C S76[1]
C25A[2] CNA525C GX GASEPF S92 S70[1]
C25B CNA525C GY80 GASEPV SAAB Military
C25C CNA525C GYRC GASEPF SB20 HS748A
C25M CNA525C GYRO GASEPF SB39 Military
C295 Military H125 LEAR35 SCOU Military
C3 GASEPF H25A LEAR35 SCRU GASEPF
C303 BEC58P H25B[2] LEAR35/
CNA680[3] SCRV GASEPF
C310 BEC58P H25C LEAR35 SE22 GASEPV
C335 BEC58P H269 R22[1] SF34 SF340
C337 BEC58P H369 H500D[1] SIRA GASEPF
C340 BEC58P H500 H500D[1] SK76 S76[1]
C406 CNA441 H55 SA365N[1] SKAR GASEPF
C410 BEC58P H60 Military SKYA GASEPF
C414 BEC58P HA4T CL600 SPIT BEC58P
C42 GASEPF HARM GASEPF SPOR GASEPF
C421 BEC58P HARV GASEPV SPRT GASEPF
C425 CNA441 HAWK Military SR15 GASEPF
C441 CNA441 HDJT CNA510 SR20 GASEPV
C500 CNA500 HIND Military SR22 GASEPV
C501 CNA500 HORN GASEPF SRUZ GASEPF
C510[2] CNA510 HR20 GASEPF ST22 GASEPV
C525[2] CNA525C HU50 H500D[1] ST75 GASEPV
C550 CNA500 HURI BEC58P STMP GASEPF
C551 CNA500 HURR BEC58P SV4 GASEPF
C55B CNA55B HUSK GASEPF SV4A GASEPF
C56 MU3001 HVRD GASEPV SVG GASEPF
C560 MU3001 J3 GASEPF SW3 CNA441
C56L PA31 J328 CL600 SW4 DHC6
C56X[2] CNA560XL J400 GASEPF T210 CNA20T
C650 CIT3 JAB GASEPF T6 GASEPV
C680[2] CNA680/
CNA750[3] JAB1 GASEPF TB10 GASEPF
C68A CNA680 JAB4 GASEPF TB20 GASEPV
C7 GASEPF JABA GASEPF TBM7 CNA208
C72R CNA172 JABI GASEPF TBM8 CNA208
C750 CNA750 JABU GASEPF TBM9 GASEPF
C77R CNA172 JOD GASEPF TFUN GASEPV
C82R CNA182 JODE GASEPF TOBA GASEPF
CA10 GASEPF JODL GASEPF TRAV GASEPF
CAP1 GASEPF KL07 GASEPF TRIG GASEPF
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.8
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type Aircraft Type
Code INM Type
Aircraft Type Code
INM Type
CESS CNA172 L4 GASEPF TRIN GASEPV
CHIP GASEPF LANC Military TRVL GASEPF
CI25 CNA172 LEZE GASEPF TUC BEC58P
CJ64 GASEPF LGEZ GASEPF TUCA BEC58P
CJ6A BEC58P LIPP BO105[1] TWST GASEPF
CL30[2] CL600/
CNA680[3] LJ31 LEAR35 TYPH Military
CL35 CL601 LJ35 LEAR35 UH1 Military
CL60 CL600 LJ40 LEAR35 V10 DHC6
COL4 GASEPV LJ45[2] LEAR35/
GIV[3] VA50 BEC58P
COUP GASEPF LJ55 LEAR35 VANS GASEPF
CP10 GASEPF LJ60 CNA55B VARG GASEPF
CRJ2 CL601 LJ75[2] LEAR35/
EMB145[3] VEZE GASEPF
CROB GASEPF LNC2 GASEPF W169 S76[1]
CROZ GASEPF LONG GASEPF XL2 GASEPF
CRUR GASEPF LUSC GASEPF XXL2 GASEPF
CRUZ GASEPF LUSK GASEPF YAK GASEPV
CRV2 GASEPF LYNX Military YK52 GASEPV
CT GASEPF M020 GASEPV Z326 GASEPF
CTSL GASEPF M108 GASEPV ZLIN GASEPF
CTSW GASEPF M109 BEC58P
CUB GASEPF M20 GASEPV
[1] Helicopter INM Type [2] Aircraft Type modified based on results of validation exercise [3] Different INM Types used to model arrivals and departures
Table B2: Assignment of INM Aircraft Types to Aircraft Type Codes
The INM software does not contain circuit profile information for two of the aircraft that
performed circuits at Biggin Hill Airport in the 2017 summer period. As a result, the circuit
movements for these aircraft have been modelled as another similar aircraft type for which the
circuit profiles are contained within INM. Table B3 highlights these aircraft and the substitutions
made.
