technical report on preparation of day-night … · 2017-01-26 · (inm 7.0b) that the federal...

TECHNICAL REPORT ON PREPARATIONOF DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (DNL)CONTOURS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE DURING 2009RALEIGH-DURHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NORTH CAROLINA

HMMH Report No. 301255.000

March 2011

Prepared for:

RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY

Raleigh-Durham International Airport, North Carolina

(This page intentionally left blank)

TECHNICAL REPORT ON PREPARATIONOF DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (DNL)CONTOURS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE DURING 2009RALEIGH-DURHAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NORTH CAROLINA

HMMH Report No. 301255.000

March 2011

Prepared for:

RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY

Raleigh-Durham International Airport, North Carolina

Prepared by:

Brad Nicholas

Gene Reindel

HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.77 South Bedford Street

Burlington, MA 01803

Technical Report on Preparation of 2009 RDU Noise Contours March 2011

HMMH Report No. 301255.000 page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5

2 CONTOUR PREPARATION PROCESS .................................................................................. 7

2.1 Improvements in Noise Modeling Practices............................................................................... 72.1.1 Noise Model Versions Used at RDU.......................................................................................... 72.1.2 Improvements in Development of Modeling Inputs................................................................... 8

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE INPUT DATA................................................................................. 11

3.1 Airport Layout .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Aircraft Operations ................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Runway Use.............................................................................................................................. 173.3.1 Direction of Traffic Flow.......................................................................................................... 173.3.2 Use of Individual Runways ...................................................................................................... 18

3.4 Flight Tracks and Flight Track Use .......................................................................................... 21

3.5 Aircraft Altitude Profile............................................................................................................ 27

3.6 Meteorological Conditions ....................................................................................................... 27

3.7 Terrain Data.............................................................................................................................. 27

4 NOISE CONTOURS................................................................................................................ 29

4.1 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on All Runways............................... 39

4.2 Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Annual Average Day DNL Contours ...................................... 39

4.3 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 5L and 5R................... 40

4.4 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 23L and 23R............... 40

5 SINGLE EVENT CONTOURS ............................................................................................... 43

6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 47

APPENDIX A JET ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURES.....................................A-1



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Raleigh-Durham INTL Airport Diagram ..............................................................................12

Figure 2 2009 Flight Track Sample for Operations on Runways 5L and 5R ......................................23

Figure 3 2009 Flight Track Sample for Operations on Runways 23L and 23R ..................................25

Figure 4 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on All Runways ...........................31

Figure 5 2008 Annual Average Day Contours Compared to 2009 Annual Average Day Contours ...33

Figure 6 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 5L and 5R................35

Figure 7 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 23L and 23R............37

Figure 8 Sound Exposure Level Contours for Select Commercial Aircraft ........................................44

Figure 9 Sound Exposure Level Contours for Select General Aviation Aircraft ................................45

Figure A-1 RDU Jet Arrival and Departure Procedures May 2009 .....................................................A-3



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Historical Use of Noise Models for Noise Contours ................................................................8

Table 2 Annual Average Day Number of Operations – 2009 .............................................................15

Table 3 Comparison of Annual Traffic Flow - 1992 to 2009..............................................................18

Table 4 Runway Use Percentages for the Modeled Annual Average Day – 2009..............................20

Table 5 Comparison of Land Use Areas within Noise Contours - 1992 to 2009 ................................41



1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours for calendar year 2009aircraft operations at Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU). Harris Miller Miller & HansonInc. (HMMH) prepared these contours on behalf of the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority(RDUAA).1

Prior to 2001, with the exception of 1995, a relatively stable group of airlines served RDU, withminor variation during the year, and with incremental changes in activity from year to year. InFebruary of 1995 American Airlines, the dominant air carrier at RDU, ceased hub operations at RDUand significantly reduced operations at RDU. In June of 1995, Midway Airlines began huboperations at RDU.2 Due to the events on September 11, 2001 many airlines substituted regional jetsfor their previously utilized larger air carrier jet models. In 2001 Midway Airlines operations becameintermittent and ceased completely by the end of calendar year 2003.3 Overall, from 2002 to 2003,total operations at RDU declined approximately eight percent, primarily due to an eleven percentreduction in commercial (passenger and cargo) jet operations. However in 2004 compared to 2003,the total operations at RDU increased approximately eleven percent, largely due to an increase inregional jet operations. Total annual operations remained relatively constant from 2004 through 2007and then decreased by approximately nine percent in 2008.

RDU experienced an approximate twelve percent decrease in total operations in 2009 compared to2008 (229,406 total operations in 2008 compared to 201,771 operations in 2009). Total operationsof air carrier, cargo and regional jets decreased approximately ten percent (Approximately 395average day operations in 2009 compared to 438 average day operations in 2008). General aviationjet operations decreased approximately six percent and propeller aircraft operations as a whole (i.e.combining commercial and general aviation) decreased approximately nineteen percent. Militaryoperations decreased approximately thirty-eight percent compared to 2008 levels. In 2008 militaryoperations increased by a similar percentage due to the local North Carolina Army National Guardunit preparing and training for an overseas deployment that started in March 2009.

During calendar year 2009, Runway 5L/23R was often closed for rehabilitation primarily in May andDecember. These runway closures had the effect of reducing operations on Runway 5L/23R andincreasing operations on Runway 5R/23L. During calendar year 2008 Runway 5R/23L underwentrehabilitation.

Figure 5 provides a graphic comparison of the 2008 and 2009 contours. The 2009 contours arecomparable to those for 2008 in most areas with some notable changes associated with theaforementioned changes in runway use. Overall, the contour area decreased slightly. Section 4.2provides additional discussion regarding the changes between the 2008 and 2009 contours.

Sections 2 and 3 describe the processes used to develop the noise contours and collect and refine therequired input data. HMMH has refined the contour preparation process each year to use the latest

1 HMMH previously prepared DNL contours for RDU for an annualized set of operations spanning 1987 and1988, and for each calendar year from 1990 through 2008, inclusive. Section 6 lists the previous reports.

2 The 1995 contour report provides additional descriptions of operations in 1995.

3 The 2001, 2002, and 2003 contour reports provide detailed descriptions of operations in those years.



available technologies. For example, the flight track modeling process has evolved from use of asmall sample of flight tracks traced from the radar scope at the air traffic control tower to a highlyadvanced process that takes into account the entire set of calendar year flight tracks captured by theRDUAA flight tracking system. The latest methods greatly improve the sensitivity of the model todifferences in individual aircraft type, runway use, track geometry and altitude profiles.

Section 4 of this report presents the resulting DNL contours for total annual operations at RDU andfor the two major operating modes at the airport; i.e., all operations in northeast flow (Runways 5Land 5R), and all operations in southwest flow (Runways 23L and 23R). Section 4 also compares the2009 DNL contours to those representing 2008 RDU aircraft operations.

Section 5 presents single event contours for select aircraft that operated at RDU in 2009 and providessome context of how those aircraft types relate to the noise environment around RDU.

Section 6 lists the various reports that have documented annual noise contours at RDU.



2 CONTOUR PREPARATION PROCESS

HMMH prepared the 2009 contours using the most current version of the Integrated Noise Model(INM 7.0b) that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides for use at civil airports.

The standard approach for preparation of noise contours requires compilation and input of severalcategories of information about the operation of an airport for input into the noise model:

1) Airport Layout: Location, length and orientation of all runways.

2) Operation Numbers: Numbers of departures, arrivals and pattern operations by each type ofaircraft during an "annual average day". The number of operations on this day is the numberof operations during the year divided by the number of days in the year. For DNLcalculation purposes, the 24-hour day is divided into two parts, daytime (0700-2159) andnighttime (2200-0659). The sound levels of nighttime flights are weighted with anadditional 10 decibels in the DNL computation procedure (which has the same effect ascounting each night operation to contribute the same amount of noise energy as tenequivalent operations in the day).

3) Runway Use: Percentage of operations on each runway by each type of aircraft.

