This is the html version of the file http://www.landrum-brown.com/env/phl/Final/Apx%20E.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:e9svlZo0qlAJ:www.landrum-brown.com/env/phl/Final/Apx%2520E.pdf+BWINE+noise&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted:  bwine  noise 

Page 1
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-1
Appendix E
June 2002
APPENDIX E
NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The subsequent pages provide information on the alternative noise abatement
measures that were suggested for inclusion in the Philadelphia International Airport
Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Each measure was evaluated for the anticipated
benefits and costs associated with its implementation. The alternatives were reviewed
with the membership of the Study Advisory Committee, as well as with aviation
professionals in an Aviation Technical Conference. The Technical Conference included
representatives of the Air Traffic Control division of the FAA, the Air Transport
Association, and the air carriers serving PHL, as well as the FAA ADO, the Airport, and
airport neighbors.
Based upon the comments received from the various attendees at the Technical
Conference and the consultant’s experience with the implementation of like measures at
numerous airports throughout the United States, recommendations for the acceptance
or discarding of each alternative were presented to the Study Advisory Committee prior
to the development of the final recommended NCP. Copies of all the materials used at
the Technical Conference, including letters of invitation, sign-in sheets, and meeting
workbooks are located in Appendix H, Public Involvement. Attached to the end of this
Appendix are materials relating to the assessment of noise abatement measures that
have a relationship to the concurrent Airspace Redesign Project. This includes relevant
portions of AIR 21, coordination letters sent by the FAA to Senator Biden, a
presentation handout from July 12, 2001, and FAA comments on the feasibility of
certain noise abatement measures that would potentially benefit northern Delaware.

Page 2
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-2
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-A (Became NA-1)
Exhibit: E-1
TITLE:
Departing Runways 9L/9R/17/35/8, Fly Runway
Heading Until Reaching 2,000’ AGL
DESCRIPTION:
This is the current procedure for these runways.
Modifications to the procedure are being
evaluated by the New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign
Project in an effort to enhance the efficiency of
operations throughout the Philadelphia/New
York airspace corridor.
BENEFITS:
Takes advantage of Delaware River to the east of
the airport and the generally compatible areas north
and south of the airport.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft maintain the heading until
reaching 2,000’ AGL (measure does not apply to
light aircraft less than 12,500 pounds).
Different aircraft reach 2,000’ AGL at different
locations; therefore the next turn point is not
fixed and flights are dispersed over large areas.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
None.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Incorporated into the baseline noise contour
modeling.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Retain current procedures, subject to potential
refinement by the findings of the FAA’s Airspace
Redesign Project in the future.

Page 3
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-3
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-B (Became NA-2)
Exhibit: E-1
TITLE:
Departing Runway 27L, Turn left to a 255 Degree
Heading Until Reaching 3,000’ AGL.
DESCRIPTION:
This is the current procedure for this runway.
Modifications to the procedure are being
evaluated by the New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign
Project in an effort to enhance the efficiency of
operations throughout the Philadelphia/New
York airspace corridor.
BENEFITS:
Takes advantage of the Delaware River to the west
of the airport by keeping initial stages of takeoff
over compatibly used areas.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft maintain the heading until
reaching 3,000’ AGL (measure does not apply to
light aircraft less than 12,500 pounds).
Different aircraft reach 3,000’ AGL at different
locations; therefore the next turn point is not
fixed and flights are dispersed over large areas.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
None.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Incorporated into the baseline noise contour
modeling.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Retain current procedures, subject to potential
refinement by the findings of the FAA’s Airspace
Redesign Project in the future.

