TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE AIRCRAFT NOISE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman of
the Subcommittee, presiding.
Mrs. MORELLA. I'm going to call to
order the Technology Subcommittee of the Science Committee, and today I'm pleased to
welcome everybody to this Technology Subcommittee's hearing on aircraft noise.
Aircraft noise is a problem that affects millions of Americans.
For some, the noise emitted from aircraft is simply an unwanted nuisance that intrudes on
their everyday life. For others, however, aircraft noise is a factor that's been found to cause
psychological and physiological damage to their health and well-being. Some of the
documented harmful effects of aircraft noise include the loss of hearing, nausea, sleep
deprivation, and stress.
Each day over 30,000 flights are completed within the United
States. With air traffic in the United States projected to double in the next 15 to 20 years, it
is critical that we take immediate steps to address current aircraft noise problems. We need
to research and develop improved methods and technologies that will assist us in facing
future aircraft noise challenges.
Today, we will learn more about our Nation's current approach
to reducing aircraft noise from our distinguished panel of witnesses.
The FAA and NASA work cooperatively with the aviation
industry to conduct aircraft noise reduction research. The current federal approach to noise
abatement is two-fold: first, it supports research and development of new technologies to
reduce aircraft noise at its source; and second, it assesses and develops effective methods for
reducing the impact of aircraft noise on communities.
A key part of the joint FAA and NASA noise reduction effort
has been the development and introduction of new aviation technology. Through various
design changes, airframe manufacturers have successfully reduced the noise created by jets
traveling through the skies at high speeds. Engine manufacturers have also made great
strides in reducing noise by reducing the temperature and velocity of engine exhaust.
As technological breakthroughs have occurred, airlines have
replaced the oldest, noisiest jets with more modern models that incorporate quieter
technology. The first generation of jets were replaced in the 1970's with quieter Stage 2
aircraft. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 requires all Stage 2 aircraft to be
replaced by even quieter Stage 3 aircraft by the Year 2000. All commercial airlines and
cargo carriers must replace their fleets with Stage 3 aircraft, or retrofit their aircraft to meet
the new Stage 3 noise levels.
While the transition to Stage 3 aircraft is a necessary step in the
right direction, it's important to point out that it won't solve all our aircraft noise problems.
The size of commercial aircraft has been increasing, requiring the use of larger and more
powerful engines. This use of larger aircraft has offset some of the noise reduction achieved
through the transition to Stage 3.
Reducing aircraft noise at its source is important, but it is
simply one way to lessen the impact of aircraft noise on communities. The FAA provides
grants to airports for soundproofing homes, businesses, and schools located near busy
airports. In some cases, grants are used to purchase residential property for commercial
redevelopment that is more compatible with airports. The FAA also works with airports,
airliners, and communities to route aircraft away from residential areas and to develop flight
operations that are less intrusive.
There is little doubt that we have made progress in addressing
the problems associated with aircraft noise since the advent of jet aircraft over 30 years ago.
However, it is critical that we continue to develop new aircraft technologies and methods to
abate aviation noise as the number of flights and the size of aircraft continue to increase.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review current federal research and technology activities
in this area and to ensure that we are adequately prepared to meet future aircraft noise
challenges.
As a Member who represents aircraft corridors for both
Washington National and Baltimore/Washington International airports, I have been working
to try and reduce aircraft noise since I first came to Congress. And, today's hearing is,
therefore, of particular interest to me and my constituents.
We are fortunate today to have a distinguished panel of experts
with us to discuss the important issues of aircraft noise reduction. Mr. James Erickson is
testifying on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. Erickson is the Director of
the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy.
Dr. Robert Whitehead is representing the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. Dr. Whitehead is NASA's Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology.
Dr. Wesley Harris is representing the FAA Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee. Dr. Whitehead [sic] formerly served
as the Associate Administrator for aeronautics at NASA when he was my constituent, and is
currently a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Next, Mr. Robert E. Robeson is testifying on behalf of the
Aerospace Industries Association. Mr. Robeson is the Vice President for Civil Aviation at
AIA.
And finally, Mr. Donald W. MacGlashan is with us today to
testify on behalf of the Citizens for the Abatement of Airport Noise. Mr. MacGlashan has
worked as an engineer in the aviation field for over 20 years, has been a strong advocate of
responsible noise reduction measures, and, on a personal note, I have worked with Mr.
MacGlashan on this important issue for many years since he's a constituent of mine from
Montgomery County Maryland.
And, it's now my pleasure to recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, and I want to
join the Chair in welcoming everyone to the hearing today.
The revolution in transportation technology—trains, cars,
and airplanes—dramatically changed our society. New modes of travel increased
economic growth, improved the quality of our lives, and reshaped our society. However,
modern transportation also made our world a much noisier place to live. Nowhere is this
more apparent than in and around airports.
The subject of today's hearing focuses on just this issue: noise
and how to reduce it in the face of increasing demand for air travel, even as the noise
generated by individual aircraft goes down in response to more stringent noise regulations.
Current federal regulations have set in motion a process that will reduce by 80 percent by the
year 2000 the actual number of people subjected to air traffic noise. This is a result of the
mandated transition to Stage 3 aircraft. However, this reduction in noise impact will not
have a lasting effect unless new technologies are developed to reduce aircraft noises even
more because the number of flights are projected to expand faster than the decrease in noise
levels for individual aircraft.
A strong, focused R&D effort is necessary to develop new
technologies that hold promises for reducing the sources of aircraft noise. In addition,
research is needed to devise improved operational procedures and optimized flight paths to
reduce the noise footprints of existing aircraft on populated areas.
Today's hearing will center on current NASA and FAA noise
reduction programs. We're interested in exploring the scope of this program and its priority
relative to the overall aviation research effort. Of particular interest is the nature of the
collaboration between the FAA and NASA.
There are two other important issues as well. The current
FAA–NASA joint program is scheduled to end in the year 2000. However, the issue
of noise will not simply disappear in 2000 so a long-term plan for noise reduction, research
and development, and technology is needed. In addition, the airline manufacturers and
carriers operate in an international environment. Are other countries, particularly Europe,
likely to adopt more stringent noise reduction standards, and how will this impact the
international competitiveness of U.S. aircraft and engine manufacturers?
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today and I look forward to hearing your comments.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Gordon. I would now like to recognize Mr. Cook, a very prominent Member from Utah, if
he has any opening statement.
Mr. COOK. Well, thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. I have no opening statement.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Cook.
You know, it's a policy of this Committee and the
Subcommittee to swear in our witnesses, so if our witnesses would stand and raise their right
hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you're about to
give is the truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. ERICKSON. I do.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I do.
Mr. HARRIS. I do.
Mr. ROBESON. I do.
Mr. MACGLASHAN. I do.
Mrs. MORELLA. Let the recorder
demonstrate that the response is in the affirmative.
And, now, gentlemen, we'll proceed in the order in which I
introduced you, and I would like to ask you, if you would try to confine your comments to 5
minutes so that we have an opportunity to question all of you. The statements that you have
submitted in writing will be in the record in their totality, verbatim.
And so, we'll start off with you now, Mr. Erickson, thank
you.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES D. ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT
AND ENERGY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. ERICKSON. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee to discuss the FAA noise research program and our cooperative
effort with NASA on the Subsonic Noise Reduction Technology Program. I would like to
summarize my remarks and submit my full statement for the record.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Erickson, before
you do that—and indeed, without objection your remarks will be in the record—I
did not notice that I have two other very important members of this Subcommittee who are
here. I would like to recognize them and ask them if they have any opening comments
they'd like to make. Ms. Rivers from Michigan?
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. This was a very timely hearing for me in that just a week ago, the day before
this hearing was announced, I spent the evening with a large number of my constituents who
live within the noise contour of Detroit Metro Airport. It is a continuing problem for
millions of Americans all over this country and I am very, very interested in what you have
to say, particularly in the issue of where we may or may not be in terms of—in
comparison to—Europe and other parts of the world. And, I look forward to hearing
your comments. Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Ms. Rivers.
I'd now like to recognize from the great State of Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you calling this hearing. Clearly, I'm interested. I have
four airports in my district consisting of Littlefield, BFW, Redbird, and Lancaster, and
more, especially since we just passed legislation that allows Littlefield to entertain more
traffic. The citizens are extremely upset in the area. So, I will simply ask unanimous
consent to place my formal remarks in the record. Thank you very much.
Mrs. MORELLA. Without objection.
Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Insert offset folio 1
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Erickson, It's all
yours now.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES D. ERICKSON
Mr. ERICKSON. I was about to mention,
my colleague from NASA, Dr. Whitehead, provides a detailed description of our joint
program in his testimony, therefore, what I would like to emphasize and concentrate on is a
brief description of FAA's role in this very successful partnership with NASA.
Let me begin by pointing out that noise continues to be the
number one environmental issue facing aviation. Both domestically and internationally, the
effect of aviation noise on people, communities, and environmentally-sensitive areas is a
quality-of-life issue that will significantly impact future improvements to the aviation
system.
As Chairwoman Morella pointed out in her opening remarks, in
recent years, we've made significant progress in reducing noise-impacted areas through the
elimination of noisier aircraft as under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990,
otherwise referred to as ANCA. By every quantitative measure, we are making significant
progress.
And, as this Committee knows, in 1975, before the phase-out of
unregulated Stage 1 aircraft, there were 7 million Americans significantly affected by aircraft
noise around our Nation's airports. In 1990, the year ANCA was enacted, the number of
persons significantly affected by noise decreased to less than half that number. In January of
the year 2000, at the end of the Stage 2 phase-out, the number will be less than one-half
million. That represents significant progress. The figures are all that more impressive
because the number of passengers traveling during this time will have nearly quadrupled.
This is a win-win situation in terms of both environmental and aviation objectives.
Today, we are on the threshold of a major change in the noise
environment in and around airports. As Secretary Slater reported last month, slightly more
than 75 percent of aircraft currently operating are quieter Stage 3 aircraft. It is important to
recognize, however, that the 25 percent of the noisier Stage 2 aircraft are responsible for
about 60 percent of the noise contribution. These aircraft and this noise will be gone in just
over 2 years, and our Nation's airports will become significantly quieter.
While we can point to this record with some satisfaction, it is
clear that if additional aircraft technologies provided by research are not incorporated in new
aircraft designs, noise will increase as aviation grows. We must recognize, therefore, and
continue to strive for further advances in noise reduction technology.
