Noise zone surrounding airport

Factual Questions
1

In casual conversation with a friend, the subject came up of how far out the official noise zone extends from an airport. We live somewhat close to one and while we’re not anywhere near a direct flight path and we never hear planes taking off or landing, I wonder if we’re still close enough to be in some kind of elevated-noise zone.

Google didn’t help with anything I could understand, so I turn to the Dope.

The airport is St. Petersburg/Clearwater in Florida. I’m pretty much looking for a map that shows the range, but any other interesting info would be nice.

2

Noise-reduction procedures vary between airports. They’re usually determined by local authorities, perhaps the county in the USA - not sure about this.

So basically there’s no standard distance that could be applied to all airports. I haven’t much time now, but if you were to google “KPIE SID/STAR charts” you might get some information on how aircraft fly in the immediate vicinity of the airport you mention.

SID = Standard Instrument Departure
STAR = Standard Terminal Arrival

3

In short, it depends on the airport.

What kind of aircraft are operating out of that airport? How frequently? What is the geography surrounding the airport?
At my airport, any homes inside the 70dB noise curve are eligible for purchase by the airport under a grant program. Anyone within the 65dB curve (a bit larger than the 70, obviously) can have your home sound-proofed (for what its worth). The curves are/were developed by actual sound measurements during aircraft operational periods.

Everything you ever wanted to know about airport noise in the US:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/aircraft_noise/

On edit:

The noise map for my airport - the bold lines are the decibel curves:
http://www.pvdairport.com/noise/part_150/part_150_exhibits-pdf/1-3.pdf

4

As KCB615’s map shows, aircraft noise is essentially always going to conform to a pattern that outlines the runways.

5

Some airports that are extremely noise-sensitive have noise monitors installed as well. The designated departure or arrival corridor will keep you away from them but if you stray and trigger a noise monitor it is a fine - usually starting at $10,000 and going up from there.

The noise monitors may also have times associated with them - if Stuffed Shirt Executive Airport closes at 11 PM sharp and your Gulfstream trips the noise monitor on approach at 11:01 you can add the fine to the cost of your weekend getaway.

The whole business is a mess of federal and local rules that are unique to every airport. Pilots, as a rule, know the airports that will get them into trouble for noise if only for job preservation but it is far from a perfect system.

I do know that Tampa/St Pete is not one of the crazily noise-sensitive areas in the US, but beyond that I can’t help you with anything else (ie residence inside/outside the noise zone).

6

I tried **PaulParkhead’s ** suggestion about googling KPIE’s charts. It led me to the aiport website and a PDF doc that I can’t really understand but has a picture so I can show my friend what noise levels would generally look like.
**KCB615’s ** shot of his airport helped too.

7

This chart is something I found now I have a little more time:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/00625AD.PDF (PDF warning)

It shows the general ground layout of KPIE/PIE St Petersburg/Clearwater International, Florida.

The gist:

There are four physical strips of concrete, making a total of eight runways, since each strip can be used in two directions. They are numbered 17L (left), 17R (Right), 35L, 35R, 27, 9, 22, 4. The numbers refer to the rough compass heading on each runway - runway 9 is pointing roughly 90 degrees compass heading, rounded. So the same strip, when used in the opposite direction, is runway 27 - it points roughly 270 degrees. When referring to that actual piece of concrete, we could call it “runway 9/27”. The “left” and “right” designations are used when two runways have the same compass orientation. So at KPIE 17L and 17R are parallel, as we can see from the chart.

Now assume that a departing aircraft will fly the runway heading for a few miles after takeoff. After that, it will join a published pattern for departures, depending on where it is ultimately headed. Those are the SIDs I mentioned earlier. The noise issue is most critical when our plane is close to the ground, so procedures may involve steep climbouts and perhaps some twists and turns, depending on the local geography. The general idea is to get the engine noise away from the ground as quickly as safely possible.

Other notes on that chart:

In the top left, it gives radio frequencies, starting with the ATIS (Air Terminal Information Service, I think, don’t quote me on that), which is a basic recorded announcement giving general weather conditions, runways in use and other basic information that may be useful to pilots. Other frequencies listed are the control tower, ground control and “Clearance Delivery”, which basically approves filed flight plans before the aircraft actually moves anywhere.

The elevation of each runway threshold (the point where aircraft should ideally touch down) is given in feet above sea level. This is useful information since an aircraft’s altimeter reads this way. That is, it shows altitude above sea level, not above the ground. It is thus helpful to know the altitude of your landing runway. Over most of the USA, I could quite safely fly at 20,000 feet, but that wouldn’t work over the Himalayas.

Next to each runway on the chart is the length X width of the runway in feet. So, for example, runway 17L/35R is 9730 feet long by 150 feet wide. That, incidentally, is quite long.

The precise compass heading of the runways are also quoted in the chart.

A SID chart, which I haven’t yet found for KPIE, would also list required altitudes for specific points on the route. Some of these altitudes may be defined by local obstructions - mountains and so on, but others could be specified for noise abatement reasons.

8

Thanks for the research. It gives me a little glimpse into the world of aviation.

9

A good airport SID to look at is for Boston-Logan Airport. The neighbors around Logan are very much into reducing airport noise.

The Logan 4 departure vectors departing aircraft out over the water or down corridors that aren’t as sensitive to noise (such as highways or industrial areas).

Take a look at that chart. The aircraft are to follow the listed routes off of each runway, which pretty much takes them out over the water right away, in the case of 5 of the runways. The other two (27 and 33R) follow highways. For the routes over the water, the aircraft are supposed to be above 6000’ before being vectored back over land and onto their filed route, again, for noise abatement.

btw, the link will expire July, 2008.