Page 4
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-4
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-C (Became NA-3)
Exhibit: E-1
TITLE:
Departing Runway 27R, Turn left to a 240 Degree
Heading Until Reaching 3 DME, thence fly 255
Degree Heading to 3,000’ AGL.
DESCRIPTION:
This is the current procedure for this runway.
Modifications to the procedure are being
evaluated by the New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign
Project in an effort to enhance the efficiency of
operations throughout the Philadelphia/New
York airspace corridor.
BENEFITS:
Takes advantage of Delaware River to the west of
the airport.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft maintain the heading until
reaching 3,000’ AGL (measure does not apply to
light aircraft less than 12,500 pounds).
Different aircraft reach 3,000’ AGL at different
locations; therefore the next turn point is not
fixed and flights are dispersed over large areas.
The measure is not used when airspace
separation between aircraft is required during
periods of peak operations, or when fast and
slow aircraft simultaneously depart the two
parallel runways.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
None.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Incorporated into the baseline noise contour
modeling.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Retain current procedures, subject to potential
refinement by the findings of the FAA’s Airspace
Redesign Project in the future.

Page 5
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-5
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-1 Takeoff Corridors for Noise Abatement

Page 6
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-6
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 7
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-7
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-D (Became NA-4)
Exhibit: E-2
TITLE:
Nighttime Preferential Runway Use Program
DESCRIPTION:
This is the current procedure for the airport.
Between midnight and 6:00 a.m., east
operations are to occur as follows: Depart
Runways 9L/R and land Runway 9R; Depart
Runway 17 and land Runway 35.
Between midnight and 6:00 a.m., west
operations are to occur as follows: Depart
Runway 27L and land Runways 27L/R; Depart
Runway 17 and land Runway 35.
BENEFITS:
Utilizes outboard runway (closest to the
Delaware River) for departures on the parallels.
Utilizes the generally compatible area south of
the airport for crosswind arrivals and departures.
DRAWBACKS:
None.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
None.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Incorporated into the baseline noise contour
modeling.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Retain current nighttime runway use program.

Page 8
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-8
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 9
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-9
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-2 Preferential Nighttime Runway Use

Page 10
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-10
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 11
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-11
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-E (Became NA-5)
Exhibit: E-3
TITLE:
Engine Run-up Restriction Procedures
DESCRIPTION:
These are current run-up procedures in effect:
Engine run-ups are restricted to two (2)
centrally located sites on the airport.
Taxiway K at H facing east (preferred)
Taxiway P at W facing west
Engine run-ups require prior approval of
airport operations and must not exceed 20
minutes in duration.
Between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., run-ups
are conducted at the preferred run-up
location.
BENEFITS:
Centrally located sites minimize the noise impact
of run-ups as much as possible without
constructing a barrier or berm.
Provides for nighttime run-ups to occur at the
preferred site.
DRAWBACKS:
None.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
None.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Incorporated into the baseline noise contour
modeling.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Retain current nighttime run-up program.

Page 12
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-12
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 13
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-13
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-3 Existing Engine Run-up Procedures

Page 14
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-14
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 15
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-15
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-F
Exhibit: E-4
TITLE:
Modify/Enhance Runway 27L Departure
Procedure for Aircraft Weighing More Than
12,500 Pounds
DESCRIPTION:
Utilize RNAV and traditional navigation techniques
to define a specific departure course for aircraft
weighing more than 12,500 pounds that maintains
the initial 240° heading until reaching a fixed
location, rather than initiating turns upon reaching
3,000 MSL
BENEFITS:
Reduce direct overflights of Tinicum by
narrowing dispersion during the initial departure.
Establishes a fixed and predictable turn location
Enhances Air Traffic system with use of RNAV.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability.
Reduces airspace capacity by reducing traffic
controller options for the separation of aircraft.
Introduces additional delay by reducing capacity.
Requires additional Air Traffic Controller training.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures and EA for
implementation of all recommended measures
(estimated at $400,000 to 600,000 based on
similar efforts in other areas).
Cost of delay and loss of capacity from full
implementation estimated to be $3.54 million
annually based on 3-mile separations.
Cost of controller training.
Cost of Digital GPS equipment both on the
ground and on-board user aircraft.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Reduces overflights and noise impacts in
Tinicum when combined with NA-G.
- By 1 DNL to 2 DNL in the Tinicum area
- By 113 housing units
Abatement benefits are not perceptible. Efforts
should be focused on mitigation.
Not Recommended.