This brings me to our current research effort: the Advanced
Subsonic Technology Program. It got underway in 1994 and will continue through the year
2000. Total expenditure is about $1 billion, and about one-quarter of that will be for the
noise reduction element. FAA will contribute about $8.6 million towards the noise
reduction. We believe that this is money well spent. FAA, NASA, and our partners in the
aviation industry have already achieved positive results from this program.
Because all parties have worked cooperatively toward shared
goals, we have met all mid-term objectives for each of the five program areas and we are
confident that, ultimately, we will achieve all performance objectives. Although NASA
provides most of the funding for the program, the FAA, as the certification and regulatory
oversight authority, plays a significant role in program direction and management. The AST
program is an excellent example of the effective leverage of limited FAA research and
development dollars.
FAA places a high priority on research because it plays such an
important role in the design, development, and implementation of FAA programs.
Environmental research supports the development of aircraft noise certification standards,
policy, and computer technology for assessing aviation environmental impacts. FAA has
developed a truly unique noise modeling capability that does not exist anywhere else in the
world. These noise tools are used by international and U.S. government agencies, airports,
industry, private consultants, and the public to understand and project noise impacts on
people in communities near airports.
Looking toward the future, we believe that commercial aviation
will face many challenges, and those raised by aviation's impact on the environment are
among the more compelling. But research dollars are few, and competition for them is stiff.
So, FAA has recently begun an outreach program. Although we call this the Environmental
Research 2000 Program, it looks well beyond 2000 to establish a better process for gathering
and prioritizing multiple environmental research needs of civil aviation. It will provide FAA
and the Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee better inputs with
which to make choices on how limited funds should be spent and whether additional funding
is needed to address new environmental concerns. We've already held initial meetings with
industry and government and a public meeting and announcement of Environmental Research
2000 is planned for this November.
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, aviation noise problems
raise significant environmental concerns, but we believe that these problems will yield to
research and thoughtful development of new standards. Noise problems around airports can
be displaced almost entirely if advanced technologies are used to build quieter aircraft and
land-use techniques can be effectively utilized to establish and maintain noise buffers at our
Nation's airports as the noise contours shrink.
I assure you that FAA and NASA together with our partners in
the aviation community are making good progress in developing the technologies to lower
aircraft noise. We believe that our cooperative working relationship with NASA is a model
for effective interagency research activities. As a result, the AST program is on track and is
providing the technology necessary to reduce significantly the noise levels of future designs.
FAA is planning for the future as well; a bright future with better direct input from
constituents which will help prioritize noise issues along with other environmental concerns
and will certainly lead toward quieter skies.
This concludes my remarks, Madam Chairwoman. I would be
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Erickson
follow:]
Insert offset folios 2-8
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Erickson.
And, I now turn to Dr. Whitehead.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. WHITEHEAD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Madam Chairwoman,
members, I thank you for a chance for NASA to say what it thinks about noise reduction
research and our cooperative programs with FAA and the industry. I, too, will submit a
written testimony for the record and will summarize my remarks.
Mrs. MORELLA. It will be included,
without objection.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you. NASA
and FAA, as you've heard, have a long history of cooperation on a range of important
aviation research topics. In safety, our windshear and aging aircraft programs are examples.
In air traffic management, our centers take on automation system for controller aids. In
human factors, our research on pilot fatigue has been a big success. But, nowhere has our
record been better and our achievements been more successful than in our environmental
research in noise reduction.
Therefore, I think that in 1992, when Congress mandated that
FAA and NASA cooperate on a joint noise reduction research program, it—the
Congress—was making a logical and well-informed decision to take advantage of a
proven partnership with a long record of success.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. You're
welcome.
We, being FAA and NASA, as Jim Erickson said, developed a
noise reduction research element as part of the NASA Advanced Subsonic Transportation
Technology Initiative and Congress approved that initiative in the 1994 appropriation. This
initiative and the noise reduction element expanded a program already underway as part of
the ongoing research program that was responding to the 1992 mandate.
The program was developed in cooperation and with the advice
of an industry-government steering group from its early planing phase, and that's a very
important step that I hope to elaborate just briefly on later.
To understand the Advanced Subsonic Technology Program and
the importance of noise reduction in it, I think it's important to understand the overall
systems technology context in which the program was planned and is being implemented. As
we all know and have stated, noise impacts the quality of life of those people who have
worked in the operation, who are passengers in aviation, and those people who live in the
communities that surround airports. So, it is a quality-of-life issue.
The overall viability of a safe, reliable, affordable, and
productive aviation system is also a quality-of-life issue. The NASA-FAA-industry research
program deals with technology for noise reduction that is implementable in this system
context; that we have a long history of being able to do new research in technology and have
it apply to noise in new aircraft and new propulsion systems that are also more efficient,
more reliable, safer, and lead to affordable air traffic. And, that is the key to the Advanced
Subsonic Technology Program; a key to our partnership with industry and FAA; and, it has
been a win-win situation for the flying public, the airport community, and for the operators
and manufacturers of aircraft.
A little bit about NASA's role in this partnership. It's relatively
simple in context. We are in the technology business. NASA does not operate,
manufacture, or regulate aeronautical vehicles. We do research and technology in
partnership with other government agencies and private industry. We provide technology
options that must be applied by others—whether it's the manufacturer, or the operation
of aircraft, setting of standards and regulations by FAA or other government organizations.
So, the partnerships that we developed with industry and FAA are keys to being able to take
the taxpayers investments in research in aviation and apply them in ways that benefit
them—better quality of life with an environmental aviation system, a safe system, and
an affordable system.
If I could summarize just for a moment some of the basis for
our claim of history of programmatic success: it goes back to the 1960's with our quiet
nacelle program, the 1970's with our quiet engine program and our JT8D revamp program
with Pratt & Whitney, and into the 1980's into advanced turbo prop program; thus, 30 years
of research on propulsion systems with noise as a key element in that technology. The fact
that we have today, modern aircraft engines that create only one-fourth to one-half the noise
levels of the first generation turbojet engines—these engines operate with amazing
reliability.
I was told by a Vice President for Operations from United
Airlines that the new Pratt & Whitney 4000 series engine on the triple 7 just completed a full
year of operation without one in-flight shutdown, and the fact that that is one of the quietest,
cleanest burning engines ever designed is a testimony to the fact that we can, with research
and technology in partnership, produce safe, reliable, affordable, environmentally friendly
from technology derived by taxpayer investment.
One caution, and I'm the researcher speaking here, there is a
danger for NASA and its technology program that people assume that our technology
development represents a ''done-deal'' in aviation environment and noise reduction.
Premature or inappropriate regulations or standards or assumptions about our technology
before it's validated in operational systems or in production systems, or full-scale, I think is
something we need to guard against. We need to make sure that the technology we produce
is applicable, can be affordably applied in new technology. And that's why the
industry-FAA partnership is so important to us. We produce technology output, our partners
must work to produce outcomes of benefit to the Nation and the tax payer before the
investment made in NASA research is returned to them. So, we think that's very
important.
In summary, the bottom line on our current program is that we
are succeeding. This program was put together as a partnership from the beginning. It's
aggressive. We're 3 plus years into it. We've now provided the technology validation to
gain an additional 3 decibels of noise reduction out of the fan of turbo fan engines, another 3
decibels out of the noise exhaust, and the potential for a 25 percent increase in effectiveness
of the materials used in the nacelle of the engines to quiet it. In the terms that I, as a senior
bureaucrat, and maybe you can understand better, that would reduce the size of the area
impacted by a certain noise level around an airport by one-third—a full one-third in
areas. If we continue this path through 2001, the completion of our current noise reduction
program, we get a 10-decibel reduction that will increase this footprint by a full
two-thirds.
Now, there was some reference to what are we going to do after
the current program. In our planning horizon in NASA, Mr. Goldin has committed to 10
long-range stretch goals, one of which has to do with noise reduction. They have 10-year
goals and 20-year goals. The 10-year goal that we are striving for is our current goal; we
think we are well on our way to achieving that. We have put into our long-range planning
horizon the planning wedge to take the next steps after our current program in noise
reduction for an additional 10 percent, or 10 decibel, reduction in noise. So we believe that
we will make substantial investments beyond the current program. We're planning for those.
We think that we need to do them in the same context that we do now—that's a
cooperative program from the beginning with industry and FAA.
So, thank you very much, and I would be happy, also, of
course, to answer questions.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Whitehead
follow:]
Insert offset folios 9-19
Mrs. MORELLA. Great. Thank you, Dr.
Whitehead.
I'm now pleased to recognize Dr. Harris for his
commentary.
TESTIMONY OF WESLEY L. HARRIS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND
PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the
Subcommittee—is this alive? Okay.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I'm
pleased to provide—to have this opportunity to address the Federal Aviation
Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs and
activities in civilian aviation as such relate to environmental impact, enhanced airspace
capacity, and economic competitiveness. I have provided a formal statement for the
record.
It is important to note that predicted future growth in air traffic
in the United States and in foreign countries presents opportunities to generate additional
national wealth through manufacturing of our aviation products—and these products
range from jet engines and airframes to JPS sets and ground-based radars. On the other
hand, this predicted growth has an associated challenge of increasing our need to reduce the
negative environmental impact, and to increase our safety, and greatly expand the efficient
use of our airspace. The potential impact of undisciplined growth of civilian aviation on
society, on commerce, and world order is simply great. It is so great, in fact, that the
United States must accelerate its leadership position in developing related standards.
In my informal comments, it's important to note first, it's
important and also appropriate to recognize the many technology tools developed by NASA
and by the FAA and that these tools have significantly reduced the negative impact of civilian
aviation on our environment. These advances have been made possible with the guidance
and full support of the Congress. Both the U.S. civilian aviation industry and our
universities have participated in the development of these technologies.
I think it's important for the record to include some of these
particular advances. My colleague, Dr. Whitehead, has mentioned most of these: first, the
acoustic nacelle design technology; second, the modified fan jet technology being applied to
the JT8D engine built by Pratt & Whitney; third, the integrated jet engine component
designed for reduced noise program; and fourth, waiting to be used: the reduced noise and
fuel efficient ducted and unducted propulsors.
It is also appropriate to recognize the steady progress of
NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology Noise Program as well as the High Speed Civil
Transport Program. Within these programs, NASA is working with the FAA, the U.S.
civilian aviation industry, and universities.
I'm pleased also to note that NASA, working with the
Department of Defense, has established a partnership with the U.S. rotorcraft industry. This
partnership is designed, in part, to develop noise reduction technologies appropriate for
rotorcraft. This partnership is captured within the National Rotorcraft Technology
Center.
