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.
4 This Primer includes an overview of the history of NOMSs in the United States, the current status of NOMS operations (including general NOMS features and functions), resource require- ments for the operation of a NOMS, and potential funding sources for acquisition. The Primer also includes case studies of airports that have installed a NOMS and airports that elected to use other tools such as stand-alone flight tracking systems, handheld noise meters, off-the-shelf spreadsheet software, city complaint tools, and paper records. Lastly, this Primer includes a strategic decision framework designed to help airports thoughtfully review the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs of acquiring, maintaining, and updating a NOMS. 2.1 Literature Review The research team gathered and reviewed documentation related to the regulations, guidelines, and standards regarding the application, funding, and operations of a NOMS. The synthesized information is meant to provide the reader of this Primer with information on the regulations applicable to such a system, best practice guidance documents, a summary of technical litera- ture published in recent years on topics relevant to current systems, and a summary of FAA guidance on noise measurements. This literature review is included in AppendixÂ A: Literature Review. There is no comparison of NOMS products in AppendixÂ A, nor does this appendix address the multitude of vendor and consultant literature that can be readily found online, as this literature is not peer reviewed. 2.2 Airport NOMS Questionnaire The research team developed questionnaires to gather information from U.S. airports on the following: â¢ Types and approximate number of airports using a NOMS, â¢ Types of data being collected, â¢ How NOMSs are being used, â¢ Degree of public access, â¢ Resource requirements, â¢ Funding sources, â¢ Reasons for acquiring or not acquiring a NOMS, and â¢ Quantitative and qualitative benefits. The questionnaires were divided between airports that operate a NOMS and airports that do not operate a NOMS in the 50 states and the territories, including American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The questionnaires were based on the following milestones in the life cycle of the airport NOMS experience: C H A P T E R 2 Research Background
Research Background 5Â Â â¢ EvaluationâThe airport evaluates whether a NOMS will serve the desired purpose and whether the airport will meet the financial and staffing requirements. â¢ ProcurementâThe airport obtains funding and reaches a contractual agreement with a NOMS vendor. â¢ InstallationâThe NOMS vendor installs all NOMS components per the contractual agree- ment and airport satisfaction. â¢ Activation/OperationsâThe NOMS vendor activates the NOMS, and the airport begins to operate the system under contractual specifications. The full list of airports that received the questionnaires is included in AppendixÂ B: List of NOMS, Non-NOMS, & Other Airports. The questionnaires are shown in Appendices C through F, and the results from the airport NOMS questionnaires are presented in Appendix G: Airport NOMS Questionnaire & Summary of Findings. 2.3 Airport Case Studies For a closer look at the factors involved when deciding whether a NOMS is an appropriate tool to address airport noise issues or whether other tools and efforts are appropriate, the research team contacted seven airports as case studies. The case studies of three airports operating a NOMS include â¢ Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK), â¢ George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), and â¢ Santa Monica Airport (SMO). The case studies of four airports that address noise issues while not operating a NOMS include â¢ Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU), â¢ Kissimmee Gateway Airport (ISM), â¢ Manassas Regional Airport (HEF), and â¢ Colorado Springs Airport (COS). Appendix H: Case Study Findings provides background on the selection of the case study candidates and the summary of findings. 2.4 NOMS Vendor Discussion The research team also contacted the following NOMS vendors to discuss current and future technologies that will improve NOMS functionality and issues that impact airports and system installations: â¢ ACOEM/01dB (France-based with 0 U.S. system installations), â¢ Casper Aero (Netherlands-based with 6 U.S. system installations), â¢ Envirosuite Ltd. (Australia-based with 38 U.S. system installations), â¢ L3Harris Technologies (U.S.-based with 32 U.S. system installations), â¢ TopSonic (Germany-based with 0 U.S. system installations), â¢ Vector Airport Systems (U.S.-based with 9 U.S. system installations), and â¢ Virtower LLC (U.S.-based with 40 U.S. system installations). The number of NOMS installations by each vendor is based on data collected in early 2021. The information from the vendor discussions is included in AppendixÂ I: NOMS Vendor Discus- sion & Summary of Findings.