Page 16
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-16
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-G
Exhibit: E-4
TITLE:
Modify/Enhance Runway 27R Departure
Procedure for Aircraft Weighing More Than
12,500 Pounds
DESCRIPTION:
Utilize RNAV and traditional navigation techniques
to define a specific departure course for aircraft
weighing more than 12,500 pounds that maintains
the initial 255/240° heading until reaching a fixed
location, rather than initiating turns upon reaching
3,000 MSL. Procedure to be used if not conflicting
with 27L departures.
BENEFITS:
Reduce (not eliminate) direct overflights of
Tinicum by defining a turn point that bypasses
rather than overflies the community and narrows
dispersion during the initial departure.
Establishes a fixed and predictable turn location
Enhances Air Traffic system with use of RNAV.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability.
Establishes a single departure stream in west
flow operations when combined with Alternative
NA-F or NA-B.
Reduces airspace capacity by reducing traffic
controller options for the separation of aircraft.
Requires additional Air Traffic Controller training.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Cost of delay and loss of capacity from full
implementation estimated to be $479,000 or 38
hours annually based on 3-mile separations.
Cost of controller training.
Cost of Digital GPS equipment both on the
ground and on-board user aircraft.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.

Page 17
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-17
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-G
Exhibit: E-4
(Continued)
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Reduces overflights and noise impacts in
Tinicum when combined with NA-F.
By 1 DNL to 2 DNL in the Tinicum Area
By 113 housing units
Abatement benefits are not perceptible. Efforts
should be focused on mitigation.
Not Recommended

Page 18
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-18
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-H
Exhibit: E-4
TITLE:
Modify/Enhance Runway 9L Departure
Procedure for Aircraft Weighing More Than
12,500 Pounds
DESCRIPTION:
Utilize RNAV and traditional navigation
techniques to define specific departure course.
For left-turning aircraft, define a corridor that
overflies the generally compatible areas
along the Delaware River as it turns to the
north. This action may be considered by the
concurrent New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace
Redesign Project.
For right-turning aircraft, define a corridor
that overflies the compatible corridor
between Camden and Gloucester Counties
in New Jersey.
BENEFITS:
Reduce overflights of South Philadelphia and
heavier populated areas of Camden County,
New Jersey for left-turning aircraft.
Reduce overflights of heavier populated areas of
Camden County, New Jersey for right-turning
aircraft.
Enhances Air Traffic system with use of RNAV.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability.
Reduces Controller flexibility in efficiently moving
traffic during peak operating periods
Additional Air Traffic Controller training.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Cost of controller training.
Cost of Digital GPS equipment both on the
ground and on-board user aircraft.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.

Page 19
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-19
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-H
Exhibit: E-4
(Continued)
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Up to a 1.0 DNL reduction near the eastern tip of
the 65 DNL when combined with NA-I.
Retain current east traffic departure
procedures, subject to a review of efficiency by
the Airspace Redesign Project.

Page 20
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-20
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-I
Exhibit: E-4
TITLE:
Modify/Enhance Runway 9R Departure
Procedure for Aircraft Weighing More Than
12,500 Pounds
DESCRIPTION:
Utilize RNAV and traditional navigation
techniques to define specific departure course.
For left-turning aircraft, define a corridor that
overflies the generally compatible areas
along the Delaware River as it turns to the
north. This action may be considered by the
concurrent New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace
Redesign Project.
For right-turning aircraft, define a corridor
that overflies the compatible corridor
between Camden and Gloucester Counties
in New Jersey.
BENEFITS:
Reduce overflights of South Philadelphia and
heavier populated areas of Camden County,
New Jersey for left-turning aircraft.
Reduce overflights of heavier populated areas of
Camden County, New Jersey for right-turning
aircraft.
Enhances Air Traffic system with use of RNAV.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability.
Reduces Controller flexibility in efficiently moving
traffic during peak operating periods
Additional Air Traffic Controller training.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Cost of controller training.
Cost of Digital GPS equipment both on the
ground and on-board user aircraft.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.

