indianapolis international airport final... · indianapolis international airport noise exposure...

INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOISE EXPOSURE MAP UPDATE

FINAL

August 2003

Prepared for:

Indianapolis Airport Authority 2500 S. High School Road Indianapolis, IN 46241

Prepared by:

Landrum & Brown, Incorporated 11279 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

INDIANAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE MAP UPDATE FINAL

Landrum & Brown Page i August 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................1 1.1 FAR Part 150...................................................................................1 1.2 Background.....................................................................................1 1.3 Public Involvement...........................................................................1 1.4 Draft NEM Update Document and Public Hearing ..................................2

2.0 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS (NEMs)..................................2

3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................2

4.0 EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS...................................3 4.1 Runway Layout ................................................................................3 4.2 Operating Levels..............................................................................5 4.3 Fleet Mix.........................................................................................6 4.4 Runway End Utilization .....................................................................8 4.5 Flight Tracks ................................................................................. 10 4.6 Flight Profiles ................................................................................ 19 4.7 Engine Run-Ups............................................................................. 19 4.8 Existing (2003) NEM....................................................................... 19 4.9 Comparison to Previous NEM ........................................................... 23 4.10 Supplemental Noise Analysis ........................................................... 23

5.0 FUTURE (2008) CONDITIONS ....................................29 5.1 Runway Layout .............................................................................. 29 5.2 Operating Levels............................................................................ 29 5.3 Fleet Mix....................................................................................... 30 5.4 Runway End Utilization ................................................................... 30 5.5 Flight Tracks ................................................................................. 32 5.6 Flight Profiles ................................................................................ 32 5.7 Engine Run-Ups............................................................................. 33 5.8 Future (2008) NEM......................................................................... 33 5.9 Supplemental Noise Analysis ........................................................... 33


Landrum & Brown Page ii August 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

6.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES ................................................39

6.1 Current Noise Abatement Measures .................................................. 39 6.2 Current Land Use Mitigation Measures .............................................. 41

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A PUBLIC COORDINATION APPENDIX B DOCUMENT LOCATIONS APPENDIX C FAA POLICIES, GUIDANCE, AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX D NOISE COMPLAINTS AND NOISE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM APPENDIX E LAND USE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY APPENDIX F RESPONSE TO COMMENTS


Landrum & Brown Page iii August 2003

EXHIBITS

Page

NEM-1 Existing (2003) Noise Exposure Map ...................................... NEM-6 NEM-2 Future (2008) Noise Exposure Map ........................................ NEM-7 Exhibit 1 Existing Airport Layout Plan ..........................................................4 Exhibit 2 Noise Abatement Flight Paths (Day 7:00 am to 7 pm) .................... 11 Exhibit 3 Noise Abatement Flight Paths (Evening and Night 7 pm to 7 am) ..... 12 Exhibit 4 Southwest Flow INM Flight Tracks................................................ 13 Exhibit 5 Northeast Flow INM Flight Tracks................................................. 14 Exhibit 6 Existing (2003) Noise Exposure Map ............................................ 21 Exhibit 7 Existing (2003) Noise Exposure Map Compared to Official 2002 NEM/NCP ............................................................ 24 Exhibit 8 Noise Measurement Sites............................................................ 26 Exhibit 9 Future (2008) Noise Exposure Map .............................................. 34 Exhibit 10 Existing (2003) Noise Exposure Map Compared to Future (2008) Noise Exposure Map ........................................... 38 Exhibit 11 Current Land Use and Environmental Mitigation Areas .................... 42 Exhibit D-1 Noise Measurement Sites.......................................................... D-2 Exhibit D-2 Noise Complaint Locations (1998-2001) ....................................D-11 Exhibit E-1 Generalized Existing Land Use....................................................E-4


Landrum & Brown Page iv August 2003

TABLES

Table 1 Aircraft Operations by User Group Existing (2003) Conditions .........5 Table 2 Operations by Aircraft Existing (2003) Conditions..........................7 Table 3 Runway Utilization Percentages Existing (2003) Conditions.............9 Table 4 Flight Track Utilization by Aircraft Group Existing (2003) Conditions....................................................... 15 Table 5 Run-Up Activity Summary........................................................... 20 Table 6 Noise Exposure Impact Area (Square Miles) Existing (2003) NEM ............................................................... 20 Table 7 Land Use Impacts Existing (2003) NEM...................................... 22 Table 8 Noise Exposure Impact Comparison Area (Square Miles) Existing (2003) NEM Versus 2002 NEM/NCP ............................... 23 Table 9 Noise Complaint Locations 1998 2001........................................ 25 Table 10 Grid Analysis Report Existing (2003) NEM .................................. 27 Table 11 Aircraft Operations by User Group Future (2008) Conditions......... 29 Table 12 Operations by Aircraft Future (2008) Conditions.......................... 31 Table 13 Runway Utilization Percentages Future (2008) Conditions............. 32 Table 14 Noise Exposure Impact Area (Square Miles) Future (2008) NEM ................................................................. 35 Table 15 Land Use Impacts Future (2008) NEM........................................ 35 Table 16 Grid Analysis Report Existing (2003) NEM Versus Future (2008) NEM ................................................................. 36 Table C-1 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines FAR Part 150.........................C-9 Table D-1 Acoustical Measurement Instrumentation.................................... D-4 Table D-2 Temporary Noise Monitoring Results .......................................... D-7 Table D-3 1998 Noise Complaint Data Summary .......................................D-12 Table D-4 1999 Noise Complaint Data Summary .......................................D-13 Table D-5 2000 Noise Complaint Data Summary .......................................D-14 Table D-6 2001 Noise Complaint Data Summary .......................................D-15 Table E-1 Noise-Sensitive Community Facilities...........................................E-3

NOISE EXPOSURE MAP -- CHECKLIST -- PART I AIRPORT NAME: Indianapolis International Airport REVIEWER________________

Landrum & Brown Page NEM-1 August 2003

Yes/No/NA

Page No.\Other Reference

I. IDENTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION OF MAP DOCUMENT: A. Is this submittal appropriately identified as one of

the following, submitted under FAR Part 150: 1. a NEM only 2. a NEM and NCP 3. a revision to NEMs which have previously

been determined by FAA to be in compliance with Part 150?

B. Is the airport name and the qualified airport

operator identified? C. Is there a dated cover letter from the airport

operator which indicates the documents are submitted under Part 150 for appropriate FAA determinations?

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cover Letter

Cover Letter, Statement of Certification

Cover Letter

II. CONSULTATION: [150.21(b), A150.105(a)] A. Is there a narrative description of the consultation

accomplished, including opportunities for public review and comment during map development?

B. Identification:

1. Are the consulted parties identified? 2. Do they include all those required by

150.21(b) and A150.105(a)?

C. Does the documentation include the airport operator's certification, and evidence to support it, that interested persons have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments during map development and in accordance with 150.21(b)?

D. Does the document indicate whether written

comments were received during consultation and, if there were comments, that they are on file with the FAA region?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sections 1.3 & 1.4

Appendix A

Appendix A

Statement of Certification

Appendix A



Yes/No/NA


III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: [150.21] A. Are there two maps, each clearly labeled on the

face with year (existing condition year and 5-year)?

B. Map currency: 1. Does the existing condition map year match

the year on the airport operator's submittal letter?

2. Is the 5-year map based on reasonable

forecasts and other planning assumptions and is it for the fifth calendar year after the year of submission?

3. If the answer to 1 and 2 above is no, has the

airport operator verified in writing that data in the documentation are representative of existing condition and 5-year forecast conditions as of the date of submission?

C. If the NEM and NCP are submitted together:

1. Has the airport operator indicated whether the 5-year map is based on 5-year contours without the program vs. contours if the program is implemented?

2. If the 5-year map is based on program

implementation: a. are the specific program measures which

are reflected on the map identified: b. does the documentation specifically

describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities depicted on the map?

3. If the 5-year NEM does not incorporate

program implementation, has the airport operator included an additional NEM for FAA determination after the program is approved which shows program implementation conditions and which is intended to replace the 5-year NEM as the new official 5-year plan?

IV. MAP SCALE, GRAPHICS, AND DATA

REQUIREMENTS: [A150.101, A150.103, A150.105, 150.21(a)] A. Are the maps of sufficient scale to be clear and

readable (they must not be less than 1" to 8,000'), and is the scale indicated on the maps?

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

Exhibit 6 & 9

Cover Letter


Exhibits 6 & 9



Yes/No/NA


B. Is the quality of the graphics such that required information is clear and readable?

C. Depiction of the airport and its environs.

1. Is the following graphically depicted to scale on both the existing condition and 5-year maps: a. airport boundaries b. runway configurations with runway end

numbers

2. Does the depiction of the off-airport data include: a. a land use base map depicting streets and

other identifiable geographic features b. the area within the 65 Ldn (or beyond, at

local discretion) c. clear delineation of geographic boundaries

and the names of all jurisdictions with planning and land use control authority within the 65 Ldn (or beyond, at local discretion)

D. 1. Continuous contours for at least the Ldn 65,

70, and 75? 2. Based on current airport and operational data

for the existing condition year NEM, and forecast data for the 5-year NEM?

