Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the benefits of phasing out Chapter 2 aircraft, and a decision to extend this policy
further to some, or all, Chapter 3 aircraft would have been extremely popular amongst
local communities. A few disproportionately noisy movements are frequently respon-
sible for the majority of noise complaints at airports. Hence, it is common sense that
removing some of the worst-performing aircraft from the fleet would have brought a
clear environmental benefit. Instead, CAEP's analysis failed to show any overall cost-
effective benefit from a phase-out, and no agreement was forthcoming on implement-
ing a phase-out strategy.
From the perspective of airport neighbours, this outcome was disappointing and
totally unacceptable, and is likely to lead to increasing pressure for local airport
restrictions, opposition to new developments and a deterioration in the often fragile
relationship between airports and their communities. The environmental and com-
munity groups are not alone in this view. The Airports Council International (ACI),
the voice of airports worldwide, has expressed similar opinions, and had pressed CAEP
members, without success, to adopt a more stringent standard.
Of course, there are other important ways to reduce noise: CAEP did endorse a
'balanced approach' to noise management, which involves the contribution of effec-
tive land-use planning, operational improvements and operating restrictions, in
addition to noise reduction at source. Yet, applying the 'balanced approach' would
appear to be new terminology for a relatively old concept. Certainly, land-use planning
and improvements to operational procedures have been practised at many European
airports for years. While there is probably room for marginal improvements in these
areas, they are unlikely to deliver a step improvement in noise exposure levels (unless
more radical efforts are made by airport operators to buy out those who are
adversely affected by aircraft noise). This leaves us with the option of airport operat-
ing restrictions. Seen by many within the industry as a last resort, they would appear
to offer the only real alternative to noise reduction at source.
European responses
While Europe has been keen to work within an ICAO framework and avoid the sort
of disputes that followed the introduction of its regulation on hush-kitted aircraft,
now is the time to adopt measures that are capable of meeting the shortfall between
what the ICAO can deliver and what Europe requires. Yet, the ability to take effec-
tive regional action is being increasingly compromised. The recent European Union
(EU) directive on operating restrictions on marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft
(the introduction of which has permitted the EU to repeal the hush-kit regulation,
thus ending the dispute with the US) is a good example. Its biggest flaw is that it
will only apply on an airport-by-airport basis, although this requirement was neces-
sary to comply with ICAO guidance. While this approach is justified on the basis
that only those airports with a noise problem need consider restrictions, the reality
poses some serious difficulties for its widespread application. For example, how will-
ing will authorities be to impose restrictions on one airport if it has competitive advan-
tages for another? Equally, from an environmental perspective, such an approach is
also likely to result in some airlines switching to an airport that is free of restrictions,
forcing a rapid increase in the number of aircraft at the noisier end of the spectrum