Madam Chairwoman, it is through the above programs and
activities that the United States has led the world in developing useful technology for the
reduction of negative environmental impact generated by civilian aviation. Equally
important, however, it is the efficient and effective transfer of this useful technology into
policy. This technology-based policy, both national and international in scope, has played a
critical role in enabling the U.S. aviation industry to continue to lead the world in
manufacturing, selling, and maintaining the highest quality aviation products. In the past,
this efficient and effective transfer of technology into policy has ensured distinct competitive
advantage for the U.S. aviation industry. This competitive advantage which is enjoyed by
the United States is reflected in the large positive balance of trade maintained by this
industry.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, it is
my professional opinion that the U.S. competitive advantage in aviation and a sustainable
environment are at risk due to the absence of a national long-term technology-based policy
designed to both understand and mitigate civilian aviation impact on the environment. I
hasten to add that similar concern for the potential loss of U.S. leadership in aviation due to
a lack of modern air traffic control equipment was expressed in the September 10, 1997
Preliminary Funding Task Force Report by the National Civil Aviation Review Commission;
and this Task Force report was chaired by a former Member of the House, the Honorable
Norm Mineta.
I now hasten to a near-term issue that may be small in
comparison to the international scene, but one which I believe to be very, very important.
Given the data that I have been exposed to, the FAA has cut its noise and air quality
modeling and analysis simulation in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget by more than 50 percent.
This adverse action, basically, in my opinion, eliminated the FAA environmental impact
simulation programs and activities. This action will have a negative impact on over 200
U.S. airport environmental studies and over 450 organizations in 35 countries. If funded,
this program would provide a state-of-the-art, high-quality environmental assessment tool for
better decision making. The results of this program, in my opinion, would be accepted by
the International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO—to deliberate on
international aircraft noise and engine exhaust standards. By retaining these programs, the
U.S. leadership position is continued. Along with this leadership position is a competitive
advantage for the U.S. aviation industry as well as a sustainable environment.
In restoring the FAA Fiscal Year 1999 simulation budget, the
FAA, in my opinion, is able to maintain a small, balanced program with three components:
one, aircraft noise control; two, engine emissions control; and three, the important area of
simulation. With a balanced program, the FAA would be in a stronger position to rationally
accept and integrate the useful environmental impact reduction technology developed by
NASA into its national and international policy functions. Hence, a balanced FAA
environmental impact reduction program would strengthen the partnership between NASA,
industry, universities, and the FAA.
My formal statement to the Subcommittee includes a brief
response to the seven issues identified in the charter for this particular hearing.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my remarks. I am
prepared to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Harris
follow:]
Insert offset folios 20-31
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Dr. Harris,
and we do have your response to those questions that had been posed to you and appreciate
that. They'll be included in the record and we will all look at them very closely.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Robeson.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ROBESON, VICE PRESIDENT, CIVIL AVIATION,
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. ROBESON. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
On behalf of AIA, we appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee this afternoon. As you know, AIA is the trade association that
represents the Nation's manufacturers of aerospace products, including civil aircraft, engines
and components; and I might add that our President, the Honorable Don Fuqua, no doubt
sends his regards to this Committee with which he is well acquainted.
Madam Chairwoman, AIA fully supports the combined efforts
of NASA and the FAA in the field of aeronautical R&D. Our member companies have in
the past and will continue to work with NASA and the FAA in achieving the goals of the
Joint Noise Reduction Program. These research and technology activities, which are part of
a larger cooperative Advanced Subsonic Technology Program mentioned previously in the
panel, in our opinion, represents a careful balance of safety, environmental, and efficiency
objectives which are integrated to achieve our national goals.
We're confident that both agencies, as well as academia and
industry, will continue to achieve the technological gains that are necessary to meet the goals
of the 1992 interagency agreement. However, we must be mindful that the development and
application of these technologies is a long-term process and should not be used to establish
premature or inappropriate regulations, a subject also addressed by Mr. Whitehead. Even
after new technologies are sufficiently developed to be introduced into service, it will take
many years to incorporate these technologies into the commercial transport fleet. We
estimate that of the 12,000 aircraft now in service, about 7,000 of these aircraft will still be
flying 20 years from today.
AIA and its member companies believe that environmental
problems must be addressed aggressively and impartially. Aircraft noise standards must be
based on sound technical, scientific, and economic principles, before they are
implemented.
This Subcommittee is well aware that air traffic is projected to
grow at a 5 percent annual rate over the next decade as more and more countries benefit
from economic development and integration into the global economy. Airports and their air
traffic control systems will add needed capacity to accommodate increasing reliance on air
transportation services.
Although the technical solutions to mitigation of the
environmental effects of aviation will come from government and manufacturers' investments
in advancing technology, government also plays a regulatory role on noise emissions. The
way in which the governmental bodies assert their regulatory demands on the aviation
community can have a substantial positive or negative effect on progress in abatement
technology.
The positive role is best illustrated by the development of the
current Stage 3 noise standards for large commercial aircraft. These standards were
developed in the United Nations Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, and our FAA played an
important leadership role, and continues to play and important leadership role, in developing
those standards. And, I might add that industry is also playing a vital role, in our opinion,
in supporting those efforts with the FAA.
This ICAO process is optimal for two reasons: first, the
consensus process generates one international standard that all manufacturers use to focus
their development activities. Second, sufficient phase-in periods were permitted to allow the
new technology to reach the market place. The result is superior noise performance from
new aircraft and engine designs while keeping aviation affordable to the traveling
public.
The alternative to long-range international noise standards is a
patchwork of national and local standards. Multiple standards dilute the impact of
technology by forcing manufacturers to spend their product development and testing
resources on multiple and sometimes conflicting goals. Overlapping and inconsistent
standards also increase the uncertainty of the market demand for new products. Ultimately,
that uncertainty will reduce the flow of investment for new noise abatement research.
International aviation is an essential part of the global economy.
The integration of national economies depends on a healthy transportation system, including
international aviation. A patchwork of differing national standards is at cross-purposes with
the development of a truly international transportation network.
For many years AIA and our sister organization, the Air
Transport Association, have strongly supported ICAO as the only international organization
with the expertise necessary to develop an international consensus on aircraft noise policy
and we will continue to work toward realization of that goal.
Here at home, the recently passed conference report on the
Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill addressed the issue of land-use planning
and provided funds for noise mitigation grants to airports. This is a further step in the right
direction. Effective land-use planning procedures would preserve the noise contour area
reductions anticipated through the achievement of an all Stage 3 fleet. ICAO projections
indicate that noise levels for communities near airports will be reduced substantially by the
year 2002.
Looking further into the future, we will need an integrated
approach in order to make the most of technical advances in aircraft noise reduction. This
will include technical changes to aircraft and engines; a re-evaluation of noise abatement
procedures as aircraft become quieter; and an assessment of the impact that these changes
will have on land-use planning around airport property. All of these issues will play an
important role in reducing the impact that aircraft noise has on surrounding communities as
we seek to find ways to increase the throughput in our aviation system in the face of
anticipated growth and overall flight operations. Only by taking a systems approach will we
reap the maximum benefits from the investments being made by both the public and private
sector in noise reduction, and the efforts of all involved parties will be necessary to make
these advances a reality.
As to some general issues, we believe that both NASA and FAA
are performing their missions in a professional manner. We enjoy excellent cooperation with
each agency and we have the same goal in mind.
We think it is time to broaden the emphasis on noise reduction,
not only to technical goals, but to recognize the soundness of a three-legged approach to
technical, land-use planning and operational procedures. This approach to complete the
long-term goals uses all three to augment the significant achievements the engine and
airframe technologies have made in solving environmental problems to date.
That concludes my remarks, Madam Chairwoman. I will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Robeson
follow:]
Insert offset folios 32-36
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Robeson. I bet many Members of Congress don't realize that the United Nations
was involved in setting those standards through the ICAO.
I'd now like to turn to Mr. Don MacGlashan. And I told him,
rather in jest, but with some seriousness, that I was going to let him do the clean up, to be
the last person to respond to all the experts. Mr. MacGlashan?
STATEMENT OF DON MACGLASHAN, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CITIZENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF AIRPORT NOISE
Mr. MACGLASHAN. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman. Indeed, I will be taking a different tack than what these gentlemen
have presented.
Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise appreciates being
invited to present the citizen's view on the aircraft noise issue. By holding this hearing, this
Subcommittee demonstrates its awareness of this growing problem. Madam Chairwoman,
the bottom line is that the citizens in many metropolitan areas feel they are paying the price
for aviation growth by the amount of noise they are forced to endure. I will try to illustrate
the magnitude of this problem by using the Washington area as an example.
As you know, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
operates our two airports, National and Dulles. The population impacted by these two
airports is over 900,000 people, not the 19,000 recently quoted in the Washington Post.
How bad is this impact? The most recent data from the Airports Authority indicate that from
30 to 50 percent of the people are living in noise above the 65 DNL standard depending on
the time of the year. The EPA and the American National Standards Institute have set a
level of 55 DNL as compatible for residential living. Fifty-five to 65 DNL is designated as
marginally acceptable and above 65 DNL is designated as incompatible. So looking back at
these numbers, at least 30 percent of the people are having to live in an unhealthy noise
environment. Not only that, but at least 60 percent are living in areas designated as only
marginally acceptable. These are startling numbers.
Are all these people actually bothered by the noise? No.
According to early studies sponsored by the FAA, only 12 percent are really bothered. Since
that study, Carl Kreider, the man who developed the DNL, has recanted these conclusions
and now thinks that the 12 percent value should be more than doubled. But even if we
accept the 12 percent, that's over 100,000 people in the Washington area whose health may
be being damaged. If 100,000 people in a single metropolitan area were discovered to have
a debilitating, but preventable disease and the authorities ignored it, that would be a national
news event and the data suggests that's what's happening. Is Washington unique in this
problem? The answer is definitely no. At Chicago's O'Hare Airport, over 80 percent of the
surrounding communities are living with DNL's above 65 dB. In other cities, it has much
the same problem.
CAAN, as well as many others, believe that the DNL metric we
are using is flawed. We need a new one. Besides being set too high, the DNL metric has
no relationship to what is happening. If you are sleeping and one single DC–10 flies
over at 5,000 feet, you will surely know it, but it will hardly affect the DNL for that day.
The new metric should include the effects of single noise events and health effects. CAAN
recommends that a panel, independent from the FAA and the airline industry, be convened to
design this new metric.