E. Flight tracks for the existing condition and 5-year

forecast time frames (these may be on supplemental graphics which must use the same land use base map as the existing condition and 5-year NEM), which are numbered to correspond to accompanying narrative?

F. Locations of any noise monitoring sites (these

may be on supplemental graphics which must use the same land use base map as the official NEMs)

G. Noncompatible land use identification: 1. Are noncompatible land uses within at least the

65 Ldn depicted on the maps?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 6 & 9

Exhibits 2 5

Exhibits 8 & D-1

Exhibits 6, 9, & E-1



Yes/No/NA


2. Are noise sensitive public buildings identified? 3. Are the noncompatible uses and noise

sensitive public buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map legend?

4. Are compatible land uses, which would

normally be considered noncompatible, explained in the accompanying narrative?

V. NARRATIVE SUPPORT OF MAP DATA:

[150.21(a), A150.1, A150.101, A150.103] A. 1. Are the technical data, including data sources,

on which the NEMs are based adequately described in the narrative?

2. Are the underlying technical data and

planning assumptions reasonable?

B. Calculation of Noise Contours: 1. Is the methodology indicated?

a. is it FAA approved? b. was the same model used for both maps? c. has AEE approval been obtained for use

of a model other than those which have previous blanket FAA approval?

2. Correct use of noise models:

a. does the documentation indicate the airport operator has adjusted or calibrated FAA-approved noise models or substituted one aircraft type for another?

b. if so, does this have written approval from

AEE?

3. If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative indicate that Part 150 guidelines were followed?

4. For noise contours below 65 Ldn, does the

supporting documentation include explanation of local reasons?

(Narrative explanation is highly desirable but not required by the Rule.)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



Section 6

Sections 4 & 5


Section 3 Section 3

Section 3



Yes/No/NA


C. Noncompatible Land Use Identification: 1. Does the narrative give estimates of the

number of people residing in each of the contours (Ldn 65, 70 and 75, at a minimum) for both the existing condition and 5-year maps?

2. Does the documentation indicate whether

Table 1 of Part 150 was used by the airport operator? a. If a local variation to Table 1 was used:

(1) does the narrative clearly indicate which adjustments were made and the local reasons for doing so?

(2) does the narrative include the airport

operator's complete substitution for Table 1?

3. Does the narrative include information on

self-generated or ambient noise where compatible/noncompatible land use identifications consider non-airport/aircraft sources?

4. Where normally noncompatible land uses are

not depicted as such on the NEMs, does the narrative satisfactorily explain why, with reference to the specific geographic areas?

5. Does the narrative describe how forecasts will

affect land use compatibility?

VI. MAP CERTIFICATIONS: [150.21(b), 150.21(e)] A. Has the operator certified in writing that

interested persons have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft maps and forecasts?

B. Has the operator certified in writing that each

map and description of consultation and opportunity for public comment are true and complete?

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sections 4 & 5

Section 3

Sections 5 & 6



!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#$%

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)39%.

&' * :

(

27;

-

-.-

6

9: 9:

!$=)3>6!$..

&

5.5

.

#()*+)) ,)

!"#$%&

!"#$%&

'()

*+

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

! "#$""%& "

%&'(!)%*

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)19:%.

+ * ;

5.5

.

,

27:

-

-.-

6

9; 9;

;=)1>6!$..

&

!"#$%&

!"#$%&

'()

*+


Landrum & Brown Page 1 August 2003

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 FAR Part 150

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 has two components: Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). The NEMs provide to all interested parties, information on the existing and five-year future expected boundaries of significant levels of annual average noise exposure surrounding the airport. The NCP sets forth measures intended to mitigate the impacts of significant noise exposure on residential areas near the airport and to restrict the introduction of new incompatible uses into locations exposed to significant noise levels. This document updates the NEMs for existing and 2008 conditions.

1.2 Background

The Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) has had a long history of noise compatibility planning at Indianapolis International Airport (IND). This document reflects the fourth iteration in noise compatibility planning for IND. The first three iterations are listed below:

IND Part 150 NCP, 1988

IND Part 150 NCP Study Update, 1992

IND Part 150 NCP Study Update, 1997

One of the recommendations of the previously approved plans is the periodic update of the NEMs and NCP to maintain currency with local conditions. In October 1998, the NEMs for IND were determined to be in compliance by the FAA as part of the FAR Part 150 Study Update, 1997. Since development of the NEMs, a number of events have occurred that have an impact on the noise exposure in the areas surrounding the airport. One of the events was specific to IND, while the other two events affected the entire aviation industry. These events were the termination of the United States Postal Service (USPS) operation at IND, the overall aviation industry decline after the events of September 11, 2001, and the move by airlines towards higher use of regional jets versus narrow-body jet aircraft. Because of these factors and the need to periodically update the NEMs, the IAA has undertaken this update of the official NEMs for IND. Through the following discussion, each of these events will be discussed as to their relative impact on the aviation activity at the airport and the resulting noise exposure.

1.3 Public Involvement

The NEM update process was begun in September 2002 with distribution of letters to the local jurisdictions. The letters notified the recipients of the airports intention to update the official NEMs for IND and to collect their input on the process through a series of informal meetings. During the course of the NEM Update, additional



coordination with the local jurisdictions occurred in order to gather land use and mapping data for the study. Appendix A, Public Coordination, includes a copy of the kick-off letters, sign-in sheets, meeting summaries, and other jurisdiction coordination letters.

1.4 Draft NEM Update Document and Public Hearing

The Draft NEM Update document was made available to the public on June 25, 2003 and was placed at local libraries and at the airport. Public Information Workshops occurred on:

July 15, 2003 Plainfield High School 709 Stafford Road Plainfield, IN 46168 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

July 17, 2003 Ben Davis Jr. High School 1155 South High School Road Indianapolis, IN 46241 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Appendix B, Document Locations, provides a list of the locations for public viewing of the Draft NEM Update document. Written comments on the Draft NEM Update document were accepted between June 25, 2003 and August 1, 2003. Appendix F, Response to Comments, contains the responses to the comments submitted on the Draft document.

2.0 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS (NEMs)

The NEMs in this document are the official noise contours for the airport and are prepared for Existing (2003) conditions and for Future (2008) conditions. The NEMs were prepared according to the FAR Part 150 guidelines in regards to methodology, noise metrics, identification of incompatible land uses, and public outreach. Among other requirements, FAR Part 150 states that the Integrated Noise Model (INM) be utilized to prepare the NEMs. The data from noise monitors can be used to assist in the development of input data and verification of the output of the INM; however, it cannot be the sole source of noise data used for the preparation of the NEMs.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

The noise exposure patterns at IND are presented in terms of the average annual Day-Night Sound Level (DNL) for Existing (2003) and Future (2008) conditions. The annual DNL measure is the annual average of the total noise energy that occurs at a location. With DNL, nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) noise events



are weighted (or penalized) by 10 decibels to reflect the greater perceived impact of noise at night. The DNL is used in Part 150 Studies and in other noise study related documents to demonstrate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEMs display contour lines that connect points of equal DNL exposure at 65, 70, and 75 decibels.

The noise levels computed during this study used the latest version of the INM at the time the study was initiated (version 6.0c). The INM was developed under the auspices of the FAA for use in Part 150 and other environmental studies. The distribution of the noise pattern calculated by the INM is a function of the number of aircraft operations during the evaluation period, the types of aircraft flown, the time of day they are flown, the way they are flown, how frequently each runway is used for landing and takeoff, and the routes of flight to and from the runways. Substantial variations in any one of these factors may, when extended over a long period of time, cause marked changes to the annual noise pattern. Detailed information on each of these elements is presented in this document.

The distribution and number of housing units, persons, and noise-sensitive public uses located within each significant contour range (65-70 DNL, 70-75 DNL, 75+ DNL) were determined through application of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, coupled with field validation surveys. Appendix E, Land Use Assessment Methodology, includes a detailed description of the mapping used in this report. The identification of noise-sensitive land uses is based upon Table 1, Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. This table is located in Appendix C, FAA Policies, Guidance, and Regulations, of this document. The underlying base map on which each noise exposure pattern is displayed was current as of June 2003. All noise impacts associated with Existing (2003) and Future (2008) noise conditions were automatically calculated by combination of the contour set with the GIS base map.

4.0 EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS

The noise contours displayed on the Existing (2003) NEM represent the noise pattern, as it exists in 2003. The data on which the Existing (2003) NEM is based was derived from information gathered of aircraft operations that occurred between January 2002 and December 2002, adjusted for the activity occurring between January 2003 and May 2003.

4.1 Runway Layout

The airport currently operates two parallel runways (5L/23R and 5R/23L) that are oriented in a northeast and southwest direction and a crosswind runway (14/32) that is oriented northwest and southeast. Runway 5L/23R is located on the west side of the airfield and is 11,200 feet in length. Runway 5R/23L is located on the east side of the airfield and is 10,000 feet in length. Runway 14/32 is located on the north side of the airport and is 7,605 feet in length. Exhibit 1 shows the current airfield layout for IND.

!"#$%&'('!)*+,)-*./+01))

**

2

3#24#25*6

3#%#

3%#

2%#"

1#7 7

1

#

-###0#"

8

09

:'-;3#

!