Page 21
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-21
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-I
Exhibit: E-4
(Continued)
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Up to a 1.0 DNL reduction near the eastern tip of
the 65 DNL when combined with NA-H.
Retain current east traffic departure
procedures, subject to a review of efficiency by
the Airspace Redesign Project.

Page 22
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-22
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 23
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-23
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-4 Alternative Departure Flight Paths

Page 24
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-24
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 25
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-25
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-J
Exhibit: E-5
TITLE:
Establish an RNAV Approach to Runway 9R
(Modified ILS Approach)
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Miscellaneous Provision 758 of
PL 106-181 (AIR-21), it was the sense of the
Senate that the Secretary of Transportation should
study the feasibility, consistent with safety, of
placing the approach causeway of Philadelphia
International Airport’s East Operations over the
Delaware River (instead of Brandywine Hundred)
Utilize RNAV and traditional navigation
techniques to define specific approach course
over the Delaware River during east operations.
RNAV approach could turn right on to the
current ILS approach course from an angle of
about 30 degrees approximately 8 miles from
the runway threshold (descending from 2,400
MSL). This would not achieve the desired river
corridor, but would relocate traffic over other
portions of the Wilmington area.
This action was considered by the concurrent
New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan
Airspace Redesign Project and found to not be
feasible due to safety and efficiency concerns.
This finding has been communicated to the
congressional leaders and the citizens of
northern Delaware through a letter from the FAA
and a public workshop held on December 5,
2001 in northern Delaware (see Attachments at
the end of this Appendix for letters and meeting
materials).
BENEFITS:
Reduce overflights of Brandywine area by about
60% of arriving large aircraft.
Enhances Air Traffic system with use of RNAV.

Page 26
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-26
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-J
Exhibit: E-5
(Continued)
DRAWBACKS:
No reduction of noise to areas exposed to more
than 55 DNL.
Location of a safe merge point approximately
8 miles from the threshold of Runway 9R would
route traffic west of the Delaware River, over
Wilmington, intercepting the final approach at an
angle of approximately 50 degrees in the vicinity
of the Pennsylvania/Delaware state line.
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability.
Additional Air Traffic Controller training to deal
the increase in controller workload associated
with the merging of aircraft from two inbound
routes onto a single final approach.
Redesign of the descent areas for the downwind
approach and tromboning areas necessary for
application will relocate the cornerposts on the
west side of the airspace and move overflights
into areas of Pennsylvania, Delaware and New
Jersey not currently affected by substantial over
flight.
To maximize the efficiency of the operation, it
may be necessary to make the procedure a
100% usage measure, further impacting on the
relocation of downwind and trombone routes into
new areas of impact. If this is the case, the
measure would have to be defined using
ground-based navaids to provide guidance to
aircraft not equipped with on board GPS
capabilities.
Incursion of descent areas farther to the
southwest may impact upon the Potomac area
airspace used for traffic control around BWI and
other Washington metropolitan area airports.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Because there is presently a single approach
during IFR conditions in east flow, the measure
is not expected to impact adversely on capacity.
Cost of controller training.
- Cost of Digital GPS equipment both on the
ground and on-board user aircraft.

Page 27
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-27
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-J
Exhibit: E-5
(Continued)
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Average daily DNL would be reduced from
approximately 46 under current conditions to
approximately 42 over Brandywine Valley if all
capable aircraft were to use the modified
instrument approach procedure.
The Airspace Redesign Project has found that it
would not be feasible to relocate the approach to
a river corridor.
Not justified by Part 150 noise-compatibility
standards because the measure would relocate
noise from one populated area to another of
similar or greater density.