4) Flight Tracks: Paths followed by aircraft departing from, or arriving to, each runway.

5) Flight Track Use: Percentage of operations by each aircraft type that use each flight track.

6) Aircraft Altitude Profile: Height of the aircraft from the ground.

7) Meteorological Conditions: The average weather conditions.

8) Terrain Data: Elevation of the ground surrounding, and on, the airport.

Section 3 describes the above inputs for the 2009 contour development. INM computes the noiseexposure around an airport as a grid of values of the DNL. This grid information is the standardinput for the widely accepted contouring program (NMPlot4) that develops the DNL contours basedon the INM-calculated grid point values.

2.1 Improvements in Noise Modeling Practices

HMMH has continuously improved the methods used in developing the noise modeling inputs forRDU to ensure that the modeling process used each year reflects accepted industry “best practices”and a historical perspective of this evolution follows.

2.1.1 Noise Model Versions Used at RDU

HMMH has always followed the practice of using the most advanced noise modeling technology toprepare contours for RDU. The INM includes FAA-developed noise and performance data for abroad range of aircraft types. Periodically, the FAA provides updates to these databases: data from

4 NMPlot was authored by Wasmer Consulting with sponsorship from the United States Air Force.(www.wasmerconsulting.com; www.wasmerconsulting.com/nmplot.htm).



Database 9 was used to prepare the 1991 and 1992 noise contours; and database 10 was used toprepare the 1993 through 1998 contours. With the FAA’s release of INM 6.0b, these noise andperformance databases were incorporated with the model. Table 1 presents the noise models usedfor development of DNL contours at RDU.

Table 1 Historical Use of Noise Models for Noise Contours

YearNoise Model

1993 - 1998 NOISEMAP

1999 INM 6.0b

2000 - 2001 INM 6.0c

2002 - 2003 INM 6.1

2004 - 2005 INM 6.2a

2006 INM 7.0

2007 INM 7.0a

2008 - 2009 INM 7.0b

INM 6.2a included improved modeling algorithms and a noise and performance database for moreaircraft types. One significant difference between INM 6.1 and 6.2a is that the more recent versionhas updated aircraft noise and performance databases to better reflect the current “in-service” fleet.This change generally results in slightly larger noise contours for otherwise identical modeling runs.INM 7.0 was a major update to the model in terms of program organization with the inclusion of theFAA’s Heliport Noise Model (HNM) and update of several algorithms. INM 7.0a and 7.0b addednew aircraft including two very light jets, two Canadair regional jets and the Airbus A-380 andupdated the noise and performance databases for several commercial aircraft.

Before the release of INM 6.0b, the FAA approved use of a U. S. Air Force model, NOISEMAP, inaddition to INM. HMMH used NOISEMAP at RDU prior to 1999, because it offered severaladvantages over the then current INM versions. For example, NOISEMAP provided the capabilityto model helicopter activity and fixed-wing “pattern” activity (such as touch-and-go patterns), whichthe earlier versions of the INM did not support. HMMH converted to the use of INM in 1999, whenthe capabilities of that model justified the switch. The current version of the INM is the best modelto use at RDU and includes the capability to model helicopter and pattern operations.

2.1.2 Improvements in Development of Modeling Inputs

HMMH prepared the contours for 1987/88 based on operations data, radar information and noisemeasurements obtained during 1987. The 1990 contours used the operations patterns (i.e., runwayuse, flight track locations and flight track use) from 1987, adjusted to reflect the numbers and typesof aircraft observed during 1990.

Beginning in 1991, the RDUAA obtained access to radar information from the FAA computer-basedAutomated Radar Terminal System (ARTS). The ARTS data provided detailed flight trackinformation for the full range of aircraft using RDU. A sampling of the actual flight tracks at RDUwas obtained on a quarterly basis. The RDUAA provided runway use logs for eight months of theyear. With the assistance of the FAA and RDUAA staff, HMMH used 1991 operations patterns toprepare the 1991 contours. In 1992, HMMH followed a process similar to that used in 1991.However, the contours were based on a larger sample of ARTS data, and the RDUAA providedrunway use logging for nearly every day in the year.



Starting in 1993, HMMH and the RDUAA staff made a particularly significant improvement in themodeling process related to the use of actual ARTS flight tracks to model individual operations. In1993 HMMH developed a preprocessor for NOISEMAP, called “ARTSMAP”, which convertsARTS flight tracks into modeling flight tracks. ARTSMAP represented a significant step forward inthe process for modeling aircraft noise exposure because it eliminated the need to approximate actualflight tracks with a far smaller number of modeling flight tracks. ARTSMAP also modeled aircraftoperations by each specific aircraft type using flight tracks and altitude profiles actually flown bythat type of aircraft. For example, each modeled Boeing 727 used flight tracks and altitude profilesfrom 727 operations at RDU. The result of these modeling changes is increased accuracy inmodeling the natural dispersion of flight tracks and flight altitudes than was previously possible.This process was used to develop the 1993 through 1998 DNL contours for RDUAA.

HMMH converted the modeling process from NOISEMAP to the INM for the 1999 noise contours.For the 1999 and 2000 contours, HMMH used the annual sample of ARTS flight tracks to develop aset of modeled tracks for each flight corridor. These tracks served to model both the centerline aswell as lateral dispersion for each corridor. For the 2001 model flight tracks, HMMH compared2001 data to the model tracks developed for the 2000 contours and modified the 2000 model tracksto represent 2001 ARTS data. The 2002 model tracks were likewise developed from the 2001 modeltracks and the 2002 ARTS data. This process, using current data to update the previous modeltracks, was repeated to develop model tracks for the 2003 and 2004 contours.

HMMH prepared the 2005 through 2009 contours using an INM pre-processor, namedRealContours™.5 RealContours prepares each available aircraft flight track during the course of theyear for input into INM. In many ways, RealContours is similar to ARTSMAP, althoughRealContours uses the INM noise model instead of the NOISEMAP model. The 2007 through 2009contours also included the effects of elevation changes around the airport.

RealContours takes the maximum possible advantage of the INM’s capabilities and automates theprocess of preparing the INM inputs directly from recorded flight operations and models the fullrange of aircraft activity as precisely as possible. RealContours improves the precision of modelingby using operations monitoring results in the following areas:

Directly converts the flight track recorded by the airport for every identified aircraft operation toan INM track, rather than assigning all operations to a limited number of prototypical tracks;

Models each operation on the specific runway that it actually used, rather than applying ageneralized distribution to broad ranges of aircraft types to an average of runway use;

Models each operation in the time-of-day in which that operation occurred;

Selects the specific airframe and engine combination to model, on an operation-by-operationbasis, by using the aircraft type designator associated with the flight plan and, if available forcommercial operations, the published composition of the individual operator’s aircraftinventory; and

Compares each flight profile to the standard INM aircraft profiles and selects the best match foreach flight.

5 RealContours™ is proprietary software developed by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.



Flight tracks were provided from RDUAA’s AirScene.com6 noise and operations monitoring system(NOMS) which became active March 31, 2008. In summary, 170,608 individual flight tracks weredirectly used for the preparation of the 2009 annual contours and the operations were scaled to the198,026 civilian operations recorded by the FAA.7 The difference between the number of flighttracks modeled and the FAA operations counts are expected and can occur because RealContoursfilters data to make sure it is suitable for modeling. Each flight track must meet several criteria,including having a runway assignment, valid aircraft type designator and enough suitable flight trackpoints. Additionally, flight tracks for a fourteen-day period in November were excluded from themodeling due to a data quality issue. RDUAA AirScene system does not record enough informationfor modeling military operations on a track by track basis. However, military operations weremodeled in INM using a process similar to that used for the 2004 contours. Additional details of theprocess are presented in Section 3.