"#

$

%

$

1



4.2 Operating Levels

The INM uses average annual operating data, grouped by time of day to calculate DNL contours. The number of operations and their distribution between the daytime (7:00 a.m. - 9:59 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 6:59 a.m.) for the Existing (2003) conditions were gathered from:

2002/3 Official Airline Guide (OAG) data

2002/3 Operating Records from the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)

2001/2 Landing Fee Reports from the Airport

2002 Sample of ARTS radar data

There were 206,590 landings and takeoffs at IND during the Existing (2003) conditions period. When divided by 365 days, the average-annual day includes 566 landings and takeoffs. Table 1 summarizes the Existing (2003) operations by the four primary user groups. The number of landings and takeoffs at IND during the Existing (2003) period was approximately 16 percent lower than what was originally forecast for the same timeframe in the last Part 150 Study Update. This decrease in operating levels results from two main factors.

Table 1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY USER GROUP - EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

User Group 2003 Existing % of Total Air Carrier Jets 72,270 35.0%

Cargo Jets 29,200 14.1% Commuter, GA, Air Taxi Jets 54,750 26.5% Propeller Aircraft 50,370 24.4%

Total 206,590 100%

Source: Landrum & Brown, 2003.

The first was the decision by the USPS to cease operations at the airport. This was brought on by the USPS contracting its mail operations to FedEx, who subsequently elected to use its Memphis, Tennessee hub for these operations. From a number of operations perspective, the net result was the removal of about half of the nighttime cargo activity.



The second factor was the aviation industry decline that started in early 2001, but was exacerbated after the events of September 11, 2001. The largest reductions in operating levels from the previous forecast occur in the Cargo Jets and Air Carrier Jets categories. In contrast, the Commuter category (specifically the regional jet component of that category) includes more operations than was previously forecast. In response to the economic downturn, the airline industry has started replacing large jets with regional jets in order to reduce costs.

4.3 Fleet Mix

Fleet mix refers to the specific types of aircraft that operate at the airport. Because the INM uses an average-annual day to calculate DNL noise levels, the number of average day operations are further reduced and assigned to specific aircraft types in accordance with their distribution throughout the day. Air carrier jet operations accounted for 35 percent of the total operations and included Boeing 727-200, Boeing 737-200/300/400/500/700, Boeing 757-200, Airbus 319/320, DC9-30/50, and MD-81/82/88 types. Cargo jet aircraft included Boeing 727-100/200, Airbus 300/310, DC10-10/30, and MD-11. Commuter and general aviation jet aircraft accounted for 26 percent of the total operations and included Canadair and Embraer regional jets, as well as Lear jets. The remaining operations were distributed among single-engine and twin-engine turboprops in the propeller aircraft category.

Aircraft retrofitted with hushkits to meet the current aircraft noise standards (Stage 3) made up 22 percent of the air carrier jet fleet and 30 percent of the cargo jet fleet, but only 12 percent of the total fleet operating at IND. This is an important factor in calculating the overall noise levels, because while these aircraft meet the Stage 3 noise standards, they remain the loudest aircraft in the fleet. These aircraft include the Boeing 727-100/200, Boeing 737-200, and DC9-30/50. The previous forecast of operations predicted 17 percent of the total fleet would be hushkitted aircraft. More importantly to the noise exposure, the previous forecast also predicted 73 percent of the cargo jet fleet would be hushkitted, which is 43 percent higher than what actually occurred. The termination of USPS operations at IND contributed significantly to this because almost their entire fleet was made up of hushkitted Boeing 727 aircraft. Another contributor was Fed Exs higher than expected use of aircraft other than the Boeing 727 aircraft. There also was higher than anticipated use of regional jets by the air carrier airlines. The use of smaller, quieter passenger aircraft and quieter cargo aircraft are continuing to occur, resulting in an overall quieter fleet at IND as time goes on.

The INM applies a 10-decibel penalty to all nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) operations. For Existing (2003) conditions, approximately 28 percent of the total operations occurred during nighttime hours. Table 2 shows the average-annual day fleet mix and operational levels for the Existing (2003) condition.



Table 2 OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT - EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

Arrivals Departures Total

INM Type

Part 36

Stage Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier Jets

727EM2 3 Boeing 727-200 (Hushkit) 3 4 5 2 8 6 737N17 3 Boeing 737-200 (Hushkit) 2 1 2 1 4 2 737N9 3 Boeing 737-200 (Hushkit) 1 0 1 0 2 0 737300/3B2 3 Boeing 737-300 19 3 19 3 38 6 737400 3 Boeing 737-400 3 0 3 0 6 0 737500 3 Boeing 737-500 3 1 2 2 5 3 737700 3 Boeing 737-700 7 4 7 4 14 8 757PW/RR 3 Boeing 757-200 3 1 2 2 5 3 A300 3 Airbus A300 0 1 1 0 1 1 A319 3 Airbus A319 2 1 3 0 5 1 A320/A32023 3 Airbus A320 4 3 5 2 9 5 DC93LW 3 DC9-30 (Hushkit) 7 0 6 1 13 1 DC95HW 3 DC9-50 (Hushkit) 3 0 3 0 6 0 F10065 3 Fokker 100-65 1 1 2 0 3 1 L1011 3 Lockheed 1011 1 0 1 0 2 0 MD81/82/83 3 MD81/82/88 19 1 15 5 34 6 Subtotal 78 21 77 22 155 43

Cargo Jets 727EX1 3 Boeing 727-100 (Hushkit) 0 2 0 2 0 4 727EX2 3 Boeing 727-200 (Hushkit) 2 8 2 8 4 16 A300X 3 Airbus A300 1 5 1 5 2 10 A310X 3 Airbus A310 1 3 1 3 2 6 DC101X 3 DC10-10 2 8 2 8 4 16 DC103X 3 DC10-30 1 4 1 4 2 8 MD11GX 3 MD11 0 3 0 3 0 6 Subtotal 7 33 7 33 14 66

Commuter, GA & Air Taxi Jets CL600 3 Embraer 135 Regional Jet 3 0 2 1 5 1 CL601 3 Canadair Regional Jet 17 1 15 3 32 4 EMB145 3 Embraer 145 Regional Jet 20 2 18 4 38 6 GIIB 2 Business Jet 1 0 1 0 2 0 GIV 3 Business Jet 5 0 5 0 10 0 LEAR25 2 Business Jet 6 1 6 1 12 2 LEAR35 3 Business Jet 7 3 7 3 14 6 MU3001 3 Business Jet 7 2 7 2 14 4 Subtotal 66 9 61 14 127 23



Table 2 (Continued) OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT - EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport


INM Type

Part 36

Stage Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Propeller Aircraft

BEC58P N/A Twin Engine Prop 6 3 6 3 12 6 CNA441 N/A Light Turboprop 4 2 4 2 8 4 COMSEP N/A Single Engine Prop 12 2 13 1 25 3 DHC6 N/A Medium Turboprop 21 2 20 3 41 5 GASEPF N/A Single Engine Prop 1 1 0 2 1 3 HS748A N/A Heavy Turboprop 1 2 1 2 2 4 SF340 N/A Medium Turboprop 11 1 11 1 22 2 Subtotal 56 13 55 14 111 27 Grand Total 207 76 200 83 407 159 Total Daily Operations 566


4.4 Runway End Utilization

Runway end utilization refers to the percent of time that a particular runway end is used for departures or arrivals. It is a principal element in the definition of the noise exposure pattern. Proportional use of a runway is based largely on conditions of wind direction and velocity. Arrival and departure runway end utilization was determined for the Existing (2003) conditions by reviewing previous runway use analysis, from discussions with the ATCT, an analysis of ARTS radar data, and data collected on historical wind patterns.

During daytime hours, jet aircraft arrive from the northeast and depart to the southwest on Runways 23L/R approximately 75 percent of the time, and operate to the northeast approximately 17 percent of the time. During the remaining portion of the time, the crosswind runway (Runway 14/32) is used. The Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) uses Runway 14/32 to enhance the efficiency of the overall airport operations during the daytime hours. Propeller aircraft are more frequent users of Runway 14/32 than the jet aircraft because of the inability of the propeller aircraft to accept unfavorable wind conditions and the location of the terminal services for propeller aircraft is more closely located to the crosswind runway.

Nighttime runway use is guided by the preferential runway use program recommended in the 1997 FAR Part 150 Study Update. The preferential program calls for jet arrivals from the southwest (Runways 5L/R) and jet departures to the southwest (Runways 23L/R). This operational configuration is available approximately 90 percent of the time during the night at IND based on historical



wind conditions. During the existing conditions period, approximately 81 percent of the arrivals used Runways 5L and 5R, while over 90 percent of the departures used Runways 23L and 23R.

The 1997 Part 150 Studys prediction of runway utilization for 2002 conditions overestimated the use of Runway 5L/23R during the nighttime hours. The 1997 study assumed that nighttime (10:00 p.m. 6:59 a.m.) arrivals and departures would use Runways 5L/23R and 5L/23R equally due to the presence of two overnight cargo hubs (USPS on the west side of the airport mainly using Runway 5L/23R and Fed Ex on the east side of the airport mainly using Runway 5R/23L). With the termination of USPS operations, the remaining overnight operations occur primarily on Runway 5R/23L, which is the most convenient runway for the Fed Ex operation.