Page 28
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-28
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 29
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-29
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-5 Alternative Arrival Flight Path - RNAV

Page 30
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-30
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 31
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-31
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-K
Exhibit: E-6
TITLE:
Establish a SOIA Approach to Runway 9R
(Modified Instrument Approach)
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Miscellaneous Provision 758 of
PL 106-181 (AIR-21), it was the sense of the
Senate that the Secretary of Transportation should
study the feasibility, consistent with safety, of
placing the approach causeway of Philadelphia
International Airport’s East Operations over the
Delaware River (instead of Brandywine Hundred)
Utilize traditional navigation techniques to define
a Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach
(SOIA) course leading to landings on Runway
9R when weather is better than Category I
instrument minimums.
Retain current ILS approach for Category II and
III instrument conditions.
BENEFITS:
Reduce overflights of Brandywine Valley area by
rerouting aircraft approximately ½ to 1 mile south of
the present approach course. The measure does
not meet the suggested river approach corridor, but
does relocate overflights from the immediate vicinity
of the current area of impact.
DRAWBACKS:
No reduction of noise to areas exposed to more
than 55 DNL.
Relocates traffic from one area of impact to
another similarly developed area. SOIA
procedures manual prohibits use of the
procedure for noise abatement.
Routes all approaches to Runway 9R along a
single approach course, depending on weather,
eliminating short final approaches and other
controller flexibility.
Additional Air Traffic Controller training.
Introduces complexity into the turn onto final
approach over Chester/Tinicum, with potential
overshoots into the approach to Runway 9L by
smaller aircraft.

Page 32
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-32
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-K
Exhibit: E-6
(Continued)
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Cost of controller training.
Cost of additional instrumentation to define SOIA
approach offset course.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative evaluation.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Procedure is allowed for capacity enhancement
and not allowed solely for noise abatement
Not Recommended.

Page 33
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-33
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-6 Alternative Arrival Flight Path - SOIA

Page 34
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-34
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 35
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-35
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-L
Exhibit: E-7
TITLE:
Maximize Use of Current Visual Approach to
Runway 9R
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Miscellaneous Provision 758 of
PL 106-181 (AIR-21), it was the sense of the
Senate that the Secretary of Transportation should
study the feasibility, consistent with safety, of
placing the approach causeway of Philadelphia
International Airport’s East Operations over the
Delaware River (instead of Brandywine Hundred)
Define a charted procedure comparable to that
presently used for the visual approach to
Runway 19 at Washington Reagan Airport,
relying on DME arcs and radial fixes from area
VORs to define specific turn points to allow
maintenance of a course over the Delaware
River in visual meteorological conditions.
Retain current ILS approach for Instrument
Meteorological Conditions.
This action was considered by the concurrent
New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan
Airspace Redesign Project and found to not be
feasible due to safety and efficiency concerns.
This finding has been communicated to the
congressional leaders and the citizens of
northern Delaware through a letter from the FAA
and a public workshop held on December 5,
2001 in northern Delaware (see Attachments at
the end of this Appendix for letters and meeting
materials).
BENEFITS:
Reduce overflights of Brandywine Valley area of
Delaware by rerouting traffic below about
3,000 feet MSL to a river location.

Page 36
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-36
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-L
Exhibit: E-7
(Continued)
DRAWBACKS:
No reduction of noise to areas exposed to more
than 55 DNL.
Routes all approaches to Runway 9R along the
same approach course, eliminating short final
approaches and other controller flexibility.
Additional Air Traffic Controller training.
Introduces complexity into the turn onto final
approach over Chester/Tinicum, with potential
overshoots into the approach to Runway 9L by
smaller aircraft.
Increases delay through procedural complexity
and the need to assure safe separations
between sequential aircraft.
Redesign of the descent areas for the downwind
approach and tromboning areas necessary for
application will relocate the cornerposts on the
west side of the airspace and move overflights
into areas of Pennsylvania, Delaware and New
Jersey not currently affected by substantial over
flight.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost of developing procedures (see NA-F).
Cost of controller training.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of anticipated flight path.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Average daily DNL would be reduced from
approximately 46 under current conditions to
approximately 44 over Brandywine Valley if all
capable aircraft were to use the river approach.
The Airspace Redesign Project has found that it
would not be feasible to relocate the approach to
a river corridor.
Not justified by Part 150 noise-compatibility
standards because the measure would relocate
noise from one populated area to another of
similar or greater density