INM Type INM Type used for Circuits
PA28 CNA172
PA30 BEC58P
Table B3: Modifications to INM Circuit Profile Assumptions
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.9
Table B4 gives a summary of the 2017 summer movements by INM aircraft type, following the
approach in Tables B2 and B3. Aircraft and helicopters which made up less than 2% of the total
movements and less than 5% of the movements in either the early morning or late evening
period have been grouped under the “Other” headings.
INM Aircraft Type
2017 Summer Movements
Daytime
(07:00‐23:00)
Late Evening[1]
(22:00‐23:00)
Early Morning
(06:30‐07:00)
A109[2] 638 0 0
BEC58P 1,372 2 1
CL600 356 0 2
CL601 88 0 0
CNA172 1,958 1 3
CNA208 303 1 4
CNA510 629 4 2
CNA525C 485 5 1
CNA560XL 465 1 4
EMB145 214 4 1
F10062 202 0 0
GASEPF 700 0 1
GASEPV 821 3 1
GIV 207 1 4
GV 313 3 6
LEAR35 313 6 0
PA28 3,103 0 0
Other 1,406 7 6
Total 13,573 38 36 [1] Contained within the Daytime movements [2] Helicopter INM Type
Table B4: Summary of Summer 2017 Movements
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018
B.10
Runway Usage
The actual runway usage for each aircraft movement was used in the production of the noise
contours, this has been summarised below in Table B5 for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.
Operation Runway Percentage of Summer 2017 Movements
Fixed Wing Aircraft Helicopters
Arrivals
03 10% 6%
21 90% 68%
Other[1] ‐ 26%
Departures
03 26% 12%
21 74% 39%
Other[1] ‐ 40%
Circuits
03 12% 0%
21 88% 100%
Other[1] ‐ 0% [1] Helicopter movements which didn’t use the runway.
Table B5: Summary of Runway Usage in Summer 2017
Validation of Noise Contour Methodology
The initial validation exercise carried out in July 2017 has been updated using NMT data for the
whole of 2017, from NMTs 1 and 2, which lie to the north and south of the airport respectively.
For the validation exercise the measured noise levels for the key aircraft types at LBHA were
compared with those predicted by the INM and adjustments were made to the predictions
where necessary. Full details of the validation exercise are given in Appendix C.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.1
APPENDIX C
VALIDATION OF NOISE CONTOUR METHODOLOGY
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.2
INTRODUCTION
A validation of the 2017 noise contour methodology for London Biggin Hill Airport (LBHA) using
measured aircraft noise levels has been carried out. This has involved the comparison of the
measured noise levels of individual aircraft operations at the fixed Noise Monitoring Terminals
(NMTs) during 2017, with the predicted noise levels for those operations using the Integrated
Noise Model (INM) version 7.0d.
NMT1 is located around 1 km north east of the northern end of the runway and NMT2 is located
around 1 km to the south west of the southern end of the runway.
Due to prevailing weather conditions, and the navigation facilities currently in place at LBHA,
there are relatively few arrivals on to Runway 03 and therefore there are few measured results
for arrivals at NMT2. Departures from Runway 03 turn shortly after the end of the runway which
introduces a degree of variability in their local flight path and therefore variability in their
distance to NMT2. This assessment therefore concentrates on the results from NMT1 where
there is greater consistency.