It should be noted that INM is used for all noise calculations. RealContours provides anorganizational structure to model individual flight tracks in INM. RealContours does not modifyINM “standard” noise and performance data but rather selects the best standard data, or FAAapproved non-standard noise and performance data, available to INM for each individual flighttrack.8

6 AirScene.com is a product of Era Systems Corporation. Era Systems Corporation is a subsidiary of SRAInternational. Era Systems Corporation was previously named Rannoch Corporation.,

7 The FAA’s Air Traffic Control Tower counts used for this report are published in the Raleigh-DurhamInternational Airport Monthly Activity Report, December 2009. The report is available athttp://www.rdu.com/aboutrdu/stats.htm

8 These characteristics are necessary to maintain compliance with FAA’s requirements for FAA reviewed noiseanalyses (set forth in 14 CFR Part 150, FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, and the INM 7.0 User’s Guide).Although this analysis is not being prepared for FAA review, RDUAA has requested that the modelingtechniques for the RDU annual contours meet FAA review requirements. Therefore, the INM inputs for the2009 RDU contours were a combination INM standard data and user-defined data that are consistent with inputthat the FAA has approved for other projects. The exception is the AH-64 Apache helicopter, which wasrepresented by modifying the INM type for S70 (UH-60 Blackhawk), using publicly available information, torepresent noise levels of the AH-64A. Publicly available data specific to the AH-64D was not found.



3 DESCRIPTION OF THE INPUT DATA

This section describes the process by which HMMH, with extensive RDUAA noise office staffassistance, collected and refined the noise modeling inputs for the 2009 DNL contours. This sectionalso summarizes the results of this process and cites the underlying data sources.

3.1 Airport Layout

The runway configuration at RDU consists of two parallel runways (5L/23R and 5R/23L) used by alljet and turbine-powered propeller aircraft, and some single engine piston-powered propeller aircraft.In addition, a shorter runway (14/32) is perpendicular to, and southeast of, the two parallel runways.The locations, lengths and orientations of the runways have remained the same since preparation ofthe 1987/88 noise contours. HMMH used the North Carolina state plane coordinate system9 andgeographic coordinates10 as the means for identifying ground positions of the fixed noise monitors,runway ends and links to map files, etc. HMMH converted those coordinates as necessary for use inINM. The airport layout is presented in Figure 1.

In addition to the runways described above, helicopter operations were modeled from one of twolocations. Civilian and transient military helicopters were modeled at a single representative locationat Taxiways G & H. Taxiways G & H are shown in Figure 1 and are near the Runway 14/32extended centerline, in between Runways 5L/23R and 5R/23L. Helicopter operations associatedwith the North Carolina Air National Guard (NCANG) use the NCANG ramp located near thesoutheastern end of Runway 14/32.

3.2 Aircraft Operations

The 2009 DNL noise contours reflect operations during the entire calendar year. Althoughoperations of commercial jet aircraft are the dominant source of noise that contributes to thecontours, HMMH carefully considered commuter, general aviation and military operations to ensurethat the contours are as accurate as feasible.

HMMH and RDUAA noise office staff developed the 2009 operations inputs from three principalsources. The first data source was FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) traffic counts of the totalnumbers of operations at RDU for the entire calendar year.11 The FAA counts traffic in fourcategories: air carrier, air taxi, general aviation and military.12 The FAA assigns each operation toone of the categories, with no further breakdown, such as by aircraft type or by time of day. TheseFAA figures served as the reference 2009 traffic level in each category. HMMH prorated otheravailable data to agree with these FAA counts.

9 This is the same coordinate system used by RDUAA staff. The coordinate system references the NorthAmerican Datum (NAD) 1983.

10 Latitude and Longitude, referenced to NAD 1983

11 See footnote 7.

12 These categories are defined in Chapter 9 of FAA Order 7210.3. The most current version of this order isavailable at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fac/



Figure 1 Raleigh-Durham INTL Airport Diagram

Source: FAA, 2009



The second of three data sources for RDU aircraft operations was flight tracks obtained and providedfrom RDUAA’s AirScene.com noise and operations monitoring system. These data were useddirectly in the modeling process as summarized in Section 2.1.2 and categorized individualoperations by operator, aircraft type and time of day (daytime or nighttime) for both departures andarrivals. HMMH associated each operation to one of the four FAA categories.

The mix of engines and noise treatments varies among operators. The flight tracking data,supplemented by published sources, provided the detailed engine information needed to developRDU-specific noise emissions for each individual operation. This procedure ensured that the effortsof operators to achieve a quieter fleet, especially for nighttime operations, would be properlyrepresented in the noise model calculations.

The third data source was RDUAA records. The NCANG provided records for 2009 to theRDUAA. In 2008, the NCANG was considerably active in training for the March 2009 overseasdeployment and the NCANG also completed phase-out of AH-64A attack helicopters, completedintroduction of twenty-four AH-64D attack helicopters and added four UH-72 Lakota light utilityhelicopters.13 RDUAA records provided the fleet mix for military operations by aircraft not based atRDU. HMMH combined and scaled the 2009 NCANG and RDUAA records of military aircraft tomatch the FAA 2009 military cumulative traffic count.

Table 2 summarizes the resulting operations data for the 2009 annual average day used to model the2009 aircraft noise exposure contours with the INM. Total operations in 2009 decreased by twelvepercent compared to 2008 operations (229,406 total operations in 2008 compared to 201,771operations in 2009). Compared to 2008, there was also a fourteen percent decrease in total nightoperations during 2009, resulting in a decreased number of operations that would incur the 10-dBpenalty applied to night (2200 - 0659 local) operations in the computation of DNL.

Total operations of air carrier and cargo jets decreased approximately three percent (approximately221 average day operations in 2008 compared to 213 average day operations in 2009). Regional jetsin the fifty-seat class decreased by approximately sixteen percent (approximately 217 average dayoperations in 2008 compared to 182 average day operations in 2009). General aviation jet operationsdecreased by approximately six percent while operations of propeller aircraft as a whole (i.e.combining commercial and general aviation) decreased approximately nineteen percent. Militaryoperations decreased approximately thirty-eight percent compared to 2008 levels.

The decrease in air carrier jet operations came from small changes in operations by a variety ofaircraft types. There was an increase in operations from the Canadair CRJ-700/900 aircraft and theAirbus A319 and A320 aircraft. However, many other aircraft types decreased including (in order ofnet decrease in operations) the Embraer 135/145, Boeing 737, Canadair CRJ-100/200 and Boeing757.

Operations of “hushkitted” aircraft (i.e. aircraft that the FAA has recertified from 14 CFR Part 36Stage 2 to Stage 3, based on modifications made to the aircraft or its operating certificate) increasedby approximately sixteen percent. There were approximately nine average daily operations in 2008and approximately eleven operations in 2009. The Boeing DC-9-10/30 had the greatest increasebetween 2008 and 2009.

13 The last AH-64D was delivered in March 2008. All four UH-72s were delivered in November 2008.



MD-80 operations decreased by about nine percent from 2008 to 2009. 14 There were approximatelythirty-one MD-80 operations per day in 2008 compared to approximately twenty-eight operations in2009. Although MD-80s were originally manufactured to 14 CFR Part 36 Stage 3 certificationstandards, the aircraft is one of the loudest Stage 3 aircraft operating at RDU.

The 40-50 seat Embraer regional jets (ERJ-135 and ERJ-145) were once again the most commonaircraft type to operate at RDU even though operations of this aircraft family declined by sixteenpercent (approximately 132 operations in 2008 compared to approximately 111 daily operations in2009). These types have been the most common aircraft at RDU since at least 2003. The secondmost common aircraft type was again the Canadair 50-seat regional jets (CRJ-100 and CRJ-200) andoperations by this type decreased sixteen percent from 2008 to 2009. The Canadair 50-seat regionaljets have been the second most common aircraft type at RDU since approximately 2004. The 40-50seat Embraer and Canadair 50-seat regional jets combined accounted for approximately one-third ofall 2009 RDU operations.

14 The MD-80 and DC-9 series were originally manufactured by McDonnell Douglas Corporation and DouglasAircraft Company, respectively. However the Boeing Company has acquired the companies and now brandsthe aircraft as Boeing aircraft.