Page 37
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-37
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-7 Alternative Arrival Flight Path – River Approach

Page 38
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-38
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 39
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-39
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-M
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Preferential East Flow Operation (up to 3 knot
tailwind)
DESCRIPTION:
Establish a program of preference for operations
in east traffic flow during periods when winds are
less than 3 knots from any direction.
Measure reverses the preferential flow of traffic
now in place.
Wind analysis indicates roughly 50/50 split
between east and west flow.
BENEFITS:
Reduce departures over incompatible properties
of Tinicum and other areas west of the airport.
Financial benefits for individual eastbound
flights.
DRAWBACKS:
Incompatible with regional airspace procedures.
Increased departures over communities east of
the airport (South Philadelphia and New Jersey).
Increases objectionable arrivals over Tinicum
Township and the Brandywine Valley.
Only two approaches are available in east flow,
while three are available in west flow (excluding
activity on the crosswind). Hence there is more
capacity in west flow.
Increased exposure to spool up noise in Tinicum
from east bound takeoffs on 9R/L.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Increased cost to airlines for west bound flights.
Increased cost associated with reduction of
capacity and additional runway crossings in east
flow conditions.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of preferential east flow operation.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Slight reduction in overall noise levels.
Less than 1 DNL reduction in Tinicum.
27 fewer housing units in 65 DNL.
Abatement benefits are not perceptible. Efforts
should be focused on mitigation.
Not Recommended

Page 40
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-40
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-N
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Preferential East Flow Operation at Night (up to
5 knot tailwind)
DESCRIPTION:
Establish a preference for operations in east
traffic flow during nighttime periods when winds
are less than 5 knots from any direction.
Maintain current preference for departure
operations on the outboard runway.
Maintain crosswind runway preferences for over
water approaches and departures.
Wind analysis indicates approximately 74
percent east flow could be achieved at night with
5 knot tailwind component.
BENEFITS:
Reduce departures over Tinicum and other
areas west of the airport during the most
sensitive hours.
Financial benefits to airlines with eastbound
flights.
DRAWBACKS:
Compatibility with regional airspace procedures.
Increased departures over communities east of
the airport (South Philadelphia and New Jersey).
Increased arrivals over communities west of the
airport (Tinicum Township and Delaware).
Reduction of capacity during poor weather
conditions with potential increase of individual
flight delays.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Increased cost to airlines for west bound flights.
Cost of delays associated with reduced capacity
and additional runway crossings
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM modeling of preferential nighttime east flow
operation.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Slight reduction in overall noise levels.
Approximately 2 DNL reduction in Tinicum.
97 fewer housing units in 65 DNL.
Abatement benefits are not perceptible. Efforts
should be focused on mitigation.
Not Recommended

Page 41
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-41
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-O
Exhibit: E-8
TITLE:
Increase Approach Altitude West of Airport over
Brandywine Valley
DESCRIPTION:
In accordance with Miscellaneous Provision 758 of
PL 106-181 (AIR-21), it was the sense of the
Senate that the Secretary of Transportation should
study the feasibility of increasing the standard
altitude over the Brandywine Intercept from 3,000 to
4,000 feet)
Raise intercept altitude over the Brandywine
intersection for Runways 9L/R approaches
(currently 3,000 at BWINE fix).
This action was considered by the concurrent
New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan
Airspace Redesign Project and found to not be
feasible due to safety and efficiency concerns.
This finding has been communicated to the
congressional leaders and the citizens of
northern Delaware through a letter from the FAA
and a public workshop held on December 5,
2001 in northern Delaware (see Attachments at
the end of this Appendix for letters and meeting
materials).
BENEFITS:
Increase aircraft altitude over Brandywine area
will place aircraft at a position to assume a
standard 3-degree approach to 9R/L.
Reduce single event levels in the Brandywine
Valley by two to four decibels
DRAWBACKS:
Incompatible with current regional airspace
procedures.
Approaches may need to be extended farther to
the west to intercept the approach at 4,000 MSL.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
No anticipated net costs.
EVALUATION METHOD:
INM noise modeling of average and single event
noise levels.

