Cost versus noise exposure reduction tradeoff analysis for the future commercial jet fleet

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate possible future aircraft‐noise certification policies for civil aircraft in the United States. The cost effectiveness of various noise‐exposure reduction options were compared with each other. The options were grouped into three categories: aircraft source noise reductions, flight path (operational) alternatives, and land‐use options. Among the source options were application of sound‐absorbing nacelle liners, use of large bypass ratio engines, and use of long duct nacelles. The operational alternative consisted of a special takeoff cutback procedure. Among the land‐use options were improved building insulation for existing and future structures, and relocation of people. For the planning years 1980, 1990, and 2000, the noise impact for the future fleets and expected new aircraft configurations was evaluated. For various scenarios of the future, equivalent noise‐exposed populations were calculated at a sample of 14 airports representative of the nation, using the A‐weighted average noise level as the underlying noise metric. The cost differentials between scenarios with a particular combination of noise‐exposure reduction actions and a “do‐nothing” scenario were calculated and compared to the accompanying reduction in people noise exposure. Thus, the most promising scenarios could be identified. [Work supported by FAA.]