Table 2 Annual Average Day Number of Operations – 2009

DEPARTURES ARRIVALSAIRCRAFT TYPE Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime

Air Carrier and Air Cargo Jets

717 3.18 1.08 3.21 1.06

727-100 (Hushkit) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

727-200 (Hushkit) 0.51 0.51 0.23 0.79

737-200 (Hushkit) 0.25 0.04 0.25 0.04

737-300/400/500 15.91 2.43 15.80 2.54

737-700/800/900 22.23 2.11 19.48 4.86

747 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

757 2.47 0.98 2.44 1.01

767 1.01 0.01 1.01 0.02

777 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

A300 1.19 1.57 0.96 1.80

A310 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

A319 6.97 1.22 7.05 1.14

A320 2.70 0.95 2.31 1.34

A321 0.43 0.01 0.31 0.13

Canadair CRJ-700/9001

7.16 0.98 6.99 1.15

DC-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

DC-8-60 (Hushkit) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

DC-8-70 (Re-engine) 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.09

DC-9-10/30 (Hushkit) 1.00 0.16 0.93 0.23

DC-9-40/50 (Hushkit) 2.45 0.27 2.44 0.27

Embraer 170/1901

10.94 1.43 10.07 2.30

L-1011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MD-11 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.19

MD-80 Series 12.68 1.38 11.96 2.10

MD-90 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00

Sub-Total 91.22 15.41 85.57 21.07

Regional Jets (less than 60 seats)2

Regional Jet (Canadair) 31.35 4.05 31.86 3.55

Regional Jet (Embraer) 48.57 6.80 51.85 3.53

Regional Jet (Fairchild) 0.11 0.00 0.10 <0.01

Sub-Total 80.03 10.86 83.82 7.07

Corporate Jets

Business Jets (Stage 2)3

0.27 0.04 0.25 0.06

Business Jets (Stage 3 / Hushkit)3

0.08 0.02 0.10 0.01

Business Jets (Stage 3)3

23.67 2.42 24.33 1.75

Sub-Total 24.02 2.48 24.68 1.82

Table 2 continues on the next page.



Table 2 Annual Average Day Number of Operations – 2009, continued

DEPARTURES ARRIVALSAIRCRAFT TYPE Daytime Nighttime Daytime Daytime

Civilian Propeller Aircraft and Helicopters4

Single-Engine Prop 21.59 2.57 22.53 1.63

Twin-Engine Piston Prop 9.11 0.86 9.28 0.69

Twin-Engine Turboprop 11.11 1.29 11.53 0.88

Civilian Helicopters 0.49 0.22 0.49 0.22

Sub-Total 42.31 4.94 43.83 3.42

Military Aircraft

Four-Engine TurboProp (C-130/P-3) 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00

Helicopters 2.87 0.00 2.86 <0.01

Jet Transport (C-5/C-9/C-17) 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00

Other Jets 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00

Single-Engine Turboprop 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.00

Tactical (F-15/F-18/ S-3/T-37/ T-38/T-45) 0.67 0.02 0.69 0.00

Twin-Engine Turboprop 0.76 0.00 0.74 0.02

Sub-Total 5.11 0.02 5.11 0.02

242.69 33.71 243.00 33.40GRAND TOTALS

276.40 276.40

Notes:Totals and sub-totals may not match exactly due to rounding.1. While these aircraft are sometimes considered regional jets (and were grouped as such in the 2005 report), these

aircraft are capable of carrying more than 60 passengers and therefore are counted as Air Carrier by FAA (FAAOrder 7210.3).

2. These aircraft are not capable of carrying more than 60 passengers and therefore are counted as Air Taxi by FAA(FAA Order 7210.3).

3. As defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14, Part 36, “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type andAirworthiness Certification”

4. This category was called “Commuter & General Aviation Propeller Aircraft” in the 2005 report and prior reports.Source: HMMH, AirScene.com, RDUAA records



3.3 Runway Use

Prior to 2008, HMMH developed runway use modeling assumptions in a three-step process: (1)identifying the percentage of time the traffic flow was northeast or southwest, (2) identifying thefraction of flights that used the left and right runways by flow direction and aircraft type, and (3)identifying the use of Runway 14/32. Each of these three steps involved various data andobservation samples. However, RealContours processed the acceptable individual flight tracks15

from the 2008 and 2009 flight tracking data to model each operation on its associated runway. The2009 runway use was based on actual use developed from each acceptable flight track obtained fromAirscene.com.

3.3.1 Direction of Traffic Flow

RDU operates its parallel runway complex in one of two directions depending on the prevailingwinds. If winds are from the north, northeast or east, aircraft arrive and depart in a northeasterlydirection using Runways 5L and 5R. Figure 2 depicts a one-day sample of operations on Runways5L and 5R. If winds are from the south, southwest or west, aircraft arrive and depart to thesouthwest using Runways 23L and 23R. Figure 3 depicts a one-day sample of operations onRunways 23L and 23R.

The complete set of flight tracking data, as prepared by RealContours, was also analyzed fordirection of flow. The analysis of the modeled flight track data indicated that the runway use flow atRDU for 2009 was:

Fifty-five percent southwest flow (Runways 23L and 23R)

Forty-five percent northeast flow (Runways 5L and 5R)

Table 3 provides the historical runway use modeled at RDU since 1992.16 The forty-five percent innortheast flow and fifty-five percent in southwest flow observed for 2009 is in the typical rangerecorded at RDU since 1987.

15 RealContours uses flight tracks that meet certain criteria and have enough data for modeling. This isdiscussed in Section 2.1.2.

16 Runway use flow from prior years was documented in the various reports listed in Section 6. The runwayuse flow for 1992 was documented in the 1993 report.



Table 3 Comparison of Annual Traffic Flow - 1992 to 2009

Annual Percent FlowYear Northeast

(R/W 5)Southwest(R/W 23)

1992 45 55

1993 39 61

1994 44 56

1995 47 53

1996 35 65

1997 43 57

1998 48 52

1999 46 54

2000 46 54

2001 44 56

2002 45 55

2003 39 61

2004 47 53

2005 50 50

2006 44 56

2007 45 55

2008 45 55

2009 45 55

18-Year Average 44 56

Source: HMMH, RDUAA

3.3.2 Use of Individual Runways

As mentioned previously, each of the individual 170,608 flight tracks modeled in INM had anassigned runway. The flight tracks included all six directions of RDU’s three runways. Thesummarized runway use is presented in Table 4. All civilian helicopters are modeled as if they landand take off from Taxiways G & H.

Since the flight tracking data did not include suitable data for military operations, HMMH assumedthat the military aircraft had the same runway use as similar civilian aircraft types. In addition,according to NCANG personnel, military operations other than helicopters use Runways 5L/23R and5R/23L. In the contour development for 1991 through 2005, military helicopters not based at RDUused the ramp at the NCANG base (then modeled as imaginary Runway 18/36) for arrivals anddepartures. The NCANG base is located near the southern end of Runway 14/32. However, recentdiscussions with RDUAA staff indicate that military helicopters not based at RDU (non-NCANG)land and take-off from Taxiways G & H and were modeled as such for 2006 through 2009. AllNCANG helicopters use the NCANG ramp.

Table 4 contains the runway use percentages for 2009 for an annual average day. During calendaryear 2009, Runway 5L/23R was often closed for rehabilitation, primarily in May and December.During calendar year 2009 Runway 5R/23L underwent rehabilitation. These runway closures had



the effect of reducing operations on Runway 5L/23R and increasing operations on Runway 5R/23Lin 2009 relative to 2008. The use of actual flight tracking data ensures that actual runway use ismodeled.