10

Aviation is full of coded and incomprehensible information. I have a pile of charts for my Flight Sim, but I must stress that I have never flown a real plane. I could perhaps even get the charts for KPIE/PIE, but I don’t have access to that computer at the moment.

But still, pilots love their codes. Maybe that’s how they convince the rest of us that their blue-collar job is mystically incomprehensible to everyone else. Take a weather report at KPIE, for example: currently it reads as follows -

METAR KPIE 260253Z 10013G20KT 10SM CLR 26/17 A3003 RMK AO2 SLP167 T02560167 51028

Well…

METAR = type of report
KPIE = station identifier

260253Z = time and date of report. 26th of the current month at 0253 Zulu, which is Greenwich Mean Time

10013G20KT = Winds are blowing from compass 100 degrees at 13 knots, gusting to 20 knots

10SM = Visibility in statute miles

CLR = Clear skies, no clouds. This could read something like FEW3000, meaning a few clouds at 3000 feet. It may also read something like BKN 3000 OVC 8000, meaning that there broken clouds at 3000 feet, the sky is overcast (more than 75% cloud cover) at 8000 feet

26/17 = Temperature/Dew Point in degrees Celsius

A3003 = Altimeter setting, the local barometric pressure in inches of mercury. In this case it’s 30.03 inches. That’s important - the aircraft’s altimeter, a vital instrument, uses barometric pressure to work. Below 18,000 feet in the USA that’s critical, since knowing how close you are to the ground is pretty important for safe flight. Above 18,000 feet, aircraft standardize their altimeter setting at 29.92 inches. By that point, they’re clear of local (ground-based) obstructions, all they have to worry about is each other.

But to someone who doesn’t know, it appears to be gibberish. And in this way, pilots retain their mystique.

11

Aargh! My last post was an irrelevant rant. Apologies to all - my ramblings in no way answered the question asked by the OP. Sorry folks.

12

Actually, most non-professional pilots (and even a few pros) dislike the weather code-crap.

The international weather bureacracy operates for its own reasons. Aircraft are one major consumer, but maritime, agricultural, disaster prediction & response, and scientific enquiry all are major consuming constituencies as well.

the current system seems mostly to be designed for the needs of teh weather bureacracy itself and the scientists. Aviation can pick out the tidbits of interest, but there is much chaff amongst the flying wheat.

13

The METAR code system was designed for rapid transmission (by teletype, yes) and for international use. It is actually easier and faster to understand than plain text if you take just a few minutes to learn the code (well, not for every pilot). Its adoption in the US for domestic use is the result of international standardization and the need for clarity and accuracy of communication. It would be much easier to deal with if the aviation world used the metric system exclusively instead of the English hodgepodge, but standardization (on *something *) is what matters for safety. The same is true for the phonetic alphabet.

14

>the current system seems mostly to be designed for the needs of teh weather bureacracy itself and the scientists. Aviation can pick out the tidbits of interest, but there is much chaff amongst the flying wheat.

Is it just that they think of themselves first, or are they putting out there everything they have that is practical to broadcast, and letting users decide for themselves what they get the most use from?

A friend told me he got interested in the economics of air travel and tried to figure out where the big costs were in the industry. Was it fuel? Buying planes? Lawsuits from the grieving families of people with peanut allergies, before they got rid of those little bags?

What he came up with was that by far the biggest cost was in tying up the land occupied by the airport, and that it was generally born by local governments, which they did to have local air service as an encouragement to local business.

If so, this would put into different perspective the compromises involved in noise abatement zones.

But, this is just what the fellow told me. Anybody know if it’s correct?

15

Which part of a METAR report do you think is “chaff” to pilots? I’m genuinely puzzled by that statement. As for serving the “weather bureaucracy”, most reporting stations are automated.

16

And yet, how “mysterious” can this be if you, someone who has never flown a real plane, can understand and explain this so concisely?

17

Outside the US aviation DOES largely use metric.

Hell, even most of the local GA airports around here use Celsius to report temperatures.

18

I meant meters and kilometers instead of feet and miles.

19

You do have a point, I must admit. It’s just that I am unusually interested in aviation - for a non-pilot, at least.

But I do know at least some pilots who positively revel in the fact that most of their jargon is incomprehensible to anyone else. Of course, Linux geeks and doctors are no different…

20

It isn’t “mystique”, it’s standardization and efficiency. Conciseness, especially in radio communications where a lot of people have to pass on information but can only do so one at a time, is a very, very good thing. Use of the proper codes, in both the terminology and the syntax, gets the necessary information across the most efficiently and clearly and safely. That concept includes weather reports, which often have to be transmitted by radio, and for which the standard terminology in the standard syntax is expected - if it weren’t, something necessary could be missed, or the extra time could take pilots’ attention away from something else critical.

It is standard among pilots to take pride in their command of proper procedures in communication as well as in all the other functions they perform - in the cause of safety as well as maintaining control of their environment. That’s a good thing. Sloppy radio work is deeply and widely disapproved of, as it should be. Maintaining a “mystique” has nothing to do with it. Safety is the main goal.

And you’d find the same thing to be true in almost any profession. Jargon has a purpose.
Paul, it isn’t that hard or expensive to get started flying for real, if you’re interested. Sim flying is great preparation for it. There are a number of pilots on the board who would be happy to help - the fun isn’t something that gets lessened by sharing, it’s enhanced by it.