Table 3 presents the Existing (2003) conditions runway utilization percentages.

Table 3 RUNWAY UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

User Group

23R

23L

14

32

5R

5L

Total

Cargo Jets

Takeoff Day Night Landing Day Night

4.3%

11.5%

2.5% 0.2%

73.4% 80.0%

72.8% 12.0%

1.1% 0.1%

1.0% 0.1%

1.9% 0.1%

1.2% 5.4%

19.1% 8.1%

21.5% 80.5%

0.2% 0.2%

1.0% 1.8%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Air Carrier Jets


38.5% 31.1%

19.5%

3.7

39.3% 60.3%

55.8% 8.6%

1.0% 0.2%

1.0% 0.1%

8.5% 1.2%

2.6% 4.5%

11.7% 6.7%

16.4% 70.0%

1.0% 0.5%

4.7%

13.1%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Propeller Takeoff Day Night Landing Day Night

40.7% 20.4%

45.0% 6.8%

32.5% 24.1%

28.2% 12.8%

5.0%

24.7%

4.0% 30.8%

15.3% 19.7%

7.2%

16.9%

5.5% 6.9%

6.3%

11.3%

1.0% 4.2%

9.3%

21.4%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Business Jets


30.0% 20.4%

22.2% 6.8%

46.2% 24.1%

54.7% 12.8%

2.0%

24.7%

0.3% 30.8%

9.9%

19.7%

2.8% 16.9%

11.8% 6.9%

14.8% 11.3%

0.1% 4.2%

5.2%

21.4%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Source: FAR Part 150 Study Update, 1997 and Landrum & Brown assessment of ARTS radar data, 2002.



4.5 Flight Tracks

Flight tracks are lines that represent the ground path of an aircraft as it arrives or departs from the airport. The INM uses these flight tracks to model the flight paths of aircraft. The flight tracks for this study were developed using historic flight track data, which was verified using three (3) weeks of radar data collected from the ATCT. Coordination with ATCT personnel was also conducted to verify assumptions.

Through the 1997 FAR Part 150 Study Update and subsequent 1999 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), noise abatement flight tracks were defined at IND. Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 show the location of consolidated noise abatement flight tracks. A review of operational conditions found that these tracks remain representative of existing conditions. The recommendations from the 1997 Part 150 Study Update concerning the air traffic procedures are presented below:

NA-10: Continue use of 070-degree heading for departures from Runway 5R during the period between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Maintain heading until reaching 2,500 Mean Sea Level (MSL).

NA-17: Endorse internal control procedures by ATCT which result in jet aircraft departing Runway 23L between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. flying either runway heading or a 15-degree right divergent turn or left divergent turn to a 210-degree heading, initiated at the middle marker of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to Runway 5R, and maintenance of such divergent or runway headings until reaching a distance of 5.5 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) prior to turns to enroute courses.

NA-18: Endorse internal control procedures by ATCT which result in jet aircraft departing Runway 23R between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. flying either runway heading or a left divergent turn of 15 degrees, initiated at the middle marker of the ILS approach to Runway 5L, and maintenance of such divergent or runway heading until reaching a distance of 6.5 DME prior to turns to enroute courses.

Representative INM flight tracks for each operating flow (southwest and northeast) are shown on Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5. The exhibits depict flight tracks which were utilized for modeling the typical aircraft flight corridors. Because the flight procedures in use at the airport are dependent on the time of day, the flight tracks on the maps are color coded for either daytime (brown) or nighttime (dark blue) flight tracks. Table 4 provides additional information related to the distribution of traffic for each flight track among the various user groups and by time of day. It is important to note that while the overwhelming majority of aircraft follow the procedures, occasionally wind or weather conditions may move an aircraft off of its intended flight path. These slight variations are accounted for in the flight tracks used for modeling.

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#$$%

&'(

. /

0123%

400&)2 562.5370%

838

3

39:-&.;;'=?8)@>!=3=3%3

;?0

A68

7

-

-

3-

B/ B/

&

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"##$

!%&

. /

012& 3+34))5 61%728*9

012&)4

% '!1%7#28#9

012&)4*% '!1%7#28#9

021221& 3%728*9

&

&

:

1:

)

;2;

2

2

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!" #$"#$%! #&'(

)*!+ ,

$- * .

/01-&23340567'586)97!5/5/%/

6/6

/

%

38:

;. >.

'/.?

!"

#$

%&

'

"

'(

'(

"'

("

'

)

!"#$

%&'(

) ( *

$+,-.&/001$,2345263)74 2+2+%+

3+3+

!

$068

9:3$;

.

.+.

4



Table 4 FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION BY AIRCRAFT GROUP - EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

Cargo Jets Air Carrier Jets Props/Regional Jets

Day Night Day Night Day Night Track Name Arr % Dep % Arr % Dep % Arr % Dep % Arr % Dep % Arr % Dep % Arr % Dep %

3CNA - 1.3% - 1.5% - - - - - - - -

3CWA - 0.2% - 0.4% - - - - - - - -

3CWB - 0.2% - 0.4% - - - - - - - -

3DEX - - - 5.6% - - - - - - - -

3DN1 - 0.6% - 0.7% - - - 1.9% - - - -

3DN2 - 0.6% - 0.7% - - - 1.9% - - - -

3DNA - 0.6% - 0.7% - - - 1.9% - - - -

3DNB - 0.6% - 0.7% - - - - - - - -

3DW1 - 0.2% - 0.4% - 1.3% - 8.4% - - - -

3DWA - 0.2% - 0.4% - - - - - - - -

4DW1 - - - - - 1.3% - 8.4% - - - -

4DWA - - - - - 1.4% - 8.7% - - - -

FBE1 - - - 3.7% - - - - - - - -

FBN1 - 2.7% - 0.7% - - - 1.2% - - - -

FBN6 3.1% - 41.5% - 7.1% - 1- - - - - -

FBN7 6.1% - 17.1% - - - - - - - - -

FBS1 - 16.4% - 3.7% - 0.6% - 1.8% - - - -

FBS6 12.3% - 21.9% - 9.3% - 6- - 3.5% - 5.7% -

FCE1 - - - 18.2% - 1.0% - 16.4% - - - -

FCEA - - - 18.2% - - - - - - - -

FCN1 - 10.5% - 7.3% - - - 11.0% - - - -

FCN6 - - 4.0% - 20.7% - 1.2% - 28.7% - 6.4% -

FCS1 - 5.2% - 6.1% - 0.4% - 3.3% - - - -

FCS6 10.4% - 2.2% - - - - - - - - -

FCSA - 5.2% - 6.1% - 1.6% - 13.2% - - - -



Table 4 (Continued) FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION BY AIRCRAFT GROUP - EXISTING (2003) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport



FCW1 - 33.0% - 15.3% - - - - - - - -

FCW2 - 19.4% - 9.0% - - - - - - - -

FCW6 62.4% - 5.8% - - - - - - - - -

JBE1 - - - - - 2.3% - 1.8% - - - -

JBN1 - - - - - 2.3% - - - - - -

JBS1 - - - - - 3.5% - - - - - -

JBW1 - - - - - 3.0% - 1.8% - - - -

JCE1 - - - - - 2.2% - - - - - -

JCEA - - - - - 2.2% - - - - - -

JCEB - - - - - 2.3% - - - - - -

JCN1 - - - - - 7.7% - - - - - -

JCS1 - - - - - 2.3% - - - - - -

JCS2 - - - - - 9.4% - - - - - -

JCS6 - - - - 22.2% - 3.7% - - - - -

JCS7 - - - - 12.9% - 3.7% - - - - -

JCW1 - - - - - 10.2% - 16.4% - - - -

JDE1 - - - - - 6.5% - - - - - -

JDN1 - - - - - 7.5% - - - - - -

JDS1 - - - - - 11.5% - - - - - -

JDS6 1.8% - 0.1% - 11.0% - 3.2% - - - - -

JDW1 - - - - - 9.0% - - - - - -

JEE1 - - - 0.0% - 0.2% - 0.1% - - - -

JEN6 1.0% - 0.1% - 1.0% - 0.1% - 2.0% - 30.8% -

JES1 - 1.1% - 0.1% - 0.8% - 0.1% - - - -

JFN1 - 0.3% 0.0% - - 2.8% - 0.5% - - - -






JFS6 1.2% - 5.4% - 2.6% - 4.5% - 4.8% - 16.9% -

JFW1 - 1.6% - 0.1% - 5.7% - 0.7% - - - -

PAE1 - - - 0.1% - 0.2% - 0.1% - - - -

PAN1 - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.2% - 0.1% - - - -

PAN7 0.3% - 1.0% - 2.0% - 1.9% - 4.5% - 10.7% -

PAS1 - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.4% - 0.1% - - - -

PAS6 0.7% - 0.8% - 2.7% - 11.2% - 2.6% - 10.7% -

PAW1 - 0.1% - 0.1% - 0.3% - 0.1% - - - -

PDN6 0.7% - 0.1% - 8.5% - 0.5% - 16.7% - 3.7% -

SAE1 - - - - - - - - - 0.2% - 2.4%

SAW1 - - - - - - - - - 0.3% - 1.8%

SBE1 - - - - - - - - - 3.8% - 2.7%

SBN1 - - - - - - - - - 1.3% - 0.6%

SBN2 - - - - - - - - - 1.3% - 0.6%

SBN6 - - - - - - - - 7.4% - 5.7% -

SBS1 - - - - - - - - - 1.4% - 2.0%

SBW1 - - - - - - - - - 0.9% - 1.0%

SCE1 - - - - - - - - - 16.1% - 9.5%

SCN1 - - - - - - - - - 12.7% - 4.3%

SCS1 - - - - - - - - - 6.5% - 6.9%

SCS6 - - - - - - - - 13.8% - 6.4% -

SCW1 - - - - - - - - - 4.4% - 3.4%

SDE1 - - - - - - - - - 12.5% - 8.0%

SDN1 - - - - - - - - - 13.2% - 4.4%

SDN7 - - - - - - - - 16.0% - 3.1% -






SDS1 - - - - - - - - - 9.4% - 8.0%

SEE1 - - - - - - - - - 1.1% - 9.7%

SEN1 - - - - - - - - - 1.4% - 5.3%

SES1 - - - - - - - - - 0.5% - 4.9%

SES2 - - - - - - - - - 0.5% - 4.9%

SFN1 - - - - - - - - - 6.1% - 8.4%

SFN2 - - - - - - - - - 6.3% - 11.3%

TOTAL # 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




4.6 Flight Profiles

The INM uses a flight distance for selecting an average profile for each departure operation. In previous noise studies conducted at IND, aircraft used for cargo departures were assigned a departure profile for a distance greater than what was actually going to be flown. This was done to account for heavier average weights associated with cargo flights. Noise measurements collected in September 2002 were used in part to validate the previous assumptions regarding the selection of these heavier flight profiles. This analysis found that the previous assumptions regarding cargo departures having higher than average weights was still true. Therefore, the input data for cargo departures was adjusted to take into account the heavier weights. The standard profile data included with the INM was not modified as a result of this analysis.

4.7 Engine Run-Ups

Engine run-up information was gathered for the airport and input into the INM. In 2001, the airport constructed a ground run-up enclosure (GRE) for use by aircraft performing engine run-ups. The GRE is located on the west side of the south end of Runway 5L/23R (see Exhibit 1). The total number of engine run-ups and their duration for the airport was estimated based on previous studies and coordination with the local users. Table 5 summarizes the run-up activity used for the Existing (2003) condition.

4.8 Existing (2003) NEM

The Existing (2003) NEM, once certified by the FAA, will be the official noise map of the airport for existing conditions. It is presented on Exhibit 6 and encompasses 10.8 square miles within the 65 DNL contour. Table 6 summarizes the area of the noise exposure resulting from Existing (2003) conditions for each contour (65-70 DNL, 70-75 DNL, 75+ DNL). The 65 DNL contour represents the outer boundary of the area considered, under FAA Part 150 guidelines, to be exposed to significant levels of noise (see Appendix C, FAA Policies, Guidance, and Regulations). Less sensitive land uses, such as commercial or industrial property or vacant lands, are considered to be compatible with higher levels of aircraft noise exposure.

The noise contour pattern is extended from the airport along each runway end, reflective of flight tracks used by all aircraft. The relative distance of the contours from the airport is a function of the frequency of use of each runway for total arrivals and departures, as well as its use at night, and the type of aircraft assigned to it. As would be expected, the noise contour is largest to the southwest of the airport due to the preference for south flow and the preferential runway use program directing approximately 90 percent of the nighttime arrivals and departures over this area. The noise contour reflecting the departures off of

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#$%##

'(!)

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)39%.

*+ * :

"

27;

-

-.-

6

9: 9:

!$=)3>6!$..

&

5.5

.



Runway 23L to the south is notably larger than the contour reflective of the departures off of Runway 23R. This is due to the higher use of Runway 23L during the overnight period by the cargo carrier.

Table 5 RUN-UP ACTIVITY SUMMARY Indianapolis International Airport

Run-Up Power Aircraft Number of Run-Ups

Average Duration

(Min.)

High >= 70%

B737-200, B737-300/500, B727, B757, DC10, L1011, MD11, Airbus, DC9, BeechJet 400A, Hawker 800 AP, KingAir 350, Beech Baron, Gulfstream 2/4, Lear, Challenger, Westwind

20/week 3-15 min.

Low Idle 30%

B727, DC10, L1011, MD11, Airbus, DC9, BeechJet 400A, Hawker 800 AP, KingAir 350, Beech Baron, Gulfstream 2/4, Lear, Challenger, Westwind

35-55/week 5-180 min.

Total

B737-200, B737-300/500, B727, B757, DC10, L1011, MD11, Airbus, DC9, BeechJet 400A, Hawker 800 AP, KingAir 350, Beech Baron, Gulfstream 2/4, Lear, Challenger, Westwind

55-75/week 3-180 min.

Source: Preliminary Planning & Engineering for the Installation of a Ground Run-up Enclosure, Summary Report, 1999.

Table 6 NOISE EXPOSURE IMPACT - AREA (SQUARE MILES) EXISTING (2003) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Noise Contour 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL 2003 Existing NEM 6.0 2.6 2.2 10.8




To the north of the airport, the contour is spiked along the extended centerlines of Runways 5L/23R and 5R/23L due primarily to the arrivals in south flow and the occasional use of Runways 23L and 23R for nighttime arrivals. As discussed in Section 4.4, Runway 5R/23L is used more frequently than Runway 5L/23R during both the daytime and the nighttime. Due to the heavier use of Runway 5R/23L, the resulting noise contour associated with this runway is larger than the noise contour from Runway 5L/23R.

The noise contour to the east and west of the airport along the extended centerlines of Runway 14/32 is indicative of the aircraft fleet, runway use, and flight tracks associated with that runway. A small bulge in the noise contour occurs adjacent to the south end of Runway 5L/23R. This area of increased noise is the result of ground run-up activity occurring at the GRE.

There are approximately 47 homes and 130 people located within the 65+ DNL contours of the Existing (2003) NEM. All of these homes are located within the current voluntary acquisition program area and therefore are considered mitigated. There are no noise-sensitive facilities (churches, schools, libraries, nursing homes, hospitals) located within the 65 DNL noise contour. Table 7 summarizes the number of homes and estimated population that fall within each of the various levels of noise for the Existing (2003) NEM.

Table 7 LAND USE IMPACTS - EXISTING (2003) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Housing Units 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL Total 36 10 1 47

Current Mitigation Program* 36 10 1 47

Unmitigated 0 0 0 0

Population 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL Total 100 28 2 130


Unmitigated 0 0 0 0 * Homes currently eligible for the Airports land use mitigation program.




4.9 Comparison to Previous NEM

The currently approved NEMs, from the 1997 Part 150 Study Update, depict the noise exposure for two conditions (1997 and 2002). Exhibit 7 provides a comparison of the Existing (2003) NEM with the 2002 NEM/NCP prepared in the 1997 Part 150 Study Update. The Existing (2003) NEM is significantly smaller than the 2002 NEM/NCP all around the airport due to the termination of USPS operations, the overall airline industry decline after September 11, 2001, and the move toward a higher use of regional jets than was previously anticipated. Each of these factors and their affect on the operating conditions is described above. The most significant reduction in noise levels are found southwest of the airport, in particular along the extended centerline of Runway 5L/23R, where the affect of the removal of the USPS operations is most apparent. Table 8 compares the area encompassed by the 2002 NEM/NCP versus the Existing (2003) NEM. The Existing (2003) NEM is 7.2 square miles smaller than the 2002 NEM within the 65 DNL and greater noise contour.

4.10 Supplemental Noise Analysis

In addition to noise exposure contours, supplemental noise analysis was conducted to provide more understanding of the noise conditions outside of the 65 DNL. This analysis included a review and assessment of noise complaint data, upon which a noise measurement program and an INM grid point analysis was based.

Table 8 NOISE EXPOSURE IMPACT COMPARISON- AREA (SQUARE MILES) - EXISTING (2003) NEM VERSUS 2002 NEM/NCP Indianapolis International Airport

Noise Contour 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL 2002 NEM/NCP* 9.2 4.8 4.0 18.0

Existing (2003) NEM 6.0 2.6 2.2 10.8

Difference -3.2 -2.2 -1.8. -7.2

* 2002 NEM/NCP developed in 1997 Part 150 Study Update.

Source: Landrum & Brown, 1998 & 2003.

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#$%##

'#!#()##*

+,!-

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)39%.

./ * :

"

27;

-

-.-

6

9: 9:

?;;))6!266

!$=)3>6!$..

5.5

.

&



An assessment of recent noise complaint data was performed to better understand the noise exposure environment around IND. Table 9 summarizes the noise complaint data collected at IND for 1998 through 2001. The majority of complaints came from the northwest, however it should be noted that in many cases one or two callers have inflated the total number of complaints received. For example, 263 of the 384 complaints received in 2000 from the northwest area were from one person, but this is not the area that receives the highest noise levels or the most overflights. Because of this potential for the results of noise complaint data to be affected by one or two callers, the data was reviewed to assist in determining relevant noise monitoring locations. Appendix D, Noise Complaints and Noise Measurement Program, includes more specific information regarding noise complaints during each year and a map of the noise complaint locations.