Table 4 Runway Use Percentages for the Modeled Annual Average Day – 2009Air Carrier, Air Cargo, and Military Jet

Daytime NighttimeRunway Departure Arrival Departure Arrival

5L 21 22 28 275R 25 24 17 19

23L 32 27 23 1923R 23 27 31 35

14 0 0 0 032 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100Regional Jet


5L 30 27 27 245R 15 18 18 18

23L 21 21 24 2523R 33 34 31 32

14 0 0 0 032 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100Corporate Jet


5L 6 13 4 85R 39 31 33 39

23L 53 35 58 3623R 3 22 5 17

14 0 0 0 032 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100Military & Commuter Propeller


5L 8 10 3 85R 37 33 35 41

23L 49 40 60 3523R 6 14 2 14

14 0 0 0 032 0 3 0 3

Total 100 100 100 100General Aviation Propeller


5L 8 12 7 185R 35 14 33 20

23L 40 21 40 2423R 8 16 8 23

14 9 0 13 032 0 37 0 16

Total 100 100 100 100Note: Totals may not match exactly due to rounding. Source: HMMH, AirScene.com



3.4 Flight Tracks and Flight Track Use

Standard input for INM includes aircraft flight tracks developed from observation of flightoperations at an airport. A group of flight tracks from aircraft using a specific runway and going toor from a single fix is referred to as a flight "corridor". The width of a flight corridor generallyincreases with increasing distance from the airport as individual tracks become more laterallydispersed. This "dispersion" occurs for a variety of reasons, most of which are out of the pilot'scontrol. Air traffic control requirements, weather and aircraft climb performance are a few of thefactors involved. To model the noise exposure properly, it is important to model the dispersionproperly. Several methodologies have been used to develop modeled flight tracks over the history ofnoise contour development at RDU and these are described in Section 2.1.

For the 2009 flight tracks, RealContours prepared each of the 170,608 individual flight tracks for usein the INM, as discussed in Section 2.1.2. The INM used the converted flight track data to producethe annual contours. The large number of individual model flight tracks, each developed from anactual recorded flight track, ensures that flight track geometry and flight corridor use is modeled asreasonably as possible for each individual airframe, engine type and time of operation (day or nightwith the 10 dB penalty). Calendar year 2009 military aircraft operations were modeled with therepresentative model tracks and model track use that HMMH developed for the 2004 annualcontours.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 present flight tracks in Northeast flow and Southwest flow respectively.Figure 2 shows aircraft operations for April 16, 2009 and includes some arrivals to Runway 32.Figure 3 shows aircraft operations for May 8, 2009 and includes departures on Runway 14 and somearrivals to Runway 32. In both figures, the runway use on the two primary runways is about thesame. For example in Figure 2 there are about the same number of operations using Runway 5L as5R. Appendix A of this report presents the 2009 procedures for jets arriving and departing RDU,which helps explain the majority of flight paths shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

W a k e C o u n t yW a k e C o u n t y

D u r h a m C o u n t yD u r h a m C o u n t y

C h a t h a m C o u n t yC h a t h a m C o u n t y

O r a n g e C o u n t yO r a n g e C o u n t y

G r a n v i l l e C o u n t yG r a n v i l l e C o u n t y

tu64

§̈¦85

§̈¦540

ST751

ST157

tu1

tu1

tu15

ST147

ST98

ST50

ST54

ST55

tu15

tu70

tu70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440

§̈¦40

ST54

tu501

ST55

tu501

tu501

tu15

tu401

tu64

tu401

ST50

tu70

tu264

§̈¦540

ST86

5L5R

23L23R

14

32

Figure: 2Page 23

2009 Flight Track Sample for Operations on Runways 5L and 5R

0 8,000 16,000 24,000 32,000 Feet

Prepared For: Raleigh - Durham Ai rpor t Author i ty¢H

:\GIS

\USA

\NC

\301

255_

000_

RD

U_2

009\

3012

55_R

DU

_200

9_Fi

gure

02_R

WY

5LR

_Flig

ht_T

rack

s.m

xd

Raleigh - DurhamInternational Airport

Departure Flight Tracks

County Boundary

Parks

Interstate

River / StreamWater

RDU BuildingsRDU Property

Urban Area

Arrival Flight Tracks

Notes: Flight tracks for April 16, 2009

Includes jet and propeller aircraft operations on Runways 5L and5R and propeller aircraft operations associated with Runway 14/32

Franklin County not labeled (Northeast corner of this figure)Johnston County not labeled (Southeast corner of this figure)

US Route

State Route

W a k e C o u n t yW a k e C o u n t y

D u r h a m C o u n t yD u r h a m C o u n t y

C h a t h a m C o u n t yC h a t h a m C o u n t y

O r a n g e C o u n t yO r a n g e C o u n t y

G r a n v i l l e C o u n t yG r a n v i l l e C o u n t y

tu64

§̈¦85

§̈¦540

ST751

ST157

tu1

tu1

tu15

ST147

ST98

ST50

ST54

ST55

tu15

tu70

tu70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440

§̈¦40

ST54

tu501

ST55

tu501

tu501

tu15

tu401

tu64

tu401

ST50

tu70

tu264

§̈¦540

ST86

5L5R

23L23R

14

32

Figure: 3Page 25

2009 Flight Track Sample for Operations on Runways 23L and 23R

0 8,000 16,000 24,000 32,000 Feet

Prepared For: Raleigh - Durham Ai rpor t Author i ty¢H

:\GIS

\USA

\NC

\301

255_

000_

RD

U_2

009\

3012

55_R

DU

_200

9_Fi

gure

03_R

WY

23LR

_Flig

ht_T

rack

s.m

xd


Departure Flight Tracks

County Boundary

Parks

Interstate State Route

US Route

River / StreamWater


Urban Area

Local Roads Railroad

Arrival Flight Tracks

Notes: Flight tracks for May 8, 2009

Includes jet and propeller aircraft operations on Runways 23Land 23R, and propeller aircraft operations associated withRunway 14/32, and helicopter operations

Franklin County not labeled (Northeast corner of this figure)Johnston County not labeled (Southeast corner of this figure)



3.5 Aircraft Altitude Profile

The aircraft altitude profile is determined by many factors including the aircraft weight, engine thrustand flap settings of the aircraft and the weather conditions at the time of the aircraft operation. TheINM database includes arrival and departure profiles for most aircraft within its database. The INMusually has only one arrival profile for each aircraft type and HMMH used the default arrival profilefor all arrival operations. However, for a given aircraft/engine combination, departure noise isdependent on aircraft take-off weight. Since aircraft take-off weight is typically not reported byairlines, the INM has the option to assign a departure profile based on the distance of the aircraft’sdestination, or “stage length”, as a surrogate for weight. Most commercial jets and some propelleraircraft in the INM database have multiple departure weights while most general aviation aircraft,including corporate jets, only have a single weight.

RealContours examined each individual flight track’s altitude profile and assigned a best match fromINM standard database.17 For those military types that are based on commercial airframes, like theC-9, HMMH assigned stage lengths based on similar commercial aircraft types.

3.6 Meteorological Conditions

The INM has several settings that affect aircraft performance profiles and sound propagation basedon meteorological data. Meteorological settings include annual average temperature, barometricpressure, relative humidity at the airport, and average headwind speed. HMMH reviewed 2009weather data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC,) for RDU (WBAN # 13722).18 Basedon analysis of the NCDC data, the annual average meteorological conditions for RDU in 2009 were:temperature of 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit, sea level pressure of 30.05 in-Hg. and relative humidity of65.5 percent. The headwind speed was set to the INM default of 8.0 knots.

3.7 Terrain Data

Terrain data describe the elevation of the ground surrounding the airport, and on airport property.The INM, as used for the RDU 2009 contours, uses terrain data to adjust the ground level under theflight paths. The terrain data does not affect the aircraft’s performance or noise levels, but doesaffect the vertical distance between the aircraft and a “receiver” on the ground. This in turn affectsnoise propagation assumptions in terms of the distance between the aircraft and “receiver” and hownoise propagates over ground. The 2009 contours were developed with terrain data provided by theUnited States Geographic Survey (USGS).19

17 Certain limits were placed on this process. In particular, profiles were not selected if the aircraft would,according to INM, overrun the runway.

