Presentation on theme: "Regulation of Airport Noise ULB 10 th December 2007 MIME Noise Trading for Aircraft Noise Mitigation Peter Hullah EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Brétigny."— Presentation transcript:
Regulation of Airport Noise ULB 10 th December 2007 MIME Noise Trading for Aircraft Noise Mitigation Peter Hullah EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Brétigny sur Orge, France
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Albania Austria Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark EC Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Luxembourg EUROCONTROL: 38 Member States
EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation European Air-Traffic Management organisation Currently 38 Member States 5 objectives Heighten Safety Increase Capacity Reduce Delays Enhance Cost-Effectiveness Minimise Environmental Impact 4 activity pillars: Co-operative network design; Pan-European functions; Regional ATC services; Regulatory activities and support to EC regulation. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) – Brétigny/Orge entrusted with executing the Agency’s research, development and validation programmes
Noise Trading – An Example 2-hour Leq at a major international airport produced by ENHANCE European Harmonised Aircraft Noise-contour Modelling Environment Produces noise contours from 3D radar trajectories Can be used to produce contours on a “per-airline” basis
Aircraft Noise Calculation Noise values found in Noise-Power-Distance (NPD) tables Noise = f thrust (distance) log-integrated over audible part of flight To calculate noise from radar data we only have X, Y, Height Need to calculate Speed and Thrust Speed is easy, Thrust is not! … but it’s not all thrust!
Noise Sources High directivity of engine noise
Configuration Noise Flaps Gear Slats
Effect of approach noise Data from Sourdine II
What slows a plane down? Reducing thrust Less noise at source Extending flaps, slats, gear More noise at source How can ENHANCE tell? Aircraft noise modellers need configuration and thrust information Like getting blood from a stone!
Operation of a Market-based System Fundamental principle of environmental economics: Any externality should be internalised as close to its source as possible Noise Permits? issued to meet desired measure of total impact across specified region Number of permits allocated to a particular company based on previous impact, declared future impact, or by auction etc. Reducing impact leaves surplus permits may be traded If impact limited, available permits will be limited supply and demand – increased value - encourages trading of permits
Advantages of a Market-based System Easier than charge or tax-based approach more cost effective Can be revenue neutral airlines wouldn’t see them as “just another tax-collection scam” initial permits could be freely allocated up to the predefined limits all financial transactions between the companies themselves Excess permits due to reduced pollution sold to recuperate investment in less polluting equipment cover pollution from increased production Taxes, charges and fines restrict growth Tradable permits encourage it
Noise per Airline Area of 24-hour 55dB(A) Leq Contour vs Mvts per airline Major carrier is just less than 50% of all flights! All other companies in bottom left sector All flights Main “Hub” carrier
Noise per Airline “QuietAir.com” 51 mvts with noise of 44 mvts “Heavy Metal Airlines” 2 mvts with noise of 65 mvts “Air Rightnoise” 22 mvts with noise of 22 mvts
Economic value The UK’s recent £5 additional “environmental surcharge” on (economy!) passenger tickets Average aircraft with 120 passengers = £300 = €450 Imagine this as a noise permit value, instead of a tax Say “QuietAir.com” has 51 movements per day, 365 days per year Sells 7 permits per day (only needs 44) 7 x 365 x €450 = €1,149,750 per annum additional return on investment from this airport alone Say “HeavyMetal Airlines” has 2 flights (= 4 movements) per week If they bought a new aircraft that produced “average” noise Would free-up 2 x 63 = 126 permits per week 126 x 52 x €450 = €2,948,400 per annum – just from this airport!
Permit definition The previous example was just that – an example Need good, usable, definition acceptable to airlines and residents Noise contours are not easily addable - non linear Does not take annoyance into account More annoyance from many quiet flights than from a few loud ones Why count noise where there aren’t any people? What granularity is needed? How will permits be attributed? Sale, grandfather rights, auction etc. How to combat restrictive practices? How will airports know if noise rading will work for them? What regulation is needed? MIME will find the answers! Market simulation Noise technology