Page 42
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-42
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-O
Exhibit: E-8
(Continued)
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Average daily DNL would be reduced from
approximately 49 decibels under current
conditions to approximately 47 decibels if all
aircraft crossed the BWINE intercept at 4,000
MSL.
- The Airspace Redesign Project has found that it
would not be feasible to increase the altitude
over the BWINE intercept from 3,000 to 4,000
MSL.
Not Recommended.

Page 43
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-43
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-8 Review Increased Altitude for Approaches to Runway
9R

Page 44
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-44
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 45
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-45
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-P (Became NA-6)
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Create Area Navigation (RNAV) Overlay
Procedures for selected Existing and Proposed
Procedures
DESCRIPTION:
RNAV procedures utilize ground-based (DGPS
antenna), satellite-based (GPS), and on-board
(FMS/GPS) equipment to assist the pilot in
navigating from point to point.
Higher accuracy is obtained than traditional
navigation techniques.
Not all aircraft equipped with necessary
equipment.
These measures may be evaluated as part of
the Airspace Redesign Project and any effort
accomplished by the Part 150 Study would likely
be modified to accommodate the larger regional
plan to be published in 2003.
BENEFITS:
Increased accuracy on turns and decreased
width of flight corridors.
Financial benefits to airlines all airlines through
better control of flight and reduced separation
requirements.
DRAWBACKS:
Not all aircraft equipped with RNAV capability
(typically, the loudest aircraft are the oldest
aircraft and least likely to have RNAV on-board).
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Cost to airlines to equip aircraft.
Cost to FAA for additional training and
development of new procedures.
Cost to the airport or FAA for DGPS equipment.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative assessment.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Satellite-based navigation will likely be the prime
navigational aid within the next 10 years.
Recommended for incorporation into Part
150 as support for Airspace Redesign
Project.

Page 46
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-46
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-Q
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Urge Operators of Jet Aircraft to Moderate
Reverse Thrust on Landing
DESCRIPTION:
Airlines require that reverse thrust is used to
slow the aircraft after landing.
Airlines may be requested to modify their
operating manuals to allow pilots to safely
moderate reverse thrust during landing.
Would require a pilot-awareness program and
analysis of runway length and on-runway times
before implementing.
BENEFITS:
May reduce annoyance to residents near the
airport.
DRAWBACKS:
Reverse thrust cannot be eliminated altogether
and would be up to the discretion of the
individual pilot in command.
The measure may be resisted as providing less
than the maximum amount of safety.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
No costs to airlines or FAA.
Cost to airport would include pilot awareness
program.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative Assessment.
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
The implementation of this alternative could
provide some single event relief to the residents
nearest the airport.
This alternative does NOT endorse the
elimination of reverse thrust
Not Recommended owing to operating safety
considerations.

Page 47
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-47
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-R
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Implement Airport Operational Restrictions
DESCRIPTION:
Consider the potential utility of airport access
restrictions for noise abatement. These may
include:
Curfews
Restrictions on aircraft types or groups
Any such action is subject to the provisions of
Part 161, which requires extensive proof of
benefits relative to costs prior to approval by the
FAA
BENEFITS:
Can resolve noise annoyance problems during the
most sensitive periods or of the most annoying
events.
DRAWBACKS:
Requires extensive additional evaluation, with little
hope of approval given the FAA’s current stance on
Part 161 actions.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
A comprehensive Part 161 study would cost
$3-$5 million. Litigation would cost a similar
amount. Implementation would cost additional
millions, dependent upon the action undertaken.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative Assessment
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Unlikely to meet cost/benefit assessments required
under Part 161 and therefore Not Recommended..