Seventeen aircraft types have been selected to be analysed in the validation exercise. These
were chosen based upon the aircraft types’ relative contribution to the noise contours, when
considering the total number of flights by each aircraft type and the noise level of the flights,
and the availability of a sufficient number of measured results to determine reliable average
noise levels for the aircraft types.
MEASURED AND PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
For each aircraft type there are typically four sets of measured results, for arrivals and
departures, at each of the two monitors. However as discussed above the assessment
concentrates on the measurements at NMT1.
For the individual movements within a set there is some natural variation, so for example every
arrival by an aircraft type does not produce exactly the same noise level. There are a number of
factors which contribute to this, in particular the weather conditions, and for departures, the
weight of the aircraft. Average measured SELs are therefore used, and are compared with the
predicted noise levels from INM 7.0d in Table C1 below. For three of the aircraft type codes the
INM does not contain the specific aircraft type, nor does it suggest a substitution. Therefore for
these a similar aircraft type available in the INM has been used, as has been done for other
aircraft types as set out in Appendix B.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.3
Aircraft Type Code
Operation Measured Default INM
Type Predicted SEL (dB)
Difference Predicted to
Measured (dB) Avg. SEL (dB) No.
C25A A 82.3 222 CNA525C[1] 80.9 ‐1.4
D 88.0 89 CNA525C[1] 89.1 +1.1
C510 A 77.6 344 CNA510 81.2 +3.6
D 85.6 203 CNA510 86.2 +0.6
C525 A 80.9 145 CNA525C 80.9 0.0
D 87.1 67 CNA525C 89.1 +2.0
C56X A 83.4 453 CNA560XL 85.7 +2.3
D 81.9 222 CNA560XL 86.2 +4.3
C680 A 80.4 121 CNA680 81.3 +0.9
D 84.9 54 CNA680 88.4 +3.5
CL30 A 80.4 98 CL601 83.4 +3.0
D 87.0 47 CL601 89.4 +2.4
E55P A 81.1 142 CNA510[1] 81.2 +0.1
D 83.7 53 CNA510[1] 86.2 +2.5
F2TH A 81.5 112 CL600 82.4 +0.9
D 87.9 49 CL600 90.7 +2.8
F900 A 81.2 101 F10062 86.1 +4.9
D 93.2 48 F10062 93.4 +0.2
FA7X A 83.0 121 F10062 86.1 +3.1
D 90.8 48 F10062 93.4 +2.6
GLEX A 81.6 134 GV 84.1 +2.6
D 89.9 52 GV 90.3 +0.4
GLF5 A 81.2 99 GV 84.1 +2.9
D 87.6 33 GV 90.3 +2.7
H25B A 84.1 161 LEAR35 83.1 ‐1.0
D 87.7 79 LEAR35 96.3 +8.6
LJ45 A 81.9 120 LEAR35 83.1 +1.2
D 84.6 65 LEAR35 96.3 +11.7
LJ75 A 82.0 121 LEAR35[1] 83.1 +1.1
D 82.0 65 LEAR35[1] 96.3 +14.3
P180 A 94.5 48 SD330 84.2 ‐10.3
D 91.5 26 SD330 89.8 ‐1.7
PC12 A 85.1 183 CNA208 87 +1.9
D 80.8 65 CNA208 82.2 +1.4 [1] No default INM aircraft type or recommended substitution available.
Table C1: Measured and Default Predicted Noise Levels at NMT1
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.4
As can be seen in the above table, the INM default prediction is over‐predicting the noise levels
for most aircraft types, with under predictions in only a few cases. There are particularly large
over predictions for departures by the H25B, LJ45 and LJ75, and a particularly large under
prediction for arrivals by the P180.