Are there things that we can do to alleviate the problem?
CAAN thinks so and recommends the following: Place more research dollars into designing
quieter aircraft. Two, establish a timetable for the introduction of Stage 4 aircraft. Three,
put a cap on the level of noise that communities near airports have to endure and when that
level is exceeded, invoke penalties and require that operational changes be made to reduce
the noise. This is what's going on in Holland right now. CAAN also feels that for
inner-city airports the aircraft flight management system could help reduce noise by flying
the aircraft at reduced but safe climb rates instead of prescribed engine power ratio. CAAN
also thinks that restricting inner-city airports to using the new regional jet makes a lot of
sense. This aircraft is smaller and therefore quieter and shouldn't have the high noise peaks
which are the main problem.
In conclusion, CAAN feels that the aircraft noise is a serious
and complex problem with far more health consequences than previously recognized. For
this reason, we recommend that new noise standards, keyed to health risks, be
established.
That's the end of my comments.
[The prepared statement and
attachments of Mr. MacGlashan follow:]
Insert offset folios 37-45
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
MacGlashan. I noticed that your testimony is longer than the oral statement that you gave,
and I reiterate the fact that it will be included in its totality in the record.
Mr. MACGLASHAN. All right.
Mrs. MORELLA. Now, as we begin the
questioning, I would like to defer, as a courtesy to the Vice Chairman of this Subcommittee,
Mr. Gutknecht, who has an appointment. So, Mr. Gutknecht, you may start the questioning,
sir.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you very
much, Madam Chairwoman, and I will be very brief.
But, we, this question is really directed to Mr. Erickson. We
woke up on Friday to a story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about the hush kits that are
being used on DC–9's and since the local airline is perhaps the biggest user of this, I
mean we're delighted that they're doing what they can to abate the noise, but on the other
hand the story at least raised questions in terms of their overall safety. And I wonder, Mr.
Erickson, what can you tell us, either today at the hearing or frankly, I would actually
appreciate if you could send me a letter in writing to allay some of the concerns that are
raised by this story and I did have a copy of it sent down to you so you had a chance to take
a look at what I'm asking about. So, what can we tell the traveling public and those that
who may live in and around the airport?
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, Congressman,
thank you for sending the note. I see in here a lot of allegations and what
we——
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Unfortunately, Mr.
Erickson, in this business, that's what we deal with sometimes.
Mr. ERICKSON. I'm certainly aware of
that, sir. I guess I would say that the first thing the FAA looks at in any modification to an
aircraft is safety. That's our overall mantle, it's where our thought pattern is, it's where our
head is, so that when someone comes in with a modification to an aircraft, which a hush, a
hush kit is, and these DC–9's must be modified to comply with ANCA, so it's actually
by the end of 1999 that these aircraft must be modified. We look first at the safety aspects
of the modification, and second, at the environmental aspects of the modification. I am not
the FAA safety official so I cannot directly respond to the safety allegations in the, in the,
some of the allegations here on maintenance practices, but I certainly can get back to you for
the record or back to you personally with a letter regarding them. However, we have no, no
experience, no safety experience problems with hush kit in aircraft and we've been doing so
for 30 years.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, and
Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back, but I would appreciate and we will send you
something a little more detailed and if you could have whoever it is at FAA respond to
those, I think it would be helpful.
Mr. ERICKSON. We certainly would be
glad to do so.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr.
Erickson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Gutknecht.
Mr. Erickson, I'll start off with just a couple of questions and
I'm going to have the same question to any of the rest of you who would like to comment on
it. I'd like to know what are the factors that determine aircraft noise? As I go further, does
an aircraft that's loaded with more fuel to enable it to fly longer distances, emit a greater
amount of noise than an identical type of aircraft intending to fly to a closer
destination?
Mr. ERICKSON. If all other factors are
equal, Madam Chairwoman, the increased fuel would make the aircraft heavier and would
result in slightly more noise, community noise, yes.
Mrs. MORELLA. All right. Would the
rest of you agree or would anyone like to comment on that? Gee, that kind of smacks of
legislation that's being put in by my colleague over on the Senate side. Okay. Dr.
Whitehead and then anyone who may wish to comment.
We certainly applaud NASA Administrator Goldin's challenge
to the aeronautics community to reduce the perceived noise levels of future aircraft by a
factor of two from today's subsonic aircraft to MIA Factor 4 within 20 years. Has NASA
begun the strategic long-term planning that is necessary to reach that good goal? Is it going
to be, you know, if you look at projected funding and the priority that may be established, is
this possible to reach that aircraft noise R&D goal?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. We think so. The
goals were established. There are 10 goals for the Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology enterprise. They were all established to be aggressive for goals requiring a
substantial amount of innovation long-term research, but they were established in concert
with the industry and our government partners. So, we think that with a concerted
aggressive research and technology effort and working together we can achieve them. The
way we've approached these goals, is to make some assumptions about the future
appropriations to our agency over 10 and 20 years and our, and the Administrator's best
guess or estimates from us and then we've planned against the, that as a financial planning
wedge and then our technical goals our tech transfer, so we think we have a reasonable risk
chance, both technically and physically—fiscally—of meeting all of these goals.
We are currently intensively involved in an assessment of all of our ongoing programs. That
will be completed by March of 1998 and we have teams for every goal now; NASA,
industry, other government agency teams then to do the investment planning, the research
planning for 10 and 20 year goals.
In the case of noise reduction, we think that advanced subsonic
technology noise program will accomplish our first 10 year goals. We were talking earlier
about the fact that some of the technologies for the 20 year goals will probably involve active
control. Some technologies that now we have in the advanced research stage that we have
applied in some very limited cases, but need now to be mature in this more systems
concept.
So, we are not without ideas. Intentionally, these are ambitious
goals and they contain a certain amount of research risk to create innovation among the
academic, government and private industry.
Mrs. MORELLA. Providing you continue
to make them priorities? So that we don't have the balance skewed. I doubt
that——
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Just as an example,
the subsonic technology program has been in existence since 1994, actually implemented by
Dr. Wesley Harris's leadership. I worked for him at NASA. But, we have undergone some
tough times in the agency and had to make some tough budget decisions. We've never taken
a dime out of our noise reduction program in advanced subsonic technology. Can't imagine
that we will under anything other than, than the most draconian circumstances for us.
Mrs. MORELLA. I was here in 1992
when you mentioned, that's why I said thank you during your testimony, trying to push for
that noise abatement money for, for NASA. Glad you've been working with it.
Dr. Harris, in your testimony that you expressed some concern
about the Fiscal Year 1999 funding reductions for noise modeling and analysis activities.
What effect would the proposed cuts have on the environmental decisionmaking?
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairwoman, as the
Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the FAA RE&D Advisory
Committee, we were exposed to the programs and planning of the environmental and energy
research section of the FAA and we were concerned that the simulation component of the
research program within that office was being decimated with the potential impact being
quite severe and that the noise models, the simulations, played, in our opinion, a major role
in assessment. Assessment, not only our national airports, but since these models are so
good, or have been so good, that they have been used by many countries. So, we think that
if this particular area of research within the FAA does not continue, does not proceed to be
head of the parade, first in class internationally, then the decision making process could be
passed on to another practicing group, another nation, and I think that would be
detrimental.
Mrs. MORELLA. So, we'd lose our
competitive edge in that regard then in your estimation?
Mr. Robeson, I'm going to get back to you during the second
round of questioning, but I just want to ask Mr. MacGlashan something and then defer to my
colleagues.
Many people don't agree with the use of the average you talked
about, that day/night sound level standard of 65 decibels because it fails to consider all
factors that contribute to aircraft noise. I wonder are there other standards that could be
used? And I wonder what would be the effects on communities if the threshold was reduced
to DNL 60 decibels or less? So, two questions within to that.
Mr. MACGLASHAN. Yes, to answer
your first question, California and a number of California, I mean, a number of European
countries use what they call CNEL, community noise equivalent level. This approach really
seems to only change the thing a little bit, in that they apply a 5 dB penalty factor from 7 to
10 in the evening in an effort to try to promote a little quieter atmosphere for people when
they get home, so they can relax and at least have a conversation. That standard does not
address the single event noise situation at all and that really is the crux of the matter. The
averaging just isn't going to do the job or it doesn't do it presently and that's why we need
to develop a new metric which in some manner includes the effect, and I think you also have
to include the health effects in this thing which means that you're going to have to run a
number of studies to look at some of the other studies that have already been done, and there
have been a number of those, to evaluate to what degree does the peak noise event affect
people's health. That's something that, of course, I can't comment on in terms of the actual
effects.
Let's see, your second question. Lowering it, the standard to
60 DNL. That, I guess, the way I feel about it, is that right now, it doesn't seem to make
any difference where the standards are because there's no penalties or anything involved
whether it's 65 or 75 or anything else. Setting standards for DNL at 60, if you applied it to
whether they could build housing within that 60 DNL contour, that's one thing, but that has
nothing to do with how the people are impacted by the noise itself. So, I hesitate to say that,
yes, it's going to help a lot, because until there is some enforcement of the present 65 level,
we aren't going to get anyplace. So, I don't know whether to answer, that answers your
question or not.
Mrs. MORELLA. No, I mean it does. I
think your saying that we need a new metric first of all and then also, that there are no
sanctions and maybe we'll get at that a little later on too.
And I'm going to ask you, Mr. Robeson, next round, about
what do we after Stage 3? Do we have a Stage 4?
Right now I'd like the Ranking Member to have an opportunity
to pose questions. Mr. Gordon?
Mr. GORDON. Thank you. We live in a
global environment and a global marketplace and I'm interested in knowing more about
international noise abatement trends. The likelihood that they won't abide by ICAO
recommendations and what impact that's going to have on our operators and manufacturers.
I only have 5 minutes, like you, so I'm just going to put this forth to the panel at large.
Anyone who would like to make a comment, but recognizing that we've got 5 minutes all
together.
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, sir, I'll take first
crack at it. I happen to be the U.S. member to the ICAO Committee on aviation and
environmental protection and we discuss noise and emissions issues from a global perspective
and address the standards that ICAO sets and they are the international standards and all
ICAO, 185 ICAO members, by and large, comply with those standards. There is increasing
interest in congested areas, such as Europe, for lower noise standards. We've been
discussing that for some time. There is interest in seeing what the benefits of the Stage 3
phaseout are before we do that. I fully expect, following the CAEP 4 meeting in 1998, that
this issue will come to the table and the group will begin studying possible noise reduction
measures for the future. Same time, the group studies these issues, both from an
environmental benefit standpoint and from a cost benefit standpoint, so we look very hard at
the costs of implementing new standards, the effects on the existing fleet, which, after all, is
the basis for funding new aircraft. So I expect that the Committee will be addressing the
issue in the near future.