Page 48
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-48
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-S
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Construct a Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE)
DESCRIPTION:
GREs can be implemented to reduce noise
impacts associated with run-up operations.
Typically installed at airports with heavy
maintenance facilities and large numbers of
complaints related to run-up operations.
BENEFITS:
Can reduce jet run-up noise levels by up to 20 dB.
DRAWBACKS:
Expensive to build ($2-$3 million for facility and
another $2 to build apron if not available).
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
$2-$3 million for facility and another $2 to build
apron if not available.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative Assessment
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Noise created by individual aircraft maintenance
run-ups is adequately controlled by current
procedures. Not Recommended

Page 49
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-49
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-T
Exhibit: E-9
TITLE:
Construct Noise Berms/Walls
DESCRIPTION:
Construct Noise Berms/Walls near the
boundaries of the airport to reduce ground noise
exposure (e.g., taxiing, takeoff spool-up thrust,
reverse thrust, run-up operations).
Location of a 12-16 foot barrier near the
southeast corner of Tinicum may be an
acceptable location. Other locations do not
appear to provide adequate potential for noise
reduction.
Locations off-airport property would require
community concurrence and assistance with
funding.
BENEFITS:
A 16 foot high barrier can reduce ground noise
levels by up to 6-10 dB near the southeast
corner of Tinicum if located along the edge of
the community (around Iroquois, Manhattan,
Seminole and 5
th
Streets, east of 4
th
Street)
Little potential for noticeable reduction of noise
at other locations.
DRAWBACKS:
Provides no beneficial reduction of noise from
aircraft in flight.
Creates development boundaries/may be
removed as land is needed for development.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Construction of an 8 foot T-wall on an 8-foot high
earthen berm, 2200 feet long, is estimated to cost
approximately $990,000, assuming the land can be
acquired (cost of acquisition unknown).
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative Assessment
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Construction of a barrier to provide 6-10 decibels of
ground noise reduction to approximately 20 homes
and would provide no attenuation of the noise of
aircraft in flight. It is more cost effective to use the
$990,000 necessary to build the facility to sound
insulate approximately 33 homes from both ground
and flight noise effects. Not Recommended.

Page 50
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-50
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 51
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-51
Appendix E
June 2002
Click to view Exhibit E-9 Potential Noise Berm/ Wall Locations

Page 52
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-52
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 53
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-53
Appendix E
June 2002
Noise Compatibility Program Alternative NA-U (Became NA-7)
Exhibit: N/A
TITLE:
Encourage Noise Attenuating Standards in
Airport Development
DESCRIPTION:
Consider the noise reduction benefits in the
design and location of structures built on the
airport through the overlapping of structural
footprints between on-airport noise sources and
off-airport impacted areas.
Properly located, the height, materials, shape,
and location of structures can reduce ground
noise for the communities nearest the airport.
BENEFITS:
Can reduce noise levels by up to 8-10 dB
depending on design and location of structures.
DRAWBACKS:
None.
COST TO IMPLEMENT:
Unknown, and unknowable until the development
plan for the airport is in place and structures are
designed.
EVALUATION METHOD:
Qualitative Assessment
FINDINGS and
RECOMMENDATION:
Attention to the attenuating characteristics of
properly designed structures and their layout can
benefit the noise reduction of on-airport ground
sources. Recommended.
S:\02PHL\Draft Document\APX E-NoiseAbatementAlternatives.doc

Page 54
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
E-54
Appendix E
June 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 55
P
HILADELPHIA
I
NTERNATIONAL
A
IRPORT
FAR P
ART
150 N
OISE
C
OMPATIBILITY
S
TUDY
F
INAL
Landrum & Brown Team
Appendix E
June 2002
Attachments