Summaries this article “Concept of Curfew” ( FOR 500 word, at least 3 references)
From Source: http://www.saa.com.sg/saaWeb2011/export/sites/saa/en/Publication/downloads/SAA_Journal_2011.pdf
AIRPORT CURFEW – TERMINOLOGY
The term ‘curfew’ in the context of airport restrictions has been agreed by members of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to be defined as “a global or aircraft-specific partial operating restriction that prohibits take-off and/or landing during an identified time period” (ICAO, 2008, p. vi).
This means that an airport curfew does not necessarily refer to a complete shutdown of all aircraft operations during certain hours of the day or night, but instead include a selection of well-defined and specific traffic limitations.
The study found that no airport curfew is like one another, but there is a wide variety of ‘curfew’ options. Even regulations that appear similar to each other usually differ in certain details, such as their individual severity.
One commonality however, is that if curfew arrangements have been implemented in a particular airport, the strictest rules are enforced during night hours, usually between 2200 hours to 0700 hours local time. That is when communities around an airport are most sensitive to noise.
Some of the most commonly applied restrictions are:
• Total aircraft ban, i.e. no air traffic is allowed during certain hours; ?
• Partial shutdown, e.g. arrivals are allowed but not departures, or closure of certain runways and/or flight paths at night; ?
• Movement quotas, i.e. only a defined number of flights are allowed during a specific time period; ?
• Noise level limits, e.g. annual noise quotas, prohibiting a certain noise accumulation during certain hours of the operating year, or a limitation on the maximum allowed noise level per individual operation; ?
• Aircraft type restrictions, e.g. ban of certain aircraft types only, often applied specifically to jet aircraft; ?
• Approved operation only, i.e. no operation without a slot; ?
• Compulsory noise abating operating procedures, e.g. low-noise approaches must be applied, and/or intersection departures are prohibited during night hours; ?
• Noise reduction on ground, e.g. engine run-up or reverse thrust restrictions; or ?
• Combinations of the above restrictions. ?At some airports, only a single restriction is applicable, whereas a combination of more than one rule might be applicable at others. ?Not only do curfew restrictions vary significantly from airport to airport, a potential ‘curfew breach’ can be defined differently as well. At various airports, selected restrictions allow for exemptions or dispensations, some of which might be more common and more frequently accepted than others, whereas at other airports any divergence from operational restrictions incurs severe penalties and flexibility is rare. ?More commonly, exemptions from curfew regulations will be granted due to: ?
• Mid-air emergencies that require an immediate landing at the nearest airport; ?
• Meteorological requirements and resulting alternations, leading to diversions to curfew airports; or ?
• Search and rescue missions, medical, humanitarian or police flights. ?Other identified exceptions from curfew restrictions are more seldom and rather airport specific. Some airports allow for delayed operation of scheduled services, or for aircraft arriving late for technical overhaul; other airports provide significant curfew advantages for aircraft operations of designated home carriers. This study even identified some airports that grant curfew dispensations due to big public sports events and festive occasions. ?REASONS TO IMPOSE AN AIRPORT CURFEW ?Ashford, Stanton and Moore (1996, p. 77) stated that “the nature of the curfew depends greatly on the local political atmosphere, the location, and physical climate of the city involved and the nature and volume of air transport through the airport”. ?This statement is strongly supported by the findings of the curfew research study. When asked about the initial reasons that led to the imposition of their curfew regulations, 52 percent of the participating curfew airports stated ‘political motivation’ as the main contributing factor, followed by ‘expansion of airport facilities’ and ‘voluntary implementation’ (see Figure
1). This indicates that the local political atmosphere, influenced by several drivers, is definitely a crucial factor for such decisions. ?
Further, the year of curfew imposition was reviewed and showed a strong accumulation of curfew implementations between the 1960s and early 1970s, and then again in the pre- and post-millennial years of mid-1990s to early 2000.
Several reasons have been identified for these concentrations. First of all, the early 1960s saw the introduction of jet aircraft, involving a significant increase in aircraft noise. Furthermore, jet aircraft made air travel faster and cheaper, which led to growth in traffic movements and as a result noise nuisance; this was then offset by airport curfews.
The increased rate of curfew implementation during recent years can again be explained by increased traffic. A merging global world created a much greater need and interest in air travel, which requires today’s airports to expand their facilities in order to accommodate increased demand. Additionally, communities around airports grew larger and closer during the last decades and their political power increased too. All of those factors combined have led to community involvement and pressure, followed by voluntary or enforced curfews on airport operations.
FACTORS SUPPORTING A CURFEW-FREE STATUS
The curfew-free airports included in this study were asked what they thought were the main reasons contributing to their operations not being restricted. The majority of them referred to early, effective, and forward-looking land-use planning efforts, followed by the successful implementation of noise management measures as well as an appreciation of economic benefits for the region. Many of those arguments can be seen as good industry practices.
A local peculiarity, however, has been identified in the US, where the imposition of operational restrictions, especially on larger airports, is regulated by the ‘Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA)’. The ANCA requires particularly large airports to undergo an extensive study if an airport or a local authority believes airport restrictions are needed (ANCA 1990). Such a study aims to prove the airport’s actual need to implement restrictions and their impact on the airport’s long-term sustainability. The ANCA therefore stands in stark contrast to common European or Australasian practices, where airports need to put great effort into proving a curfew is actually not needed.
ICAO’S BALANCED APPROACH TO AIRCRAFT NOISE MANAGEMENT
In 2004, ICAO published the first version of its ‘Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management’. This material was the result of an initiative to harmonise the so far mostly individual approaches of airports and local authorities to regulate noise emissions from air traffic.
ICAO acknowledged that, up to that point, many airports around the world some kind of curfew imposed on their operations to counteract noise problems. These “uncoordinated policy developments”, however, were believed to “hinder the role of aviation in economic development” in the future (ICAO n.d., p. 3).
In order to address aircraft noise globally and consistently, ICAO’s member States made clear that operating restrictions should only be the last resort after fully assessing the benefits of an overall balanced approach to aircraft noise management. Such a ‘balanced approach’ should include the following key steps:
• Reduction of noise at source, e.g. by encouraging airlines to use quieter aircraft fleets; ?
• Planning and managing land-use, e.g. by appropriate noise-zoning around the airport premises, ?insulation schemes, easement acquisition or comprehensive future development planning; ?
• Noise abatement operational procedures, i.e. preferred runways and routes usage, noise mitigating approach and departure procedures; and ?
• Implementation of operating restrictions, i.e. noise quotas, movement caps or fully-banned aircraft operations. (ICAO n.d., p. 6) ?
It is noteworthy that ICAO, an organisation of national government representatives from all over the world, officially advances the view that operating restrictions are the least desirable option to manage aircraft noise at an airport. Even more remarkably, findings of this study showed that current practice often enough contradicts this approach. Examples showed that various airports had curfews imposed by exactly such government representatives to address local frictions, but without any ‘balanced approach’ assessments of pros and cons.