Mr. GORDON. Are there any penalties or
repercussions if a European country decided to, in certain airports that weren't in high
congestion areas, to reduce or raise the standards?
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, I can tell you that
ICAO takes a very dim view of that and——
Mr. GORDON. Well, does that, what does
that mean?
Mr. ERICKSON. The reason that that's
so——
Mr. GORDON. Well, what's the impact of
that?
Mr. ERICKSON. Of ICAO's taking a dim
view?
Mr. GORDON. Yes, I mean is that about
like me taking a dim view of what happened in the, whatever, UT–LSU game, I
mean——
Mr. ERICKSON. It's a little bit like that.
The standards set by ICAO are not mandatory as I, as I'm sure you're aware, but 185
nations have signed on to support them to the maximum extent and are required to report
every 2 years, I believe it is, every measure, every standard that they're not complying with.
Also, ICAO can withhold privileges of membership to the association and the ICAO council
in the last year has begin seriously discussing how to make that more compelling for
members.
Mr. GORDON. Anyone else have any
comments on that international issue, please?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I guess I'd like to
make it, remembering that I'm the technology partner in this. One of the things that we feel
very strongly about is, is that the United States, FAA and our industry, be in a position of
technical strength and superiority, both so that, so that if countries or other entities decide to
promote standards or regulations that are not consistent that, that there's technical evidence
and scientific basis to argue for a rational solution instead of a solution based on ignorance or
lack of knowledge and if there's a need to respond competitively to a different standard that
our companies are in a technically superior position to do that and therefore discourage
people using regulatory or local standards to try to gain a competitive edge. So,
that's——
Mr. GORDON. Where do we stand
internationally? I would assume that if a European country decided to set a higher standard
that they would want there to be some ability to meet it by probably a local manufacturer or
a European manufacturer. I mean, do they have superior ability now?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I don't think so. No,
I think that the U.S. engines out of Pratt and Whitney and General Electric are clearly on a
par or better with the any manufacturer internationally.
Mr. GORDON. Anyone else with a quick
timeframe here?
Mr. ROBESON. Yes, and the real problem
is it costs 5 billion more or less, give or take a billion, depending on the size of the airplane,
to develop the airframe. It's around 3 billion to develop a new engine and you develop it
based on a certification basis that recognizes existing standards and you're looking at a
program that you expect to have an economic life of not less than 10 and maybe 20 years.
With those kinds of investments and a time horizon of 10 years
for a payback before you start really making any money on the investment, if your looking at
a regulatory scheme which could pull the rug out from under you after 7 years or 8 years or
some arbitrary number over which you have no control, you have to wonder, do I want to
make this investment? That situation is made worse by this patchwork of regulation that you
see happening in Europe which basically looks like a noise equivalent or environmental
equivalent of beggar thy neighbor economic policies. We put in a stiff requirement at
Schiphol or Zurich and it means the airplanes will go somewhere else, like maybe New York
or London or we don't care, as long as it's not here.
And from a manufacturer's point of view, I'm still building an
airplane that meets the current requirement. And that is why the industry so strongly
supported an FAA funding mechanism which would cut funds off for that kind of local
capriciousness in the States and we grandfathered a couple of airports that already had
relatively more stringent requirements, such as Orange County, and the rest of them were
told here's the level and it's a level that's necessary. It's just like in the days of the railroads
when everybody got on a common time zone so they could operate.
Mr. GORDON. You, yes, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. Yes, I would like, I would
simply like to support Bob's comments. I firmly believe that regulations, noise regulations,
established through a partnership of our government and our industry, provides the best
possible opportunity to maintain a competitive advantage, be it against Europe or against any
other region of the world. If we had the technology and effectively and efficiently
transferred that technology into policy and to do it on a level playing field, I think we come
out ahead and we eliminate some of these sectors and vulcanization of standards that may
lead to a distinct downturn in commerce and I think in our ability to sell these big-tail
airplanes.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Gordon. And now I'm very honored to recognize Mr. Cook.
Mr. COOK. Well, thank you. I certainly
want to thank the panelists for being here today on this very important issue.
A number of pilots groups and others, association and union
groups, have questioned some of the procedures on takeoff where pilots are required to
throttle back as a noise abatement procedure. I'm not sure how common these procedures
are and where they're implemented mostly. I would appreciate any comments about that, but
also as to whether safety, if the traveling public has anything to be concerned about and at
those very important takeoffs when they have to throttle back, opinions on any of that, I
would appreciate.
Mr. ERICKSON. Yes, sir, Congressman,
thank you for that question. The operational procedures are one of the three elements that, I
believe, it was Bob Robeson mentioned. You can do something with source noise, you can
do something with your land-use planning around the airport, you can also do something with
the way the pilots operate the aircraft. We have for the last 15 years been involved in this
third aspect that you raise. And mentioned earlier that FAA's number one mantra, and the
thing they pay most attention to is safety and that has been true throughout the development
of operational procedures to mitigate noise during those 15 years. In 1993, we actually had
an industry group that was represented by the pilot organizations, operating pilots with safety
as their number one concern, develop the current procedures in what we call, Advisory
Circular 91–53(a), which outlines the operational procedures for climbing an aircraft
out in a way to minimize the noise impact on people on the ground.
So, I acknowledge your concern, it's certainly a legitimate one,
we shared it completely when we developed the procedures, we involved the industry who
actually wrote the draft regulatory document, the policy document I should say, that led to
the advisory circular that's currently in use at most of our Nation's largest airports with
noisy, with noise problems. So, I think we've addressed that issue and I know of not one
safety issue that's been raised since the development of those procedures as far as an actual
flight event.
Mr. COOK. I'm sure the FAA would
never allow a procedure they felt was unsafe, but is there any incident or accident or
anything that's believed widely that has resulted from these procedures that I take it, are not
at all major airports, but at many of the largest, most densely populated metropolitan
airports?
Mr. ERICKSON. That's correct. I have
actually flown those procedures. They're somewhat different than a normal procedure you
would fly. They're no less safe in my estimation and I do not know of a single incident
where a noise departure profile contributed, was a contributing factor, to any accident or
incident.
Mr. COOK. Okay, and if I could also just
get a sense of the question of the Chairman, that fuel, the amount of fuel contained on a
plane, will affect the noise. Could you give us some quantitative criteria on that? I mean, is
a noise, is the noise from a plane that's going to be going from Washington to Los Angeles
going to be a lot louder on takeoff than one going to Chicago, for example? What is the
basic quantifiable aspects of this, of this?
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, it depends on the
weight of the aircraft, whether the weight is fuel, more passengers, cargo
or——
Mr. COOK. Assuming the same plane with
just different fuel levels.
Mr. ERICKSON. If the aircraft weighs
more, it will climb out on a lower profile, making more noise with less distance from people
on the ground. I can't give you an exact quantitative number, but for, for say half full of
gas versus full of gas on a typical airliner, my guess would be the noise exposure on the
ground, the difference would be small in terms of a person perceiving the difference, but
there would be a difference.
Mr. COOK. Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Cook.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Rivers.
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you.
Mr. Erickson, the NIH, National Institutes of Health, and the
FAA have both weighed in on the number of people who are affected by airport noise,
aircraft noise. FAA says 3.5 million, NIH says a whole lot more. The NIH uses a much
lower decibel level as an indication of where impact first starts and they find much many
more significant problems, physiological and psychological problems, associated with
continued exposure than the FAA does. Who should I believe and why?
Mr. ERICKSON. I'm not aware of the
National Institute of Health study, so I'm somewhat ignorant about, about their assumptions
in the report. I can tell you from an auditory standpoint, we're quite confident about the
auditory affects of airplane, of aircraft noise nationally and have the models that we're very,
very confident are accurate in terms of the actual noise exposure of people on the ground.
As far as the psychological or physiological aspects, I'm not an expert and I can't speak to
those. I think the public health and welfare responsibilities fall primarily with the
EPA.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay.
Mr. ERICKSON. However, you know,
without seeing their report I feel somewhat ill-equipped to respond.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay, I had pulled it from
excerpts from other things. I will try and get that to you so you can look at it. Along the
same vein though, my understanding is that the FAA, in an effort to determine the impact of
noise, averages it, averages the sound over the course of a 24-hour period, but of course, as
human beings, that's not how we experience it. You know, there's the old saying that if you
have a raging fire in front of you and an open window blowing snow behind you, on
average, you feel great, but of course you don't. And so the question I have is, what are
the, if you are experiencing high decibel levels and then they're planed out—and I guess
I'd go to Mr. MacGlashan to finish after you—why do we use an average instead of
dealing with the actual impact of the highest decibel level on the people who are experiencing
it?
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, this is a very good
question and a very difficult question. The noise metric, the DNL metric, has probably been
looked at more and challenged more than anything I can think of other than children
watching television. It's been challenged in many, many academic fora, it's received an
awful lot of criticism and, to this day, no one has been able to generate a metric that is
better. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise is the group that considers
such issues. It's composed of members of EPA, FAA, the military, various experts in the
noise arena throughout government and industry and they, to this day, support DNL as the
best metric that's out there.
And in response to Mr. MacGlashan's concern about individual
noise events not being accurately reflected by DNL, let me give you just one or two
examples. If I were to go out by a runway, and say I were a mile-and-a-half from the
beginning of the takeoff roll of an F–15 fighter airplane, and that airplane took off,
and I measured the noise, and it was absolutely totally silent for the remainder of the day.
One event, total silence the rest of the day. That single event—would anyone care to
make a guess of what that was—it would actually be something on the order of 82 DNL
which puts it in the severe exposure for residents in and around airports. My point in
making the example and asking the question is that DNL may not be the perfect metric. I
don't know what the perfect metric is, but I do know that a better one hasn't been found and
I do know that it is very, very sensitive and very responsive to single, single events.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay, thank you. Mr.
MacGlashan?
