Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
1Â Â This Primer describes a methodology to assist airports and other stakeholders to decide whether a Noise and Operations Monitoring System (NOMS) is appropriate for their situation; evaluate the benefits and costs of acquiring and updating such a system; and deter- mine the general resources needed to acquire, operate, and maintain the system. In addition to the information gathered through a literature review, the research team contacted NOMS vendors, airports operating a NOMS, and airports not operating a NOMS. This information gathering provided insight on the current and future state of NOMSs and airport use of noise monitoring data, flight tracking data, other off-the-shelf products, and proprietary solutions to address noise issues. Research showed that the handling of noise issues is truly unique to an airportâs situa- tion. Airports handle noise issues based on several factors, including local regulations or agreements, available funding and staffing resources, airport planning and public outreach objectives, and the publicâs need for information and engagement. Whether an airport should operate a NOMS that includes noise monitors, a flight tracking system, and a noise complaint database largely depends on the type of information that airport staff needs to provide to other airport staff and the public. Case studies showed that some airports without a NOMS found that relatively simple and inexpensive flight tracking systems were capable of providing sufficient information to achieve their complaint handling and public engagement objectives. Other airports without a NOMS meet their complaint handling and public engagement objectives without a NOMS or flight tracking system. Research also showed that airports procured a NOMS as part of a reactive strategy, responding to aircraft noise issues as they became apparent, or a proactive strategy, allo- cating airport resources to prepare the airport and staff to handle potential noise issues before they became apparent. Airport management should pay close attention to events that may increase aircraft noise complaints and aircraft noise annoyance when considering a NOMS as part of their noise-handling strategy. During the preparation of this Primer, two major events occurred that may have an impact on the future need and use of a NOMS: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the FAAâs Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES). The combination of the perceived increase in airport operations due to the lifting of travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 and the NES findings related to annoyance with aircraft noise may compound the publicâs interest in engaging airports to solve noise problems. This may lead to an increase in aircraft noise complaints and an increased need for airport resources. S U M M A R Y Primer and Framework for Considering an Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
2 Primer and Framework for Considering an Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Lastly, the Primer provides decision-making frameworks, tools, and diagrams in order to assist airport management in assessing its airportâs handling of noise issues and devel- oping strategies to meet their objectives. Given the unique noise-handling factors that airports experience, those planning to use tools such as a NOMS should customize and expand their content to fully accommodate the airportâs specific situation.