18Data downloaded from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov on 11/16/2010

19 Data downloaded from http://seamless.usgs.gov on 01/29/2009 in GridFloat format.



4 NOISE CONTOURS

For 2009, HMMH prepared three sets of Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours, asshown in the following four figures:

Figure 4 - 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on All Runways

Figure 5 - 2008 Annual Average Day Contours Compared to 2009 Annual Average Day Contours

Figure 6 - 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 5L and 5R

Figure 7 - 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 23L and 23R

Each figure presents the 55 dB, 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB DNL contours for each of the respectivesets. The 75 dB DNL contour was computed but is too small to be well depicted on these figures.The 75 dB DNL contour remains within the airport boundary and does not extend more than 700 feetfrom Runway 5L/23R or 600 feet from Runway 5R/23L, or 100 feet from either of the twohelicopter locations in any of the contour sets.

Explanations of the contours sets are provided on the pages following the figures.

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

ST751

!(70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440§̈¦40

tu70

tu70

tu15

ST55

ST54

ST50

ST98

ST147

C h a t h a m C o u n t yC h a t h a m C o u n t y W a k e C o u n t yW a k e C o u n t y

William B. UmsteadState Park

Carl Alwin SchenckMemorial Forest

D u r h a mD u r h a m C o u n t yC o u n t y

§̈¦540!(55

!(60

!(65!(70

5L5R

23L

23R

14

32

6

2

1

8

9

4

11

1210

Figure: 4Page 31

2009 Annual Average Day Contoursfor All Operations on All Runways

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Feet

Prepared For: Raleigh - Durham Ai rpor t Author i ty¢ DNL Contours

County Boundary

Parks


US Route

River / StreamWater


Urban Area

H:\G

IS\U

SA\N

C\3

0125

5_00

0_R

DU

_200

9\30

1255

_RD

U_2

009_

Figu

re04

_AA

D_C

onto

urs.

mxd

Local Roads


Noise Monitor Location#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

ST751

!(70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440§̈¦40

tu70

tu70

tu15

ST55

ST54

ST50

ST98

ST147





§̈¦540!(55

!(60

!(65!(70

5L5R

23L

23R

14

32

6

2

1

8

9

4

11

1210

Figure: 5Page 33

2008 Annual Average Day ContoursCompared to2009 Annual Average Day Contours

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Feet

Prepared For: Raleigh - Durham Ai rpor t Author i ty¢ 2009 DNL Contours

County Boundary

Parks


US Route

River / StreamWater


Urban Area

H:\G

IS\U

SA\N

C\3

0125

5_00

0_R

DU

_200

9\30

1255

_RD

U_2

009_

Figu

re05

_070

8_A

AD_C

onto

ur_C

ompa

rison

.mxd




2008 DNL Contours

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

ST751

!(70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440§̈¦40

tu70

tu70

tu15

ST55

ST54

ST50

ST98

ST147





§̈¦540

!(55

!(60

!(65!(70

5L5R

23L

23R

14

32

6

2

1

8

9

4

11

1210

Figure: 6Page 35

2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 5L and 5R

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Feet


County Boundary

Parks


US Route

River / StreamWater


Urban Area

H:\G

IS\U

SA\N

C\3

0125

5_00

0_R

DU

_200

9\30

1255

_RD

U_2

009_

Figu

re06

_AA

D_5

LR_C

onto

urs.

mxd




#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

ST751

!(70

§̈¦40

§̈¦440§̈¦40

tu70

tu70

tu15

ST55

ST54

ST50

ST98

ST147





§̈¦540

!(55

!(60

!(65!(70

5L5R

23L

23R

14

32

6

2

1

8

9

4

11

1210

Figure: 7Page 37

2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 23L and 23R

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Feet


County Boundary

Parks


US Route

River / StreamWater


Urban Area

H:\G

IS\U

SA\N

C\3

0125

5_00

0_R

DU

_200

9\30

1255

_RD

U_2

009_

Figu

re07

_AA

D_2

3LR

_Con

tour

s.m

xd






4.1 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on All Runways

Figure 4 presents the 55, 60, 65 and 70 dB DNL contours for the annual average day in 2009, basedon the annualized aircraft operations, runway use, flight track geometry and flight track usediscussed in Section 3. Jet aircraft operations are the dominant source of overall exposure; propelleroperations are generally quieter and have a relatively limited effect on the size and shape of thecontours, except to the southeast of the airport near Runway 14/32. Helicopter operations are mostpronounced at two locations on airport property, Taxiways G & H, shown as a small circle next tothe Runway 14 label, and the NCANG ramp, shown as a circle in the 65 dB and bulge in the 65 dBDNL contours near the southeast end of Runway 14/32.

The elongated shape reflects the general air traffic flow in either a northeasterly or southwesterlydirection. As departing aircraft proceed from the airport in either of these two directions, the ends ofthe contours begin to diverge into lobes that follow the principal flight corridors as they turn from theextended runway centerlines. It is also important to note that some of the lobes are dominated byarrival noise, particularly along the extended runway centerlines at the 60 dB DNL and 55 dB DNLcontours and also at the 65 dB DNL contour on the northeast side of Runway 5R/23L. The generalsmoothness of the contours is the result of using dispersed aircraft flight tracks in the noise modelingprocess, reflecting the naturally dispersed nature of flight tracks within corridors, as individualaircraft proceed onto assigned headings to their destinations. There are some subtle variations in thecomputed noise values as a result of terrain data.

4.2 Comparison of 2008 and 2009 Annual Average Day DNL Contours

Figure 5 compares the noise contours for 2009 with those for 2008. The two contour sets havechanges that are primarily associated with the Runway 5L/23R closures. The noise levels associatedwith Runway 5L/23R operations decreased less than 1 dB while noise levels associated with Runway5L/23R operations increased less than 1 dB on runway centerline where arrivals dominate. Thenoise levels associated with Runway 14/32 and the NCANG facility decreased about 3 dB.

The 2009 contours to the southwest show the shift in noise caused by the Runway 5L/23R closures.Noise levels associated with Runway 5L arrivals and Runway 23R departures decrease on the orderof 1 dB or less along Runway 5L/23R centerline between Interstate 40 and State Highway 55. The2009 contours have an increase of less than 1 dB along Runway 5R/23L centerline betweenInterstate 40 and Noise Monitor 4 caused by the increase in Runway 5R arrivals and Runway 23Ldepartures. The increase in Runway 5R arrival and Runway 23L departure noise made the 2009 55dB DNL contour extend further towards Noise Monitor 4.

On the northeast side of the airport, the 2009 and 2008 55 dB and 60 dB DNL contours have threeprimary lobes. The three lobes in the contours are associated with (listed from east to west) Runway23L arrivals (noise monitors 8 and 11), Runway 23R arrivals (noise monitors 9 and northwest of 12),and finally Runway 5L and Runway 5R departures (noise monitor 10). The lobe associated withRunway 5L and Runway 5R departures extends into Durham County. The Runway 23L arrival lobeincreased less than 1 dB in 2009 while the Runway 23R lobe decreased by approximately 1 dBbecause of the shift in arrival operations associated with the Runway 5L/23R closures. The 2009departure lobe shows a decrease in noise that is less than 1 dB.



Table 5 presents the gross land area within each of the noise contours for 2009 as well as thepreceding seventeen years.20 As the table shows, the areas within the individual contour intervalsdecreased slightly from 2008 to 2009. It should be noted that the 75 dB DNL contours have beencompletely within the airport property since 2002.

As discussed in Section 3.2, from 2008 to 2009 RDU experienced a twelve percent decrease in thetotal operations. This change in overall operations is sufficient to cause a noticeable change in theoverall size of the contours. There were also changes in operations for certain aircraft types as wellas differences in runway flow. These factors, in aggregate, resulted in an overall reduction in thecontour area for any given level in the 2009 contours. The result in the 2009 contours is a sixpercent decrease in the total area for the 55 dB DNL contour, a seven percent decrease in the totalarea for the 60 dB DNL contour, a ten percent decrease in the total area for the 65 dB DNL contour,ten percent decrease in the total area for the 70 dB DNL contour and a nine percent decrease in thetotal area for the 75 dB DNL contour.