Mr. MACGLASHAN. I guess I would
have to disagree with that. The 65 DNL was established quite sometime ago and at that time
I don't think anybody sufficiently recognized the health potential of what aircraft noise was
actually doing. And in some, if I took a cynical attitude about the thing, I might be inclined
to say that the reason it was picked, because it would make a nice low number and therefore,
everybody thinks, would think it's not too bad because typical community noise might be 45
and 65 is, for the average layperson, is not too much higher. But in actuality, I think that
the peak—the peak of the noisy event, plus the repetition, how many times it occurs,
needs to be looked at in light of the health risk that we're facing with these things. I mean,
it's just been within probably the last 10 years or so that the medical community is really
beginning to focus on that issue, and most of them are saying we've got to do something
about that.
Certainly it's not going to be an easy exercise to come up with a
new metric. I'm not trying to make it simple. But I think it's imperative that we do,
because until we get some sort of a metric that we can all agree has real meaning, then we're
not going to be any place, and nobody's going to believe the present DNL metric at all. And
so there's going to be continual battles on what that should be.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay, thank you. I have a
question for both representatives from the FAA and NASA. I recognized or noticed with
some alarm that, starting in Fiscal Year 1998 your budgeted dollars for the Noise Reduction
Technology Program draft goes down in 1999; it goes down in Fiscal Year 2000.
Did the Administration ask for more money for these programs?
I mean, are these funded at or below the administrative request?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I can speak for the
NASA budget. Our 1998 request I think is being honored with 34 or slightly more, million
dollars, and in 1999 it's $29 million. That profile—and then it drops from that.
That profile is characteristic of a systems technology program in
which you fund up but some heavy investments because it's technology, and then bring the
program down as the technology starts to mature.
As I mentioned earlier, we've developed a planning wedge
against our longer range goals that we will have as of March of 1998, then a team planning a
future effort. So you should see in 2000 in our request a continued and ramping up
investment in our noise reduction program.
We have what we think is the right investment to accomplish
our advance subsonic technology programs—noise reduction programs—which will
meet the 10-year goal. And then we will put in place with our next budget request, the
request for the program that we think is required to meet the 20-year goal.
Ms. RIVERS. So your expectation is, is
that in fact there should not be an actual reduction in dollars available for continued noise
reduction technology development.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. That's right. I
wouldn't say that we don't see a case for a 1-year drop as we finish one program and start
and ramp up the other, but if you give me a couple of years to integrate the investment that
we think is required is probably at least on an annual basis. I hesitate to say that until we
put in place the program that we think is required to advance beyond what's a pretty
aggressive noise reduction program.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay. Is that true also to
FAA? Is my time up, Madam Chairwoman?
Mrs. MORELLA. We're going to go
another round, though, in a few minutes.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay, thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. So, thank you.
Mr. McHale has joined us from Pennsylvania.
Would you like to ask any questions, Mr. McHale?
Mr. MCHALE. I would, Madam
Chairwoman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate the
comments that each of you has made. My questions, however, will be directed to Dr.
Whitehead, and they will basically ask you to expand upon your testimony on rotorcraft, as it
appears on page 7 of your prepared text.
Dr. Whitehead, I'm also a member of the National Security
Committee, and to have spent a number of years as a marine and a marine reservist, and
having a very strong interest in tilt rotor aircraft.
As you may be aware, over the past 2 years we've begun to
make a serious effort on the military side of the House to move toward fairly rapid
acquisition of the V–22. I come from an area in Pennsylvania that is heavily
urbanized, and we have a very fine regional airport. That airport for the most part however
is landblocked by continuing development in the immediate adjacent vicinity. And so as a
member of the National Security Committee I watch us moving forward on the V–22.
I think that's an essential step toward the replacement of the, now outdated, CH–46
helicopter; but I don't feel entirely comfortable that we are moving forward rapidly enough
in the application of civilian tilt rotor technology. So all of that is kind of a lengthy
introduction.
I would welcome your comments concerning the challenges in
the civilian use of tilt rotor aircraft, specifically the noise levels that are inherent in the use
of that kind of aircraft. I'm well aware of the comments that appear in your testimony that,
by using vertiports and carefully controlling the access points and glide paths into vertiports,
we can dramatically decrease the decibel level. But I'd ask you to simply expand upon your
testimony and tell us, particularly from an acoustical standpoint, are there any
insurmountable challenges in the civilian application of the tilt rotor aircraft?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. No.
Mr. MCHALE. Thank you.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I could go on to say
that there are three challenges that we consider critical path. They are not insurmountable.
One is simply technology for a quiet rotor. Any given weight tilt rotor use technology in the
rotor as a noise generator, to make that rotor as quiet as possible and still perform as an
effective rotor.
Two, a civilian cockpit—that lends itself to routine civilian
operations. And that includes being able to do the kinds of procedures on a routine basis
with civil pilots that would allow acceptable noise approaches and take-offs.
And three, engine out—one engine out, to make sure that
the contingency power and the way the drive train is designed will permit the kind of safety
that everyone would expect that you would have to have for operations.
Both of the three principal elements of the short-haul tilt rotor
are part of the Advance Subsonic Technology Program today. As in the case with our other
noise reduction programs, we're looking at where we go from there.
I have to say that the step that Boeing has taken with the Model
609 is, in my humble opinion, a step that's much more profound than simply the
development of a tilt rotor that size, in that it will put that type of vehicle, not only in the
marketplace but in the public eye, and the competence to invest, and ride, and build
infrastructure for that I think will be a critical element; maybe the most important thing that's
happened in pushing towards the civil application of this kind of thing.
Mr. MCHALE. I wish we could highlight
that and put an exclamation point at the end. I am very encouraged and fully concurrent in
the comment that you have just made.
Could you give us in that context kind of a word picture,
applying it to an airport such as the one in my district, but really I think it has international
application? And that is, we have an airport that is a very fine regional airport, but clearly
the passenger load is going to increase dramatically in the years ahead. We've begun
exploring the possibility of landbanking adjacent properties in order to build future
runways.
Following up on the closing comment that you made a moment
ago, when we look at the need for increased lift capability for passengers, and we examine
the potential options out there in the future, in terms of a heavier reliance on conventional
aircraft versus the utilization of the tilt rotor technology, which technology would likely have
a better impact upon the surrounding community in terms of noise levels, assuming we can
maximize the safeguards in either case?
So as we look at Lehigh Valley International Airport, and we
consider new runways, and new fixed-wing aircraft, and the noise levels that we anticipate
for that type of passenger conveyance; and we compare it to the acquisition and
implementation of the tilt rotor aircraft, using vertiports, using careful pathways into the
vertiport, improving the technology for the design of the rotor itself, where does the
community come out in terms of benefit when we analyze that benefit from the standpoint of
the anticipated noise levels?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Boy. Okay. That's a
complicated question. Let me try two examples, and the first one's not going to be your
case.
If you have a congested airport like National or like Logan, the
best thing to do is don't go there. That helps the landside, helps the airside, helps the noise,
helps everything.
You go to Logan——
Mrs. MORELLA. I think Mr. MacGlashan
would agree with you.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. But that is right. If
you want to go to Reston—bad case because you'd probably fly to Dulles. If you want
to go somewhere that you would fly to National and drive to, the great advantage in a
congested area is with a tilt rotor and a proper infrastructure, you don't go to National, you
don't go to Logan, you don't go to O'Hare; you go to where you want to get.
If you have a case that you have in your community, where you
have to build runways, they are going to be hard to adapt in the future, except to build more.
It's a large fixed cost.
The advantage of tilt rotors there is that, again, it's a distributed
system. The leverage that you have or who invests in the infrastructure, or where you put it,
and the flexibility of that infrastructure, and the distribution of the noise—that you make
everyone unhappy, maybe—is a more distributed system. So you don't create a big
noise inception site, and all the noise approached that comes to that.
So if you can solve all of those—not insurmountable, but
challenging problems of introducing this airplane and its infrastructure, I think you have a
great deal of flexibility to deal with moving passengers, the economics of going point to
point, and the environmental issues. And that's kind of the point of working the
system—the whole system that this thing's on.
Mr. MCHALE. In closing, I again fully
concur in your comments.
I've been a skeptic with regard to the need for landbanking for
additional runways at our airport. I don't mean to focus on one airport and one district; I
think there are many such airports throughout the Nation.
I think the tilt rotor technology offers an enormous capability to
minimize the adverse impact upon adjacent developed properties—particularly
residential properties—while providing to an individual community, the essential
passenger lift that is necessary for a vibrant local economy. We have no choice, we must go
there; it's home. And those are the businesses that we hope to develop. Those are the
passengers we hope to bring in and transport to other locations.
But it seems to me that rather than looking backward on a
technology that has been dominant—that is, fixed-wind aircraft flying into horizontal
runways—that we can achieve the same lift capability at a much lower cost in terms of
infrastructure; a much lower decibel impact upon the surrounding community, by moving
rapidly toward tilt rotor.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I think there's
probably a mix, but don't disagree.
Mr. MCHALE. Okay. Well, I thank you
for your comments.
Madam Chairwoman——
Mrs. MORELLA. Thanks, Mr.
McHale.
Let me ask, Mr. Robeson, since you do represent the aerospace
industry, do you think that the views and the concerns of the aerospace industry are
adequately represented in the NASA/FAA Advanced Subsonic Technology Program that is
working on the quieter aircraft technology? I'm asking you sort of like, what is the
appropriate role of these agencies, and are they doing it in a correct a balance?
Mr. ROBESON. Well, the roles are from
one agency to the next a little different. As it's been alluded to, the FAA is much more
focused on operational requirements. They're responsible for certifying both the noise levels
and compliance with part 36, which is the noise regulation, as well as the safety
requirements, both operationally and for the design of the aircraft, whereas NASA is a little
bit more blue-sky, long-term development.
Our problem is that we'd always like to throw more money at
the subsonic and other NASA programs, but that's not the budgetary climate we live under.
Given the constraints that are imposed upon us in all facets of our life in aviation because of
budget realities, we're pretty satisfied with where NASA/FAA is with the subsonic
program.
I think the way to look at what NASA does is basically they are
kind of an enabling technology body, and once the technology is proven out as technically
feasible, then it's up to the industry to figure out how to get that economically into the
system.
Mrs. MORELLA. Since you're the driving
force, you're in a good position to respond to that.
Dr. Harris, let me just ask you—they're doing a lot of
modifications of aircraft to make them safe from Stage 2 to Stage 3. Some of this aircraft is
like 25 years old. In terms of noise abatement, is it not wiser to use new aircraft for Stage
3? Is there a difference in the noise factor? I mean, are there differences in that? Is this a
valid question to pose? Do you convert retrofit—whatever you do—to the old to
make it into Stage 3, or do you create for Stage 3?