Table 9 NOISE COMPLAINT LOCATIONS 1998 2001 Indianapolis International Airport

Year Complaint Location 2001 2000 1999 1998 TOTAL

Northeast 100 23 28 2 153 Southeast 139 30 24 1 194 Northwest 35 384 640 11 1070 Southwest 99 190 75 43 407 Location Undeterminable 6 25 15 1 47

TOTAL 379 652 782 58 1,871

Source: Indianapolis Airport Authority Noise Complaint Logs 1998-2001.

A noise measurement program was conducted in September 2002. It was developed primarily to assist in the validation of INM input data regarding specific aircraft data. In addition, it was also used to determine sites which were representative of the locations where noise complaints were being collected. Appendix D, Noise Complaints and Noise Measurement Program, includes more specific information on the methodology and results of the noise measurement program. Exhibit 8 depicts the locations of the noise monitoring sites. The grid point function of the INM was used to model DNL and maximum noise levels (Lmax) at each of the grid point locations. Table 10 summarizes the results of this analysis. Of the 70 sites, 18 reported noise levels of 60 DNL or greater. The Lmax noise levels ranged from 73.9 to 100.7 decibels, with the highest noise levels being reported at sites N3, Z13, and Z14, which are located near the airport and directly beneath the arrival path to Runway 32.1

1 Lmax refers to the maximum A-weighted noise level recorded for a single noise event.

Durations are expressed in seconds and the identification of aircraft types was done visually from the ground as the aircraft passed over head.

!

"# !

$

%

&

"!

'(

!)

*+

!

#

#

),

),

#)

,#

)

-

!

!

!!

"

"

!

"

"

!

"

#

#

#

!#

$

!!

!

%

"$&'($)(

*+,-(.

!" , .

/01+&23340567'586-97!5/5/%/

6/6

/

/

38:

;. >.

&

7



Table 10 GRID ANALYSIS REPORT EXISTING (2003) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Grid Location DNL LMAX A1 62.0 82.7 A10 62.5 90.2 A11 55.8 86.8 A12 57.3 82.5 A2 59.7 78.6 A3 59.6 83.4 A4 57.0 80.8 A5 60.9 85.0 A6 53.4 77.6 A7 50.4 82.5 A8 46.7 82.1 A9 62.4 88.6 B1 51.6 82.1 B10 59.2 83.3 B11 60.4 89.9 B12 49.2 80.5 B13 60.4 93.0 B2 59.2 80.5 B3 51.9 81.0 B4 53.1 82.4 B5 61.0 93.5 B6 58.7 86.0 B7 57.7 85.7 B8 58.8 82.1 B9 58.1 87.2 C1 63.5 84.0 C2 61.3 84.9 C4 57.4 86.4 C5 62.5 89.4 C6 58.9 81.6 C7 56.2 82.9 C8 53.4 84.7 D1 58.3 79.9 D3 57.4 86.7 D4 62.6 82.9 D6 57.7 81.4 D7 51.0 86.6 D8 57.7 82.2 F1 60.1 98.4 F10 54.9 83.1 F2 55.1 81.3 F3 58.2 82.9 F4 60.7 84.7 F5 57.8 85.4 F6 50.4 82.6



Table 10 (Continued) GRID ANALYSIS REPORT EXISTING (2003) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Grid Location DNL LMAX F7 59.8 84.8 F8 58.8 85.5 F9 58.0 85.6 H1 57.8 84.7 N1 54.2 82.4 N2 60.0 87.0 N3 61.4 100.7 N4 56.8 81.7 N5 56.9 81.6 X1 53.2 73.9 X2 53.8 77.3 Z1 56.0 91.3 Z10 48.7 83.9 Z11 54.3 89.7 Z12 57.1 86.3 Z13 61.3 100.5 Z14 62.1 100.5 Z2 51.2 92.3 Z3 58.7 83.2 Z4 63.1 94.5 Z5 52.6 91.9 Z6 59.2 84.4 Z7 51.1 87.8 Z8 50.1 82.1 Z9 57.2 92.4




5.0 FUTURE (2008) CONDITIONS

The noise contours depicted on the Future (2008) NEM represent the noise pattern, as developed for Future (2008) conditions. The Future (2008) NEM is based on information gathered from the FAA and the IAA on future airport operations and operating characteristics that would occur at the airport five years in the future from the Existing (2003) conditions.

5.1 Runway Layout

There are no anticipated changes in the runway layout from the Existing (2003) conditions. However, it is expected that the Midfield Terminal will be operational by 2008. This project is not expected to result in any changes to the other airfield operating characteristics that affect noise exposure.

5.2 Operating Levels

The number of operations for the Future (2008) condition was derived from an assessment of the FAA's Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF), as well as forecasts prepared by the Indianapolis Airport Authority. The distribution of operations between the day and night hours was assumed to remain the same as the Existing (2003) conditions. The total operations for the Future (2008) period are 270,830, a six percent annual increase from the Existing (2003) period. When divided by 365 days, the average-annual day includes 742 landings and takeoffs. Table 11 summarizes the Future (2008) operations by the four primary user groups. One notable difference from the Existing (2003) operating levels is the anticipated increase in the use of commuter regional jets.

Table 11 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY USER GROUP - FUTURE (2008) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

User Group 2008 Future % of Total Air Carrier Jets 100,010 36.9% Cargo Jets 37,960 14.1%

Commuter, GA, Air Taxi Jets 75,920 28.0% Propeller Aircraft 56,940 21.0%

Total 270,830 100%




The events of September 11, 2001 have led to increased security and reduced activity at IND and other airports nationwide. The long-term forecasts included in this NEM update are based on the best available data and valid assumptions regarding the activity at the airport that was developed after September 11, 2001. Long-term forecasts assume that temporary downturns or upswings may occur during the forecast period. In the past, aviation activity has undergone significant, although temporary, reductions in response to economic downturns or security events such as the Persian Gulf War, but recovered in the longer term. The Future (2008) operating levels used in this NEM update are higher than the recently released FAA TAF, however by using the higher number of operations, a worst-case scenario is represented in the noise exposure contours.

5.3 Fleet Mix

For the Future (2008) conditions air carrier jet aircraft are projected to fly 36.9 percent of the total operations and will primarily be composed of Boeing 737-300/700/800, Boeing 757-200, Airbus 319/320, and MD80/83/88 types. Cargo jet aircraft are forecast to fly 14.1 percent of the total operations and will mainly be Boeing 757-200, Airbus 300/310, DC10-10/30, and MD11 aircraft. There are Boeing 727-200 aircraft forecast for the cargo carrier, but in smaller numbers than are currently flying.

Hushkitted aircraft flew 22 percent of the air carrier jet operations and 30 percent of the cargo jet operations during the Existing (2003) period. It is forecast that by 2008, hushkitted aircraft will make up approximately three percent of the air carrier jet operations and approximately eight percent of the cargo jet operations. That would be a reduction of nearly 44 percent in total hushkitted aircraft, as they continue to be phased out of most modern fleets. As discussed previously, growth in the use of regional jet aircraft is expected to continue.

The distribution of aircraft operating during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) is 27 percent of the total operations, approximately the same as under Existing (2003) Conditions. Table 12 shows the average annual day fleet mix and operational levels.

5.4 Runway End Utilization

Runway end utilization for Future (2008) conditions is expected to be impacted by the planned Midfield Terminal facilities. This centralized facility will allow air carrier jets, business jets, and propeller aircraft the ability to better utilize the parallel runways, when wind and weather conditions permit. The Future (2008) condition assumes that daytime arrivals to Runways 23R and 23L and daytime departures from Runways 5L and 5R would use these runways an equal percentage of the time. The improved utilization of the parallel runways would also reduce the daytime use of Runway 14/32. Operations during the nighttime runway use



Table 12 OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT - FUTURE (2008) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport


INM Type

Part 36

Stage Aircraft Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier Jets

727EM2 3 Boeing 727-200 (Hushkit) 1 0 0 1 1 1 737300 3 Boeing 737-300 21 1 19 3 40 4 737700 3 Boeing 737-700 21 7 20 8 41 15 737800 3 Boeing 737-800 4 0 4 0 8 0 7373B2 3 Boeing 737-300 3 2 5 0 8 2 737400 3 Boeing 737-400 4 0 4 0 8 0 757PW 3 Boeing 757-200 4 1 3 2 7 3 757RR 3 Boeing 757-200 3 1 3 1 6 2 A300 3 Airbus A300 0 1 1 0 1 1 A319 3 Airbus A319 16 3 16 3 32 6 A320 3 Airbus A320 4 0 2 2 6 2 A32023 3 Airbus A320-200 2 5 7 0 9 5 DC95HW 3 DC9-50 (Hushkit) 3 0 3 0 6 0 MD81 3 MD81 4 0 4 0 8 0 MD82 3 MD82 17 2 17 2 34 4 MD83 3 MD88 7 0 4 3 11 3 Subtotal 114 23 112 25 226 48