4.3 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 5Land 5R

As discussed previously, during many days of the year the traffic flow is exclusively to the northeast.When this occurs, the noise exposure pattern differs considerably from the exposure shown in Figure4 and Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the exposure on an annual average day in northeast flow (i.e., usingRunways 5L and 5R), which occurred forty-five percent of the time in 2009.

4.4 2009 Annual Average Day Contours for All Operations on Runways 23Land 23R

As discussed previously, during many days of the year the traffic flow is exclusively to thesouthwest. When this occurs, the noise exposure pattern differs considerably from the exposureshown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Figure 7 shows the exposure on an annual average day in southwestflow (i.e., using Runways 23L and 23R), which occurred fifty-five percent of the time in 2009.

The contours of Figure 4 are the equivalent of combining Figure 6 and Figure 7 in the proportion thatnortheast flow and southwest flow occurred during 2009.

20 Land area from the prior contours was documented in the various reports listed in Section 6. The area for the1992 final contours was documented in the 1993 report.



Table 5 Comparison of Land Use Areas within Noise Contours - 1992 to 2009

Area Within DNL Contour (sq. mi.)Year

55 dB DNL 60 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 75 dB DNL

1992 Final21

48.0 23.1 10.6 4.8 2.1

1993 47.9 26.4 12.8 5.0 1.4

1994 50.7 24.8 12.3 5.4 1.7

1995 41.8 19.1 8.2 3.7 1.8

1996 33.3 15.7 7.1 3.5 1.6

1997 24.5 11.2 5.1 2.7 1.4

1998 16.4 7.6 3.4 1.8 1.0

1999 33.6 15.6 7.5 3.1 1.1

2000 34.7 15.4 7.1 2.9 1.1

2001 27.6 13.0 6.2 2.4 1.0

2002 24.0 11.1 5.3 1.8 0.8*

2003 22.8 10.5 4.9 1.6 0.8*

2004 24.1 10.9 4.9 1.7 0.8*

2005 23.5 10.6 4.8 1.8 0.9*

2006 25.0 11.1 5.0 1.8 0.9*

2007 23.1 10.2 4.8 1.6 0.6*

2008 22.1 9.9 4.2 1.5 0.7*

2009 20.9 9.2 3.8 1.3 0.6*

Notes:Areas are cumulative; e.g., the area within the 70 dB DNL contour includes the area within the 75 dBcontour and the area within the 55 dB contour includes the area within all contour intervals.* Completely on airport property

21 Two contour sets were produced for 1992, one using the historical method of simulated flight tracks inconjunction with NOISEMAP, and a second (final) one using the method of actual, radar-recorded flight tracksin conjunction with ARTSMAP. The second (final) contour set is described in the 1993 report.



5 SINGLE EVENT CONTOURS

The DNL contours presented in Section 4 are comprised of the individual aircraft operations thatoccurred throughout the course of the year. This section presents the Sound Exposure Level (SEL)contours for the arrival/departure cycles of representative aircraft operating at RDU during 2009.22

The SEL metric is the individual aircraft component of the DNL metric and includes both anaircraft’s sound level and duration (total noise energy of the single event). In each of the figures, theaircraft is moving from left to right. On the left side the aircraft is arriving to the runway, crossingthe landing threshold of the runway at the “0” on the scale.23 The aircraft then departs from therunway to the right, starting its take-off roll at “0”. The contours were prepared with conditionsrepresentative of RDU during 2007. RDUAA staff selected the fifteen aircraft presented here torepresent the variety of operations at RDU.

Figure 8 presents Sound Exposure Levels for eight commercial aircraft along with images of theaircraft while Figure 9 presents Sound Exposure Levels for seven corporate/general aviation aircraftalong with images of the aircraft. The SEL contours and the images of the aircraft are at the samerespective scales in both figures. The descriptions of the various aircraft types are presented belowand on the pages that follow.

Airbus A300-600 – The Airbus A300-600 was the most common wide-body aircraft operating atRDU in 2009 and was mostly used for cargo.

Boeing 727-200 with FedEx Heavyweight Hushkit – The Boeing 727-200 was generally usedfor cargo at RDU during 2009. Although the total number of operations was relatively smallcompared to the overall 2009 operations (Table 2), these aircraft were among the loudest aircraftthat regularly operated at RDU in 2009. In addition, over half of the 727-200 operationsoccurred during the nighttime hours which added the 10 dB penalty within the DNL metric.

Boeing 737-700 – The Boeing 737-700 is also similar in noise characteristics to the 737-800 and737-900. These aircraft contribute to the DNL contours because they were some of the mostcommon aircraft to operate at RDU in 2009, as opposed to these aircraft being relatively loud.Southwest Airlines was the primary Boeing 737-700 operator at RDU in 2009.

Airbus A319 – The Airbus A319 is the most common and smallest variant of the A320 familythat operated at RDU during 2009. The A320 family also includes the A320 and A321 both ofwhich also operate at RDU and are listed in Table 2. The primary A319 operators at RDU in2009 were US Airways, United Airlines and Northwest Airlines. For the 2009 noise contours,the A319 also represented operations of the Embraer 190, which made up approximately fifty-three percent of the operations listed as “Embraer 170/190” in Table 2.

22 The Sound Exposure Level contours presented in this Section were prepared as part of the 2007 report withINM 7.0a using calendar year 2007 meteorological conditions and the most common departure profile used for2007. These contours are representative of 2009 conditions for the purpose of this Section for comparing noisefrom different aircraft types.

23 The aircraft is at an altitude of 50 feet as it crosses the landing threshold.



Figure 8 Sound Exposure Level Contours for Select Commercial Aircraft



Figure 9 Sound Exposure Level Contours for Select General Aviation Aircraft

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-50 with ABS Hushkit – These aircraft, like the Boeing 727-200, havebeen fitted with a hushkit to comply with current noise regulations in the United States(hushkitted from 14 CFR Part 36 Stage 2 to Stage 3). This aircraft represents all of theoperations listed as “DC-9-40/50” in Table 2. During 2009, this aircraft was used primarily forpassenger service at RDU by Northwest Airlines.

McDonnell Douglas MD-82 – This was the second most common of the MD-80 series aircraftoperating at RDU in 2009. The MD-80 series was the third most common air carrier aircraftfamilies in 2009 and were one of the noisiest aircraft operating at the airport. This aircraft is a



development of the DC-9-50 that is longer and heavier with engines that are slightly moreadvanced than those on the DC-9-50, but still noisy compared to new production aircraft.

Boeing 717-200 – The Boeing 717 is the latest, and last, evolved version of the McDonnellDouglas DC-9 with quiet, current technology engines along with other improvements. Asshown in Figure 8, the Boeing 717 is considerably quieter than its predecessors – the McDonnellDouglas DC-9-50 and the McDonnell Douglas MD-82. During 2009 AirTran Airways was theonly regular Boeing 717 operator at RDU.

Embraer ERJ-145 – This is the most common Embraer regional jet in a family of variants thatseat approximately thirty-five to fifty passengers. The family is noted in Table 2 as “RegionalJet (Embraer)”. This family of aircraft is relatively quiet and had over fifty percent moreoperations at RDU in 2009 as any other aircraft family.

Gulfstream GV –Gulfstream GV is one of the largest purpose-built corporate jets. TheGulfstream GV had, on average, one daily operation in 2009 and accounts for approximately twopercent of the operations listed as “Business Jets (Stage 3)” in Table 2.

Gulfstream GIIB/GIII – These corporate jets are certified under 14 CFR Part 36 as Stage 2 andwere among the loudest civilian aircraft that operated at RDU in 2009. The shape of the SELcontour to the right, on the departure side, is noticeably different than the other aircraft becausethe procedure included in the noise model has a thrust cut-back after the aircraft reaches 400 feetabove the airfield. Thrust is increased approximately six to seven miles after the initial start oftake-off roll. The Gulfstream GIIB/GIII makes up about fifty percent of the operations listed as“Business Jets (Stage 2)” in Table 2.