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairwoman,
certainly it's a valid question. I think there are many factors that go into determining
whether an airline or an operator will decide to retrofit or go with a whole new aircraft, and
the factors will speak for themselves.
I believe that there's been a major investment in existing
aircraft, that some of those aircraft have the light probably exceeding the time in which they
have already been in use; and provided we can find a retrofit that is consistent with the
regulations for noise, that also provides an improvement in safety, and the existing or our
modified airplane will fit into our air space system. Then it is worth of consideration in
terms of using or going forward with the retrofit. It must also be, after the retrofit, fuel
efficient. It must be competitive on that basis as well with new aircraft.
So there are many factors. And I don't think there's a snap
answer that I could offer with any confidence that retrofit is always better than new
airplanes, or that retrofits are always inferior to——
Mrs. MORELLA. Are they generally less
noise-efficient?
Mr. HARRIS. I would think that—but
you give me a green field and say, go out and build a new airplane, I could build one that's
a lot quieter than the one you can retrofit.
Mrs. MORELLA. Okay, I think you've
answered it.
Mr. Robeson?
Mr. ROBESON. Some of the retrofit
technology involves hush kitting; some of it actually involves re-engining airplanes. You get
all different kinds of answers.
We're looking at a situation. For example, for an airplane on
approach you get about as much noise from the air frame itself as you are from the engine.
So re-engining and hush kitting on approach only gets you so far.
I think ultimately it's a question for the operator as to what is
economically doable. You reach a point where it costs a lot to maintain the airplane, you're
looking at how much it costs you to hush-kit it, is there an efficiency penalty.
One of the ways you meet Stage 3, if it's available to the
operator, is to impose a permanent weight restriction on the airplane, and you can't go back
and then re-certify it a higher gross weight.
All those things are taken into account if someone makes a
determination as to whether they're going to hush kit, buy a new airplane, or what they're
going to do.
I think the important thing to remember is that there is a
certification level. It's the current Stage 3 level which is roughly equivalent to the ICAO
requirement. And if you make a design which meets that requirement, then that design is
airworthy, it's certifiable, and it should be permitted to operate. And there's a question of
goodness about whether you're 3 dB below the level, or one dB below the level. The fact is
you meet the requirement.
Mrs. MORELLA. You know something
that I think coming through here too is that, whether or not we have the wrong
metric—and I guess we do have the wrong metric; whether we know what all the health
effects are, and we hear something from NIH, but maybe more needs to be done.
What are the sanctions? Are there any sanctions? Is there any
enforcement? I don't find that there is from what I hear, and from what I've heard even
before this hearing.
There is this office of EPA, that was the EPA Office of Noise
Abatement that really is like non-existent now because no money has been put into it. And
there is a legislation that I am co-sponsoring that would try to get a little bit of luster and
strength to revitalize this office, but even at that the amount of money is probably not
adequate to continue to do it.
Could I have your suggestions, gentlemen—all of
you—in terms of, where do we go from here for proper noise abatement. And I know
we're talking about money, and I can tell you that we have put—our Committee, we
authorize for the FAA, $3.6 million, and $2.8 million was actually appropriated, and so we
understand the need for that.
But what do we do about enforcing? What do you suggest?
Anybody have any suggestions? I mean, do you think that the answer is in this Office of
Noise Abatement? Something else maybe? Talk about a hush kit.
Mr. MacGlashan?
Mr. MACGLASHAN. Well, I guess I feel
that we're not going to make any real progress on solving this problem as long as the airline
industry or the aviation industry is allowed to run open loop. And unfortunately it seems to
be human nature that, because of the competitive nature of our society that they're going to
go for the bottom line, and that's understandable. But the people who are living underneath
it have a case also, and it's their quality of life—as this panel certainly has
indicated—that is being affected.
And in terms of what kind of sanctions should be applied, you
know, I couldn't answer that right off the top of my head, but until we get some major of
control on the situation, I don't think it's going to change much.
I mean, as you have said yourself, we have Stage 3 airplanes
coming. The numbers that I quoted today are for the last 9 months of this last year, and yet
National and Dulles have about 75 percent Stage 3 already. So we're almost there, and as
somebody pointed out, yes, but it's at Stage 2 they're providing 60 percent of the noise
problem. That may be true; I can't argue that point just off the top of my head. But until
we get some sort of control on the situation, I'm afraid we're just going to be whistling in
the wind.
Mrs. MORELLA. Apparently the rest of
you feel that that's going to be the situation, so perhaps you're more sanguine or optimistic
about it.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam
Chairwoman——
Mrs. MORELLA. Dr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. I would like to
respond.
First, I think the Nation really should ask—or understand
the magnitude of the problem. What precisely are the health issues? Are we talking about a
situation comparable to the tobacco industry, in terms of health situations that lead to
possible death? And if so, are we looking at sanctions of that level, or arrangements of that
kind? Are we talking about a different kind of health problem?
I don't think that's been defined to a degree that we're all
willing to agree to at least, as to the level of the health issue. Is it truly life threatening, or
is it a nuisance, or something in between, or even less than a nuisance?
So I think that needs to be settled. And once that's settled I
think we can find, or define, agree to, a set of sanctions. In the long run sanctions
appropriate to the harm or potential harm done would be appropriate.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Robeson?
Mr. ROBESON. I don't think it's a
steady-state situation.
Among other things, there is tremendous competition among the
manufacturers to provide the most quiet product that they can; that they can sell to the
airlines. It is a sales tool, and there should be no about it. The second thing is, that the
history doesn't tell us that the industry is not interested in creating quieter airplanes. I mean,
the statistics tell us that the airplanes are significantly quieter than they were 20, 10, 30 years
ago.
Now, what it also tells us is that there was a step-wise function
when we went to the high bypass fans, which had—we went to for fuel reasons, but had
a nice benefit, and it also helped quiet the airplane. The question is, what's the next big
step-wise function like that that's out there, and that's what we're looking for.
But I could tell you, we're spending a lot of money, and a lot of
man-hours and women-hours, looking for solutions to this. So I have a bit of a problem with
the idea that the industry is just not interested in doing anything, except provide for the
bottom line.
Now, we owe something to our shareholders. The other thing
though I have to say is, we've provided one heck of a transportation situation, which is
affordable to masses of people, and it wasn't in 1960. All you have to do is get on an
airplane, or go out to the airport and look at it. And I think it was Wes who said, there is
another quality of life issue here, and that is affordable transportation for the population of
this country, and for the world at large. And it's something that has to be figured into the
mix.
Mrs. MORELLA. Would anyone else like
to comment on that?
Mr. ERICKSON. Well, I guess, Madam
Chairwoman, just to remind folks that we have made, and are making significant progress, if
we look at any particular person or location on the ground, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, that
person is being exposed to much less noise on an average—much less noise; near half
the noise that they were 20 years ago. So, it's easy to forget that looking to the
future.
Look at the Triple 7 aircraft that was recently certified by FAA.
That aircraft with the GE engines—the way they're certified is they're measured at
three measurement points. Each of those on average is 8 dB less than the Stage 3 limit.
What that means in practical terms, is you could fly four aircraft in formation that meet the
Stage 3 new latest noise limit, and they still—I'm sorry. You could fly 4 Boeing Triple
7 aircraft in formation, and they wouldn't make nearly as much noise—4 at the same
time—as an aircraft that just meets the latest Stage 3 noise standard. This is significant
progress. This is leading toward quieter areas.
In regard to the EPA, I think they have a most valid
responsibility for public health and welfare. My suggestion would be that if a noise office is
opened on EPA, they should look at all sources of noise, because the public is exposed to
many, many sources of noise, only one of which is aviation, and aviation is moving in the
right direction. Thank you.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr.
Erickson.
I know I'm taking longer than my 5 minutes. But my very last
question is just simply—since I see Betty Ann Kane here also—to Mr.
MacGlashan.
How would you characterize the cooperative relationship among
citizen groups affected by aircraft noise, federal, state, and local governing bodies? Would
you like to comment on that?
Mr. MACGLASHAN. I think in most
cases—at least from my knowledge base—that the citizens who are sort of filing
against the noise problem, are in an adversarial situation with most of the local—with
the airport operators. It's sad to say, even with FAA. And in response to that, the noise
groups are actually, as we speak practically, are banning together to form a national group in
order to lend a little more weight to their opinions on this whole issue.
So, as Mr. Kreider in his book said, one of the curves he has in
there is the fact that, above a certain level you begin to get people banding together to take
legal action. And what this national group is basically doing is starting that process, except
on a national basis rather than just a local basis.
So it's not a good situation at this point. I will say to the
FAA's credit, that our group locally here has met with them to discuss any number of
problems, and in some cases they have cooperated, and we have resolved a few problems.
But the overall picture is not too good.
Mrs. MORELLA. I'm going to now defer
to Ms. Rivers.
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. I have a couple
of questions that are really designed to help me understand how we got to where we are
today, and where we might be going in the future. And I listened with a lot of interest to the
last round of questioning about sanctions, and imperatives, and that sort of thing.
And the question I have is, what has brought us to today? Has
it been: (a) an industry who on its own wanted to make changes; (b) an industry that made
fortuitous changes when they found doing something for the bottom line actually had an
impact on the sound; or do we have a lot of changes in place because there were in fact,
legislative imperatives, and once there was a reason—whether it's a legislative
imperative or ultimately a sanction for doing so—the industry made changes?
Are any of those or any combination of those things in fact what
brought us to the point that we are at today? And is any one thing more important than any
other?
I guess really the biggest question in my mind is, would be
where we are today had the government not stepped in to demand it?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Again, the
technologist speaking, I think that the taxpayer, through both the conscientious elected
officials and investing in research and technology, have given the industry and the standards
in regulation setting bodies the opportunity to find ways to gain multiple benefits, or win
win, by—as Mr. Robeson said—going with the new technology for primarily
economic purposes, by gaining collateral benefits in noise, and then continuing to improve
those noise capabilities; and by giving the industry options in which they could use the
benefits, both competitive and public relations, of being a better neighbor at the same time
they were improving their bottom line, has been a success story.
Ms. RIVERS. So do you think we would
be phasing out the noisier aircraft today in the absence of an imperative to do so?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. No. I'm going to
stand up and be a proponent for our democratic process, and our activist elected officials,
and citizenry, and say, debate is a wonderful thing.
Page 47
We are served by multiple good in aviation. The ability to
safely and reliably get where we want to go, and affordably—that's pretty
important—and to be able to do that in a way that's been environmentally acceptable;
more environmentally acceptable in some arenas than others, obviously.