Cargo Jets 727EX2 3 Boeing 727-200 (Hushkit) 0 4 2 2 2 6 757PX 3 Boeing 757 4 9 0 13 4 22 A300X 3 Airbus A300 1 6 1 6 2 12 A310X 3 Airbus A310 1 4 1 4 2 8 DC101X 3 DC10-10 2 10 2 10 4 20 DC103X 3 DC10-30 1 6 1 6 2 12 MD11GX 3 MD11 0 4 0 4 0 8 Subtotal 9 43 7 45 16 88

Commuter, GA & Air Taxi Jets CL600 3 Embraer 135 Regional Jet 4 0 3 1 7 1 CL601 3 Canadair Regional Jet 27 3 25 5 52 8 EMB145 3 Embraer 145 Regional Jet 28 2 25 5 53 7 GIIB 2 Business Jet 1 0 1 0 2 0 GIV 3 Business Jet 6 0 6 0 12 0 LEAR25 2 Business Jet 3 0 3 0 6 0 LEAR35 3 Business Jet 10 4 10 4 20 8 MU3001 3 Business Jet 13 3 13 3 26 6 Subtotal 92 12 86 18 178 30

Propeller Aircraft BEC58P N/A Twin Engine Prop 8 3 8 3 16 6 CNA441 N/A Light Turboprop 6 2 6 2 12 4 COMSEP N/A Single Engine Prop 14 2 14 2 28 4 DHC6 N/A Medium Turboprop 22 4 22 4 44 8 HS748A N/A Heavy Turboprop 2 4 1 5 3 9 SF340 N/A Medium Turboprop 10 1 10 1 20 2 Subtotal 62 16 61 17 123 33 Grand Total 277 94 266 105 543 199 Total Daily Operations 742




program, including cargo operations, would not change from the Existing (2003) condition. Table 13 presents the Future (2008) conditions runway utilization percentages.

Table 13 RUNWAY UTILIZATION PERCENTAGES FUTURE (2008) CONDITIONS Indianapolis International Airport

User Group

23R

23L

14

32

5R

5L

Total

Cargo Jets


4.3%

11.5%

2.5% 0.2%

73.4% 80.0%

72.8% 12.0%

1.1% 0.1%

1.0% 0.1%

1.9% 0.1%

1.2% 5.4%

19.1% 8.1%

21.5% 80.5%

0.2% 0.2%

1.0% 1.8%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Air Carrier Jets


38.5% 31.1%

37.7%

3.7

39.3% 60.3%

37.6% 8.6%

1.0% 0.2%

1.0% 0.1%

6.5% 1.2%

2.6% 4.5%

7.3% 6.7%

16.4% 70.0%

7.4% 0.5%

4.7%

13.1%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Propeller Takeoff Day Night Landing Day Night

40.7% 20.4%

36.6% 6.8%

32.5% 24.1%

36.6% 12.8%

4.5%

24.7%

4.0% 30.8%

13.8% 19.7%

7.2%

16.9%

4.25% 6.9%

6.3%

11.3%

4.25% 4.2%

9.3%

21.4%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Business Jets


30.0% 20.4%

38.4% 6.8%

46.2% 24.1%

38.5% 12.8%

1.8%

24.7%

0.3% 30.8%

8.1%

19.7%

2.8% 16.9%

6.9% 6.9%

14.8% 11.3%

7.0% 4.2%

5.2%

21.4%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Source: FAR Part 150 Study Update, 1997, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 2001, and Landrum & Brown assessment of ARTS radar data, 2002.

5.5 Flight Tracks

Flight track locations are assumed to remain the same for Future (2008) conditions.

5.6 Flight Profiles

Flight profile data is assumed to remain the same for Future (2008) conditions.



5.7 Engine Run-Ups

Engine run-up activity is dependent on the maintenance schedules and specific fleet operated by each airline. No significant changes in engine run-up activity is expected from what was assumed for the Existing (2003) conditions, therefore, the Future (2008) engine run-up data is based on the Existing (2003) engine run-up data with adjustments for anticipated fleet mix changes.

5.8 Future (2008) NEM

The Future (2008) NEM is presented in Exhibit 9. The projected noise contours for the Future (2008) NEM retain the same shape as the Existing (2003) NEM contour, but are smaller despite the six percent annual increase in the number of aircraft operations. Its size is moderated by two factors: the decrease in the number of Stage 2 aircraft that were retrofitted with hushkits to meet the Stage 3 (newer, quieter) aircraft standards and the increased use of regional jets.

The Future (2008) NEM presented on Exhibit 9 includes 9.4 square miles within the 65 DNL contour, which is 1.4 square miles smaller than the Existing (2003) NEM. Table 14 summarizes the area encompassed within the Future (2008) NEM and the Existing (2003) NEM. Table 15 summarizes the housing unit and population impacts for the Future (2008) NEM. There are approximately 40 homes that fall inside the 65 DNL of the Future (2008) NEM, and as with the Existing (2003) NEM, they are all currently eligible for the airports voluntary land acquisition program.

5.9 Supplemental Noise Analysis

Table 16 provides the DNL and Lmax noise levels for the noise monitor sites around IND for the Future (2008) NEM. A comparison of the Future (2008) NEM and Existing (2003) NEM noise levels confirms the reductions in noise levels that are graphically depicted on Exhibit 10.

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

! "#$""%& "

%&'(!)

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)19:%.

* * ;

5.5

.

+

27:

-

-.-

6

9; 9;

;=)1>6!$..

&



Table 14 NOISE EXPOSURE IMPACT - AREA (SQUARE MILES) - FUTURE (2008) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Noise Contour 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL Existing (2003) NEM 6.0 2.6 2.2 10.8

Future (2008) NEM 5.4 2.2 1.8 9.4

Difference -0.6 -0.4 -0.4 -1.4


Table 15 LAND USE IMPACTS - FUTURE (2008) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

Housing Units 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL Total 33 7 0 40


Unmitigated 0 0 0 0

Population 65-70 DNL 70-75 DNL 75+ DNL 65 + DNL Total 95 17 0 112


Unmitigated 0 0 0 0

* Homes currently eligible for airports land use mitigation program.




Table 16 GRID ANALYSIS REPORT EXISTING (2003) NEM VERSUS FUTURE (2008) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

DNL LMAX Grid

Location

2003 NEM

2008 NEM

Change

2003 NEM

2008 NEM

Change A1 62.0 62.0 0.0 82.7 82.7 0.0 A10 62.5 62.3 -0.2 90.2 90.2 0.0 A11 55.8 54.9 -0.9 86.8 86.8 0.0 A12 57.3 57.2 -0.1 82.5 82.5 0.0 A2 59.7 59.0 -0.7 78.6 78.6 0.0 A3 59.6 58.7 -0.9 83.4 83.4 0.0 A4 57.0 56.7 -0.3 80.8 80.8 0.0 A5 60.9 59.8 -1.1 85.0 85.0 0.0 A6 53.4 52.9 -0.5 77.6 77.6 0.0 A7 50.4 49.9 -0.5 82.5 72.6 -9.9 A8 46.7 46.0 -0.7 82.1 69.3 -12.8 A9 62.4 62.1 -0.3 88.6 88.6 0.0 B1 51.6 51.0 -0.6 82.1 78.6 -3.5 B10 59.2 59.2 0.0 83.3 83.3 0.0 B11 60.4 58.7 -1.7 89.9 89.9 0.0 B12 49.2 48.4 -0.8 80.5 80.5 0.0 B13 60.4 59.4 -1.0 93.0 93.0 0.0 B2 59.2 59.0 -0.2 80.5 80.5 0.0 B3 51.9 51.8 -0.1 81.0 81.0 0.0 B4 53.1 52.3 -0.8 82.4 80.0 -2.4 B5 61.0 59.9 -1.1 93.5 93.5 0.0 B6 58.7 57.8 -0.9 86.0 86.0 0.0 B7 57.7 56.8 -0.9 85.7 85.7 0.0 B8 58.8 58.0 -0.8 82.1 82.1 0.0 B9 58.1 57.3 -0.8 87.2 87.2 0.0 C1 63.5 63.4 -0.1 84.0 84.0 0.0 C2 61.3 60.5 -0.8 84.9 84.9 0.0 C4 57.4 56.6 -0.8 86.4 86.4 0.0 C5 62.5 61.6 -0.9 89.4 89.4 0.0 C6 58.9 58.9 0.0 81.6 81.6 0.0 C7 56.2 56.9 0.7 82.9 82.9 0.0 C8 53.4 53.7 0.3 84.7 84.7 0.0 D1 58.3 58.3 0.0 79.9 79.9 0.0 D3 57.4 56.3 -1.1 86.7 85.9 -0.8 D4 62.6 62.4 -0.2 82.9 82.9 0.0 D6 57.7 57.3 -0.4 81.4 81.4 0.0 D7 51.0 50.3 -0.7 86.6 85.1 -1.5 D8 57.7 57.8 0.1 82.2 82.2 0.0



Table 16 (Continued) GRID ANALYSIS REPORT EXISTING (2003) NEM VERSUS FUTURE (2008) NEM Indianapolis International Airport