Approach to Validation
The approach to introducing validation modifications has been to only change from the INM
default type when the measured results show clear divergence, i.e. an apparent prediction error
in excess of 1.0 dB. If the type has historically been modified from the default type, then the
approach has been to only change from the previous validation when the change in noise level
is in excess of 0.5 dB.
Comparison of Measured and Validated Noise Levels
All of the seventeen aircraft types have had modifications made compared to the default INM
prediction. This involves either a change to the INM aircraft type used to model the aircraft or
the application of a movement multiplier which has the same effect as adjusting the modelled
noise level. In a small number of cases both types of modification have been applied. The
modifications made are detailed in Table C2 below.
All of the modifications have the effect of reducing the difference between the measured and
predicted noise levels, with the majority of differences being below 1 dB once the validation is
applied. In a small number of cases the difference is greater than 1 dB, but all are less than
1.5 dB. These are due to aircraft which were validated previously, whose measured noise level
hasn’t changed sufficiently to warrant changing the previous modification.
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.5
Aircraft Type Code
Operation Measured
Avg. SEL (dB) Validated INM
Type Movement Multiplier
Predicted SEL (dB)
Difference Predicted to
Measured (dB)
C25A A 82.3 CNA525C 1.3 82.0 ‐0.2
D 88.0 CNA525C 1 89.1 +1.1
C510 A 77.6 CNA510 0.4 77.2 ‐0.3
D 85.6 CNA510 1 86.2 +0.6
C525 A 80.9 CNA525C 1 80.9 +0.0
D 87.1 CNA525C 0.7 87.6 +0.5
C56X A 83.4 CNA560XL 0.6 83.5 +0.1
D 81.9 CNA560XL 0.4 82.2 +0.3
C680 A 80.4 CNA680 1 81.3 +0.9
D 84.9 CNA750[1] 0.8 84.9 0.0
CL30 A 80.4 CL600[1] 0.6 80.2 ‐0.3
D 87.0 CNA680[1] 0.7 86.9 ‐0.2
E55P A 81.1 CNA510 1 81.2 +0.1
D 83.7 CNA510 0.6 84.0 +0.3
F2TH A 81.5 CL600 1 82.4 +0.9
D 87.9 CL600 0.5 87.7 ‐0.2
F900 A 81.2 CNA680[1] 1 81.3 +0.1
D 93.2 F10062 1 93.4 +0.2
FA7X A 83.0 F10062 0.5 83.1 +0.0
D 90.8 F10062 0.6 91.2 +0.3
GLEX A 81.6 GV 0.6 81.9 +0.3
D 89.9 GV 1 90.3 +0.4
GLF5 A 81.2 GV 0.5 81.1 ‐0.1
D 87.6 GV 0.5 87.3 ‐0.3
H25B A 84.1 LEAR35 1 83.1 ‐1.0
D 87.7 CNA680[1] 0.8 87.4 ‐0.2
LJ45 A 81.9 LEAR35 1 83.1 +1.2
D 84.6 GIV[1] 0.8 84.7 +0.1
LJ75 A 82.0 LEAR35 1 83.1 +1.1
D 82.0 EMB145[1] 1 82.0 0.0
P180 A 94.5 DC3[1] 1 94.4 ‐0.1
D 91.5 SD330 1.4 91.3 ‐0.2
PC12 A 85.1 CNA208 0.6 84.8 ‐0.3
D 80.8 CNA208 1 82.2 +1.4
[1] Change in INM aircraft type
Table C2: Measured and Validated Noise Levels at NMT1
A11103‐R01‐DR April 2018 C.6
SUMMARY
The validation of noise contour methodology at London Biggin Hill Airport has been carried out
by checking predicted noise levels against the measured noise levels obtained from the Airport’s
noise monitoring system.
The validation exercise has taken into account almost 4,000 individual aircraft noise
measurements. This has identified the need to modify the default INM assumptions for
seventeen of the loudest and most common aircraft types at LBHA.
Recommended