Hello everyone,
As some airline companies employ an NADP procedure of their choice on every airport, even when it is not required by the airport authorities, I wanted to ask about the reasons for doing so. In particular, I am interested in hearing whether this is because they interpret Doc 8168 as requiring them to do so. If not, what other reasons may they have for choosing an NADP procedure for each airport?
Regarding the first option, Doc 8168 seems to direct the airport authorities to either use (i) a noise preferential RWY, (ii) noise preferential routes or else (iii) an NADP. Should they chose (iii), this would make NADP obligatory to every operator, by stating it in the airport's AOI. However, this doesn't happen at every airport, but only when there is a need:
"Noise abatement procedure shall not be implemented except where a need for such procedures has been determined" (9.1)
"The procedures herein describe the methods for noise abatement when a problem is shown to exist" (9.1)
Thank you very much in advance,
Kind regards,
Ivan
Practically all commercial operators (except some VFR-only operators) must establish noise abatement procedures for each airplane (CAT.OP.MPA.130). That is the main reason for them to choose an NADP procedure for each airport.
Operators will adjust the profiles to their airplane type(s) and typically will specify the acceleration height and thrust reduction height in the OM.
On top of that, but separate from the general requirement towards the operator, airports may have noise abatement procedures established and published in the AIP. These may for example include NADPs, but also noise preferential runways and routes, etc.
At one of the airlines I used to work for, we used NADP as a bird strike avoidance procedure. Not because of Doc 8168, but due to the fact bird migration patterns identified predominant presence of birds between 500 and 1500 feet at different airports.
Please log in or sign up to comment.