DNL LMAX Grid

Location

2003 NEM

2008 NEM

Change

2003 NEM

2008 NEM

Change F1 60.1 59.1 -1.0 98.4 98.4 0.0 F10 54.9 55.5 0.6 83.1 83.1 0.0 F2 55.1 54.4 -0.7 81.3 81.3 0.0 F3 58.2 58.4 0.2 82.9 82.9 0.0 F4 60.7 59.7 -1.0 84.7 84.7 0.0 F5 57.8 56.9 -0.9 85.4 85.4 0.0 F6 50.4 49.9 -0.5 82.6 82.6 0.0 F7 59.8 58.6 -1.2 84.8 84.8 0.0 F8 58.8 57.8 -1.0 85.5 85.5 0.0 F9 58.0 57.1 -0.9 85.6 85.6 0.0 H1 57.8 56.8 -1.0 84.7 84.7 0.0 N1 54.2 53.8 -0.4 82.4 82.4 0.0 N2 60.0 59.9 -0.1 87.0 87.0 0.0 N3 61.4 61.5 0.1 100.7 100.7 0.0 N4 56.8 57.3 0.5 81.7 81.7 0.0 N5 56.9 57.5 0.6 81.6 81.6 0.0 X1 53.2 52.5 -0.7 73.9 73.9 0.0 X2 53.8 53.9 0.1 77.3 77.3 0.0 Z1 56.0 55.2 -0.8 91.3 89.3 -2.0 Z10 48.7 47.9 -0.8 83.9 81.5 -2.4 Z11 54.3 54.3 0.0 89.7 89.7 0.0 Z12 57.1 56.4 -0.7 86.3 86.3 0.0 Z13 61.3 61.6 0.3 100.5 100.5 0.0 Z14 62.1 62.5 0.4 100.5 100.5 0.0 Z2 51.2 51.4 0.2 92.3 92.3 0.0 Z3 58.7 59.3 0.6 83.2 83.2 0.0 Z4 63.1 61.9 -1.2 94.5 94.5 0.0 Z5 52.6 51.9 -0.7 91.9 91.9 0.0 Z6 59.2 60.0 0.8 84.4 84.4 0.0 Z7 51.1 50.9 -0.2 87.8 87.8 0.0 Z8 50.1 50.0 -0.1 82.1 82.1 0.0 Z9 57.2 55.8 -1.4 92.4 90.4 -2.0


!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#$%##

'#!#(&!$%##

)*!+

./0-&1223/456'475)86!4.4.%.

/)39%.2)19:%.

(, * ;

"

27:

-

-.-

6

9; 9;

!$=)3>6!$..

;=)1>6!$..

5.5

.

&



6.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM MEASURES

The previous sections provided the methodology and input data that was used in the preparation of the official NEMs. This section reviews the currently approved noise abatement and land use management measures from the 1997 Part 150 Study Update to determine if any of the measures should be removed or modified, or if new measures are warranted.

6.1 Current Noise Abatement Measures

As listed below, the IND Noise Compatibility Program includes 19 approved Noise Abatement Measures.1

NA-1: Continue preferential use of Runways 23R/L for departures during 24 hours per day and for arrivals between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Implemented.

NA-2: Continue preferential use of Runways 5R/L for arrivals between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Implemented.

NA-3: Continue preferential use of Runway 32 for departures between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when Runways 23R/L cannot be used because of wind, weather, or closure. Implemented.

NA-4: Continue turbojet departures along runway heading from Runways 5L, 32, and 14 until reaching 2,500 MSL (1,800 feet above the ground) 24 hours per day. Continue turbojet departures from Runway 5R along runway heading until reaching 2,500 MSL during the period between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Implemented.

NA-5: Continue turbojet departures along runway heading from Runways 23R/L until reaching 2,500 feet MSL (1,800 feet above the ground) between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Implemented.

NA-6: Continue policy calling for maintenance run-ups by Stage 2 aircraft to be conducted at the approach end of Runway 5R or at the southwest end of the H Taxiway, facing northeast along the taxiway alignment. Implemented.

NA-7: Continue prohibition of intersection departures from Runway 32 by turbojet and turboprop aircraft weighing in excess of 12,500 pounds. Implemented.

NA-8: Continue use of designated helicopter routings for overflight of compatible uses. Implemented.

NA-9: Continue policy requiring that all routine maintenance run-up activity between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. be conducted in a hush house or using noise suppressers. Construct a run-up noise enclosure at an appropriate location on the airfield. Implemented.

1 FAA Record of Approval issued October 1998.



NA-10: Continue use of 070-degree heading for departures from Runway 5R during the period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Maintain heading until reaching 2,500 MSL. Implemented.

NA-11: Continue preference for Close-in Noise Abatement Departure Procedures from Runways 5R/L, 32, and 14 at night. Above 3,000 Above Ground Level (AGL) (3,700 feet MSL), initiate best rate of climb to assigned enroute altitude. Implemented.

NA-12: Continue policy calling for maintenance run-ups by Stage 3 aircraft to be conducted at the approach end of Runway 5R or at the southwest end of the H Taxiway, facing into the wind when wind velocities exceed 15 knots. Implemented.

NA-13: Revoke endorsement of internal control procedures by ATCT which result in late-night aircraft departing Runways 23R/L flying either runway heading or an inward divergent turn of 15 degrees, initiated at the middle markers of approaches to Runways 5R/L, and maintenance of such divergent or runway headings until passing above an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL before turns to enroute courses. Implemented.

NA-14: Continue ATCT directives to vector late-night visual approaches to intercept the final approach course to Runways 5R/L at or beyond the locations of the outer markers. Implemented.

NA-15: Revoke preference for standard departure procedures from Runways 23R/L and replace with preference for Close-in Noise Abatement Departure Procedures as currently practiced by nighttime cargo carriers. Above 3,000 feet AGL (3,700 feet MSL), initiate best rate of climb to assigned enroute altitude. Implemented.

NA-16: Request the ATCT, in association with the evening and late-night jet operators, to develop internal control procedures which provide on-the-ground separation of aircraft by destination when Runways 23R/L are in use by typically assigning north/west bound jet aircraft to Runway 23R and east/south bound jet aircraft to Runway 23L. This measure is expedited by construction of Taxiway N. Implemented.

NA-17: Endorse internal control procedures by ATCT which result in jet aircraft departing Runway 23L between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. flying either runway heading or a 15-degree right divergent turn or left divergent turn to a 210-degree heading, initiated at the middle markers of ILS approach to Runway 5R, and maintenance of such divergent or runway headings until reaching a distance of 5.5 DME from the DME navigational aid (to be installed on the ILS localizer approach to Runway 5R) prior to turns to enroute courses; outward divergent turn to be used during peak operating periods when inward divergence or runway heading would increase delays. Implemented.



NA-18: Endorse internal control procedures by ATCT which result in jet aircraft departing Runway 23R between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. flying either runway heading or a left divergent turn of 15 degrees, initiated at the middle marker of the ILS approach to Runway 5L, and maintenance of such divergent or runway headings until reaching a distance of 6.5 DME from the DME navigational aid (to be installed on the ILS localizer approach to Runway 5L) prior to turns to enroute courses. Implemented.

NA-19: Apply the provisions of NA-10, NA-17, and NA-18 between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and as necessary, at the discretion of FAA Air Traffic Control, during peak daytime departure periods between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to assure adequate and efficient separation of traffic. It is not intended that the divergence provided by this measure should become the standard operating practice but rather that the divergent routes be used only during periods when parallel departure courses would adversely impact on aircraft delays during daytime operating peaks. Implemented.

The current Noise Abatement Measures defined new flight corridors for arriving and departing aircraft at IND. Based on field observations and flight track analysis of Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) radar data, the goals of the measures are being accomplished. The reduction in operating levels and changes in fleet mix do not have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the noise abatement measures. Therefore, it is not recommended to modify, remove, or supplement the existing, currently approved Noise Abatement Measures.

6.2 Current Land Use Mitigation Measures

As listed below, the IND Noise Compatibility Program includes 25 approved Land Use Mitigation Measures. Exhibit 11 depicts the current land use mitigation program boundaries in the airport environs.

LU-1: Request Marion County to rezone land in the Minnesota Street acquisition area to commercial and industrial uses after acquisition is complete. Continuation of unimplemented Measure LU-1 of approved 1992 NCP.

LU-2: Request Marion County to rezone acquired property between County Line and Stanley Road, just south of Epler Road, to compatible uses. Measure LU-2 of approved 1992 NCP completed. No further action required.

LU-3: Request Marion County to rezone properties within the Airport Industrial Development Plan to classifications indicated by that Plan. Measure LU-3 of approved 1992 NCP completed. No further action required.

LU-4: Request Hendricks County to rezone property in the vicinity of the I-70 and SR 267 intersection to commercial classification. Measure LU-4 of approved 1992 NCP completed. No further action required.

!

"# !

$

%&

"!

'(

)*#!

!+

,-

!

#

#

+*

+*

#+

*#

+

)

!"#

$% * .

/01-&23340567'586)97!5/5/%/

:;6

.

>.

/'/

&

8

61

!

6/6

/

!

?>)4

?>))

?>)

?>)

?>)+

?>)

?>2

?>#

?>"



LU-5: Request Hendricks County to adopt a noise overlay zone using the 1997 and 2002 NCP contours to enhance land use compatibility within the Airport environs. Request Plainfield to update their current noise overlay zone us

indianapolis international airport final... · indianapolis international airport noise exposure...

Documents