Beechjet 400, Cessna 550 Citation II and Cessna 560 Citation V – The Beechjet 400, which wasoriginally manufactured and modeled in INM, as the Mitsubishi MU-300-10 Diamond II, is acommon corporate jet and is also used by the United States Air Force as the T-1A Jayhawktrainer. The aircraft is currently being produced by the Hawker Beechcraft, with some upgrades,as the Hawker 400XP. It is also used to represent several other Stage 3 corporate jets in INM7.0b including the Cessna 550 Citation II and Cessna 560 Citation V. This aircraft type onaverage had thirteen daily operations in 2009 and is the most common single type represented“Business Jets (Stage 3)” in Table 2.

Learjet 25 – These corporate jets, about the same size as the Beechjet 400, are certified under 14CFR Part 36 as Stage 2 and were among the loudest civilian aircraft that operated at RDU in2009. It is also used to represent several other Stage 2 corporate jets in INM 7.0b and makes upapproximately thirty-five percent of the operations listed as “Business Jets (Stage 2)” in Table 2.

Beech Super King Air 200/300 – This is a common twin-engine general aviation turboprop andis represented, like many small twin-engine turboprops, by the DHC6 (Dash 6).

Beechcraft 58 - This is a common piston (reciprocating engine) twin-engine general aviationaircraft and represents most other twin piston engine propeller aircraft. The contours hererepresent approximately eighty-five percent of the operations listed as “Twin-Engine PistonProp” in Table 2.

Cessna 206 Stationair – This is a common piston (reciprocating engine) single-engine generalaviation aircraft. This aircraft accounted for approximately ten percent of operations listed as“Single-Engine Prop” in Table 2.



6 REFERENCES

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(LDN) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1993, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 293250, July, 1994, Lexington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(LDN) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1994, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 293860, September, 1995, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1995, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 294490, November, 1996, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1996, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295090, February, 1998, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1997, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295091, September, 1999, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1998, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295092.01, October, 2000, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 1999, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295093.01, March, 2001, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2000, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina DRAFT,” HMMH Report No. 295094.01, March, 2002, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Sound Level(DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2001, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295095.010, March, 2003, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2002, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295096.010, March, 2004, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2003, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 295097.010, March, 2005, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2004, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 301250.000, May, 2007, Burlington, MA.



Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2005, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 301251.001, August, 2007, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2006, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 301252.000, August, 2008, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2007, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 301253.000, June, 2009, Burlington, MA.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., “Technical Report on Preparation of Day-Night Average SoundLevel (DNL) Contours of Aircraft Noise During 2008, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, NorthCarolina,” HMMH Report No. 301254.000, September, 2010, Burlington, MA.


HMMH Report No. 301255.000 page A-1

APPENDIX A JET ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

This appendix presents a schematic of the jet RDU arrival procedures (known as Standard TerminalRoute or “STAR”) and departure procedures. The FAA updates procedures every 28 days, and theseare the procedures published in May 2009 and are considered representative of the proceduresthroughout 2009.

Note that the lines are only representative. In reality aircraft may not follow these lines exactly,because of variation in navigation methods, and would still be compliant with the procedure. Forexample, an aircraft departing Runway 5L or Runway 5R and going west on the PACKK SIXdeparture will turn left after reaching sufficient altitude. The aircraft may either intercept the linebetween RDU and LIB (generally west of the Chatham County and Wake County boundary) andthen make a right turn towards LIB or head directly towards LIB. These two cases are shown inAppendix A, Figure A-8 of the 2006 report. Each “Generalized Departure Procedure” indicates thegeneral route shown for aircraft departing to FAK (Flat Rock), LVL (Lawrenceville) and TYI (TarRiver). However these procedures do not specify a direct line for the aircraft to approach these threepoints.

The ground navigation beacons are also known by names that can be said over the radio, instead oftheir three-character identifier. The beacons mentioned in the RDU procedures are listed below withtheir names.

Identifier Name

FAK Flat Rock VORTAC1

LVL Lawrenceville VORTAC

HPW Hopewell VORTAC

FKN Franklin VORTAC

CCV Cape Charles VORTAC

TYI Tar River VORTAC

ISO Kinston VORTAC

ILM Wilmington VORTAC

FAY Fayetteville VOR/DME2

SDZ Sandhills VORTAC

LIB Liberty VORTAC

GSO3

Greensboro VORTAC

PSK Pulaski VORTAC

ROA Roanoke VORTAC

SBV South Boston VORTAC

Notes:1. VORTAC - Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air

Navigation Aid; this is a type of ground based navigation beacon2. VOR/DME - Very High Frequency Omni-directional Radio Range /Distance

Measuring Equipment; this is a type of ground based navigation beacon3. GSO / Greensboro is not shown and is seldom used for jetsSource: National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO, dttp cycle 0713, verifiedagainst cycle 0905)

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

""!(

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

!R

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

" "

"%%

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AA

V i r g i n i a

S o u t hC a r o l i n a A

tl a n t i c O c

e

an

BUZZY S

IX A

RRIVAL

FAYE

TTEV

ILLE THR

EE D

EP

BRADE FIVE ARRIVAL

TARHEEL SEVEN DEPARTURE

SOUTH BOSTON FOUR ARRIVAL

ARGAL FIVE ARRIVAL

PACKK SIX DEPARTURE

SBV

ROAHPW

FKN

PSK

CCV

ILM

SDZ

TYI

RDU

LIB

ISO

FAY

TABERDRIVE

TENNI

WENDI

TILTZ

ROZBO

MEYER

EVIGY

DUFFI

BUZZY BRADE

BILLA

AZELL

ARGAL

ALDAN

Bladen County

Pender County

Wake County

Robeson County

Duplin County

Sampson County

Beaufort County

Onslow County

Halifax County

Craven County

Bertie County

Moore County

Hyde County

Johnston County

Pit t County

Randolph County

Columbus County

Union County

Guilford County

Chatham County

Harnett County Wayne

County

Nash County

Anson County

Rowan County

Surry County

Jones County

Davidson County

Franklin County

Martin County

Granvil le County

Stokes County

Warren County

Forsyth County

Stanly County Lenoir

County

Orange County

Tyrrell County

Hoke County

Wilson County

Gates County

Edgecombe County

Hertford County

Yadkin County

Northampton County

Montgomery County

Cabarrus County

Scotland County

Davie County

Lee County

Washington County

Carteret County

Cumberland County

Caswell County

Person County

Richmond County

Rockingham County

Iredell County

Alamance County

Pamlico County

Durham County

Greene County

Mecklenburg County

Camden County

Brunswick County

Currituck County

Chowan County

Perquimans County

Pasquotank County

Dare County

New Hanover County

§̈¦95

§̈¦40

§̈¦85

§̈¦64

§̈¦295

§̈¦664

§̈¦485

§̈¦264

§̈¦195

§̈¦564

§̈¦64

§̈¦295

§̈¦64

LVL

FAK

Figure: A-1Page A-3

RDU Jet Ar r iva l andDeparture ProceduresMay 2009

20 0 20 Nautical Miles

Prepared For: Raleigh - Durham Ai rpor t Author i ty¢ Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR)

H:\G

IS\U

SA\N

C\3

0125

5_00

0_R

DU

_200

9\R

DU

_200

9_A

ppen

dix_

A.m

xd


Departure Procedure

Data Source: National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO,dttp cycle 0905); National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (Cycle 0607); Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI);United States Geological Survey (USGS)

County Boundary

Interstate US Route

Special Use Airspace

RDU Runway Extended Centerlines

RDU Property

Not Suitable for Navigation

Generalized Departure Procedure

State Boundary

FIX

NDB

TACAN

VOR

VORTAC

VOR/DME

A

!R

%"

""" "

"%

%,,

" "

"%%

""!(

technical report on preparation of day-night … · 2017-01-26 · (inm 7.0b) that the federal...

Documents