Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Federal Aviation Administration

FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties

SFO Community Roundtable Meeting August 3, 2016

Federal Aviation Administration

Discussion

• Feasibility Study Overview
• Feasible Solution Groups from the Initiative

– SFO Class B amendment – Transition the SERFR STAR back to the BSR ground track prior to EPICK – Increasing percentage of NIITE flights which remain on NIITE until at least the NIITE waypoint – Create a new south transition for the NIITE SID – Increasing percentage of CNDEL flights which remain on CNDEL until at least the CNDEL waypoint – Improve aircraft set up and sequencing between facilities

• Short Video

Federal Aviation Administration

Feasibility Study Overview

Federal Aviation Administration

What is a Feasibility Study?

• Analyzes different variables of potential sources of

noise concerns.

• Focuses on the established criteria and fly-ability of

new and/or modified flight procedures.

• Assesses of impacts to operations at the surrounding

airports and traffic flows.

• Evaluates potential procedural modifications including:

– Speed/altitude adjustments – Airspace changes – Moving existing waypoints – Operational safety

Federal Aviation Administration

Initiative Reportable Milestones

• Detailed Analysis
• Fly-ability

Assessment

• Operational

Assessment

• Feasibility

Determination

Federal Aviation Administration

Detailed Analysis

• Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

(PDARS) was used.

• Different variables were evaluated in order to

determine the most likely cause of noise concerns including:

– IFR or VFR operation – Historical track data – Significant event (i.e. Super Bowl) – Time of day – Anomaly such as weather or aircraft emergency – Percentage of flights on a filed procedure – Average altitude or speed – Flight counts

Federal Aviation Administration

Fly-ability Assessment

• Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) Criteria

– Established criteria Instrument Procedures – Evaluates rate of climb/descent and turns to ensure a stabilized approach/departure.

• Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation & Traffic

Simulation Software (TARGETS) used for analysis

– Provides a “quick look” into notional information. – It is important to remember that while TARGETS provides valuable assistance in designing and evaluating procedures, it is

• nly one part of a complex process.
• Procedural conception to implementation requires careful use of all

applicable directives and collaboration among numerous interested parties.

Federal Aviation Administration

Operational Assessment

• Air Traffic Control facilities evaluated

potential impacts to:

– Airspace complexity – Existing air traffic procedures – Traffic flows in/out airports – Current airspace structure – Radio communication – Radar and/or satellite coverage

• An evaluation of the impacts to operations

at the surrounding airports and associated procedures was completed.

Federal Aviation Administration

Feasibility Determination

• FAA Air Traffic Services, in collaboration with

NATCA, with the support of Mission Support Services will make the determination of the proposed modifications, within the NorCal Initiative, in the following manner:

– Use data gathered during the:

• Detailed Analysis
• Fly-ability Assessment
• Operational Assessment

– Held a series of meetings to discuss data and evaluate proposed modifications.

Federal Aviation Administration

Feasibility Determination

• For procedural amendments that were

found unfeasible and operationally unacceptable:

– A detailed description outlining the rational of the determination was completed and can be found in the Feasibility Report.

Federal Aviation Administration

Feasibility Determination

• If the procedural amendments were determined

feasible and flyable, as well as operationally acceptable from a safety point of view:

– The FAA will conduct the formal environmental and safety reviews, coordinate and seek feedback from existing and/or new community roundtables and members of affected industry before moving forward with the formal amendment process. – NOTE: The FAA will move forward with procedural amendments on feasible solutions once agreement has been made with the SFO Roundtable and/or the Select Committee.

Federal Aviation Administration

Next Steps for Feasible Solutions

• Stakeholder Feedback
• Environmental Review
• Safety Assessment

Federal Aviation Administration

Groups - Feasible Solutions

Federal Aviation Administration

Groups - Feasible Solutions

• 1. SFO Class B amendment
• 2. Transition the SERFR STAR back to the BSR

ground track prior to EPICK

• 3. Increasing percentage of NIITE flights which

remain on NIITE until at least the NIITE waypoint

• 4. Create a new south transition for the NIITE SID
• 5. Increasing percentage of CNDEL flights which

remain on CNDEL until at least the CNDEL waypoint

• 6. Improve aircraft set up and sequencing between

facilities

Federal Aviation Administration

• 1. SFO Class B Amendment

Federal Aviation Administration

SERFR Descent Profile

SERFR Descent Profile

MENLO SWELLS EDDYY EPICK

Federal Aviation Administration

SERFR Descent Profile

SERFR Arrival Procedure (north of NRRLI)

Federal Aviation Administration

SERFR Flight Tracks June 2016

0-10,000 ft MSL 4,000- 10,000 ft MSL 6,000- 10,000 ft MSL 8,000-10,000 ft MSL

Key June 2016 flights on the SERFR STAR track SERFR STAR track waypoints SFO Class B x Class B Altitudes

Federal Aviation Administration

SERFR Flight Tracks June 2016

EPICK EDDYY SWELLS Altitude /MSL x 100 feet

Key June 2016 SERFR flights on the SERFR track Projection of SERFR waypoints Projection of where the SERFR and BRIXX cross Projection of where the SERFR overflies the coast SFO Class B

MENLO

Federal Aviation Administration

• 2. Increasing Percentage of NIITE

Flights Which Remain on NIITE Until at Least the NITTE Waypoint

Federal Aviation Administration

NIITE Flight Tracks June 2016

Key NIITE tracks for June 2016 NIITE SID

35% of NIITE flights are vectored off the NIITE SID prior to the NIITE waypoint.

Federal Aviation Administration

NIITE Flight Tracks June 2016

Altitudes

Key NIITE SID Altitude/feet MSL 0 – 3,000 3,000 – 4,000 4,000 – 5,000 5,000 – 6,000 6,000 – 7,000 7,000 – 8,000 8,000 – 9,000 9,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 11,000 11,000 – 12,000 12,000 – 13,000

These flights fly

• ver the coastline

between 1,000 feet – 5,000 feet lower

Federal Aviation Administration

• 4. Create a New South Transition

for the NIITE SID

Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed South Transition on the NIITE SID

Key night time SSTIK tracks June 2016 NIITE SID Suggested south transition

Federal Aviation Administration

• 5. Increasing Percentage of

CNDEL Flights Which Remain on CNDEL Until at Least the CNDEL Waypoint

Federal Aviation Administration

CNDEL Flight Tracks June 2016

~60% of CNDEL flights are vectored

• ff the CNDEL SID

prior to the CNDEL waypoint.

Key CNDEL tracks for June 2016 CNDEL SID

Predominantly A320

Federal Aviation Administration

CNDEL Flight Tracks June 2016

Altitudes

Key CNDEL SID Altitude/feet MSL 0 – 3,000 3,000 – 4,000 4,000 – 5,000 5,000 – 6,000 6,000 – 7,000 7,000 – 8,000 8,000 – 9,000 9,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 11,000 11,000 – 12,000 12,000 – 13,000

Federal Aviation Administration

Short Video

Overview of Air Traffic Control in the San Francisco Bay Area

Federal Aviation Administration