But still, the continuing debate among all the segments of our
Nation, of where I think we find the best compromise roots, which is what path we're on, to
satisfy the longest, largest segment of our Nation's population.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Robeson, did you want
to speak to that?
Mr. ROBESON. I think the short answer
to your question is yes, in that all of the factors he cited play some role. The decision to
move to an all Stage 3 fleet by a particular operator, they will reach different conclusions
about how and when to do that. And you can tell by looking at the fleet mix today.
I think that it's also evident—and you have to be blind not
to see it—is that environmental issues and concerns are a growth industry. I mean, I'm
not a making a judgment call there as to whether that's good, bad or indifferent, but it is
what it is. And our companies recognize it, and that's why there is a lot of attention being
paid to environmental issues on noise, engine emissions, plant emissions, processes used in
manufacture, maintenance—across the board.
So I think there's a certain momentum behind this, and it's
always good to be prodded and reminded by elected officials that we do have a
responsibility, but I don't think that it something which is—which we're forgetting in
any event.
Ms. RIVERS. Let me follow up with that
with a bottom-line question, in the sense that I'm trying to understand what we can expect in
the future, based on some of the economics of this. And this is not a negative statement
about any of it; it's just I'm trying to understand—given some of the numbers that
we've heard you—for example, Mr. Robeson said—I think you said that it was $3
billion to develop a new air frame.
Mr. ROBESON. About $5 billion for an
air frame, and about $3 billion for an engine from the ground up.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay. At the every
most—the biggest year I have on my chart, the Reduction Technology Program had
about $35 billion most. That's going to be next year. That's going to be the
highest—at least in the chart that I see—between the two programs.
Mr. ROBESON. Million.
Ms. RIVERS. Million, million. That's
exactly my point, is millions as opposed to billions.
When we are looking at millions to develop technology that will
ultimately cost billions, do we actually have—have we established a pipeline that's
going to take us where we want to go?
Mr. ROBESON. Let me make an overall
comment, and then defer to NASA and FAA, regarding what the real—the exact
number should be.
The fact that they're spending $35 million, or $40 or $50
million, doesn't necessarily follow it by throwing $500 million at the problem, you're going
to get any better result. It depends on how the program is designed. There are only so
many engineers that are experts in this area; pretty soon you've reached diminishing returns.
So the question is, what's the optimal spending level for any particular research program that
you're doing, and it doesn't necessarily equate to the fact that it cost a billion dollars or $5
billion to design an air frame.
I mean, I will tell you one thing, and that is, that of that $5
billion, about 10 percent of that is merely certification testing costs.
Ms. RIVERS. Okay.
Did you want to speak to that too? Dr. Whitehead.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I'm going to commit
heresy for a NASA program manager. I think we've had the opportunity to make the
investments we thought are necessary, and be fully supported in the environmental area, and
we've done that. So I think it's what Mr. Robeson says.
We think that we have the investment within NASA's mid and
long-range research that we need. If we have an area to improve on—and we've
concentrated very heavily on that in the last 5 years since—the gentleman on my left
that provided the leadership for us—is to get those research results into the hands of
people who can turn them into improvements quicker.
And that doesn't take money always; it takes some technology
to lower the risks, and to get people to understand how to apply it. But mostly it's getting
everybody to work together from the start. So, I think that, everything considered, we're
making the right investment.
Ms. RIVERS. So you would say, that in
terms of this subsidized scientific pipeline, we're doing what we need to do; and that
ultimately we're getting information out that then the commercial airlines can benefit from,
and use to move us forward?
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I think so. I think we
can, and we're trying hard to do a better job of getting the technology into play quicker. But
that ultimately becomes a business decision or a standards decision for others. So we just
need to make sure they know what can and can't be done technically at any given
time.
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. Thank you
all.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Ms.
Rivers.
I said it was my last question, but I just can't resist, since we've
now talked about free flight.
Does free flight have an impact on noise? We had a hearing not
too long ago where that was discussed in terms of what they're using. I think my
recollection is, a couple of trial spots, like Hawaii, Alaska, and I'm quite interested in your
response?
Would you like to start us off, Mr. Erickson?
Mr. ERICKSON. Yes, ma'am. The free
flight concept is still creating itself as we speak. But largely it's based on more efficient
routing, and more efficient procedures for aircraft than we have on our current air traffic
system. I think it provides a lot of opportunities, not only for noise solutions to some of our
problems; it also presents noise challenges to us. But probably the biggest beneficiary area
will be in the area of emissions. As I think everyone is aware, aircraft contribute somewhat
to the emissions on our planet, and through advanced air traffic systems, we can make a
significant step change in the emissions of aircraft by operating them more efficiently. And I
won't go into the details of that because this is more about noise.
With the advanced air traffic systems, it allows the aircraft to
fly more quickly from the point of departure to destination. That's less time in the air; that's
less time that an aircraft is making noise. So on an overall standpoint there will be some
percentage increase and benefit.
A bigger benefit is possible through the very precise navigation
that's expected with this new free flight system; CNS–ATM kinds of systems, where
the aircraft can be flown on very, very precise routings using satellite navigation to place the
aircraft within a few feet, at any point in time, where you want it to be. So there's an
opportunity there to fly aircraft over less noise-sensitive areas.
The challenge that comes with that of course is—with the
challenge to fly over less noise sensitive areas, you also have the opportunity to fly more
direct routings, which will tend to disperse the current noise.
Citizens who are not now impacted, even if they have a small
increase in noise level, they're sensitive to that increase in noise level, and we generally
don't get cheering from those who've been relieved. So that's a challenge to managing the
dispersion of aircraft.
Mrs. MORELLA. You would have sort of
a scatter plan.
Mr. ERICKSON. It will have the
possibility of flying direct routing; the most efficient routing from where I want to leave to
where I want to go. The current aircraft system takes aircraft down airways with bends in
them; takes aircraft—not necessarily on exactly the right altitude, because controllers
must separate them.
This new system will have a mighty computer that is going to
aid the ability to put those aircraft closer to their optimum location from maximum
efficiency.
Mrs. MORELLA. I appreciate you telling
us your feeling about it.
Yes, indeed, Dr. Whitehead.
Mr. WHITEHEAD. We have a case study
about that. It was called the New Jersey something, and a few people in New Jersey were
really mad because all the airplanes came over the house, so they distributed them, and made
everyone in New Jersey mad.
But I really wanted to try just a different comment. There is no
question that aviation—commercial aviation—really wants to grow as we go into
the 21st Century, globally. As the economy globalizes there is no real alternative to a good
aviation transportation system that's rapid, safe, etc.
So things like free flight that are going to make systems more
productive, and allow the systems to go, is going to put pressure on environmental, it's
going to put pressure on the emissions, it's going to put pressure on affordability.
If you try to solve any one of those by themselves, I think we're
going to have a problem. If we don't get a better global air traffic system, there won't be a
bigger environmental problem, because we'll get constrained, and aviation won't grow. But
if it does grow, and we don't do something about environment, we're going to be up against
a lot of legitimate concerns.
So I think that everyone who believes in aviation—that's
concerned about its impact and its benefits, is going to have to continue this discussion on
this debate. I mean that's government, industry, private citizens, everyone. I think we'll be
back.
Mrs. MORELLA. Any final comments
from anyone? Mr. MacGlashan?
Mr. MACGLASHAN. Yes, I would like to
speak to that free flight thing for just one point, I think.
For instance, if you wanted to fly from BWI to Atlanta, and you
did a free flight type of operation—and we put it right over the middle of Washington,
DC., because that's the direct line—there has been some discussion, I think, in the
FAA circles—and I would leave it to these gentlemen to verify it—that at one
point they were going to—I'll use the word exempt—the TCA areas from having
just free flight going through willy nilly. So I would leave that comment.
There is one other comment which goes to the GPS aspects,
where you can put the plane within a foot or two on the same path practically all the time.
And this was brought home to me because I had a man call me from Falls Church, who said
that, up until recently the planes would be arriving at National Airport, but they would
arriving in a band of about 2 miles wide; some of them over his house, some of them over a
mile away and so forth.
He said all of a sudden all the planes began arriving exactly
over the top of his chimney, because they were using GPS, and they could put it right there
on the button. So there is some other factors that we need to be cognizant of.
Mrs. MORELLA. Dr. Harris.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairwoman and
members of the Subcommittee, my closing comments are simply as follows. Aviation is a
winner for this country. It is the one area that we have no equal, compared to, for example,
automobiles, or electronics, or ship building.
We would be better served to take a total systems approach to
our problems, for safety of air space, efficiency with emissions, both noise and
non-pollutants, and giving appropriate consideration. And I would hope that this Committee,
and my colleagues at NASA, and the FAA, would find ways to improve all of those areas to
ensure our continued leadership.
Mrs. MORELLA. No doubt, we need that
cooperative concentrated ethic by all; one of commitment.
I'm reminded of the best phrase that was stated by a 101-year
old Veteran of World War I, when they dedicated the Women's Memorial last
Saturday—101 years of age, and she said, ''Go for it.''
And so I thank you all for being here; Mr. Erickson, Dr.
Whitehead, Dr. Harris, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. MacGlashan. I appreciate it very much, and
I hope you will continue to keep us informed in terms of what's happening, and there may be
some other questions we may want to direct to you with your permission. Thank
you.
This meeting is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following material was received for the record:]
Insert offset folios 46-69
45–884CC
1997
TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE AIRCRAFT NOISE
Page 54
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 21, 1997
[No. XX]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan**
DAVE WELDON, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
MARK FOLEY, Florida
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Mississippi
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California RMM*
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
ROBERT E. ''BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
WALTER H. CAPPS, California
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
TODD R. SCHULTZ, Chief of Staff
BARRY C. BERINGER, Chief Counsel
PATRICIA S. SCHWARTZ, Chief
Clerk/Administrator
VIVIAN A. TESSIERI, Legislative Clerk
ROBERT E. PALMER, Democratic Staff
Director
Subcommittee on Technology
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
BART GORDON, Tennessee
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
*Ranking Minority Member
**Vice Chairman
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
October 21, 1997:
James D. Erickson, Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
Administration
Robert E. Whitehead, Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Wesley L. Harris, Federal Aviation Administration, Research, Engineering and Development
Advisory Committee, and Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Robert Robeson, Vice President, Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association of
America
Don MacGlashan, Member, Board of Directors, Citizens for the Abatement of Airport
Noise
(iii)