Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Noise Operation Restrictions at EU Airports - (Report on the application of Directive 2002/30/EC)
Date: 2008-02-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aircraft, airport, application of EU law, noise, noise level, noise protection, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.2.2008 
COM(2008) 66 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Noise Operation Restrictions at EU Airports 

(Report on the application of Directive 2002/30/EC) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Aircraft noise has been a sensitive issue for residents in areas near airports since jet aircraft 
became widely used in the 1960s and 1970s. This has led governments and industry to seek 
constant  improvement  in  the  level  of  noise  generated  by  individual  aircraft,  notably  by 
reaching  agreement  at  global  level  (ICAO)  on  the  introduction  of  increasingly  stringent 
standards – a process that has lead to the definition of so-called Chapter 2, 3 and 4 standards 
for aircraft. As a result, today's passenger jets are considerably quieter than their predecessors.  

On the basis of the agreement that had been reached in ICAO for the banning of the older and 
noisier Chapter 2 jet aircraft, a total ban of Chapter 2 aircraft took effect in the EU from April 
2002 onwards.  

The ICAO Council adopted in June 2001 a new certification standard (Chapter 4 in Annex 16 
Volume 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation), setting noise standards for new 
aircraft entering service since 1 January 2006, but no timetable was set for the phasing out of 
Chapter 3 aircraft.  

The  absence  of  such  a  timetable  results  in  additional  pressure  for  operating  restrictions  to 
limit  noise  at  airports.  While  noise  standards  applicable  to  individual  aircraft  have  been 
strengthened, growing traffic levels and more regular traffic at increasing numbers of airports 
continue  to  give  concern  to  local  residents.  As  a  result  there  are  demands  for  additional 
operating restrictions at individual airports to limit the impact of aircraft noise during the most 
sensitive periods (evening, night and weekend) or to limit the use of older, noisier aircraft that 
are only marginally compliant with Chapter 3. 

On  26  March  2002,  the  Community  adopted  Directive  2002/30/EC  on  the  establishment  of 
rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at 
Community airports1. The Directive allows Member States to introduce at individual airports 
new operating restrictions, in particular on aircraft that are marginally compliant with Chapter 
3, provided that they do so in accordance with the so-called “Balanced Approach” set out in 
ICAO Assembly Resolutions A33-7 and A35-5. In the same year, the EU adopted Directive 
2002/49/EC2  requiring  that  strategic  noise  maps  and  action  plans  are  adopted  around  major 
civil  airports3  as  well  as  in  agglomerations  with  more  than  100,000  inhabitants  in  order  to 
prevent, avoid and reduce the harmful effects (including annoyance) due to air traffic noise. 
The Commission will submit a separate report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the implementation of this Directive in 2009. In 2006, the EU adopted a renewed Strategy on 
sustainable development4 which aims at 'reducing transport noise both at source and through 
mitigation measures to ensure overall exposure levels minimize impacts on health'.  

Article  14  of  Directive  2002/30/EC  requires  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council on its application of this Directive no later than five years after 

1 

2 

3 
4 

Directive  2002/30/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  26  March  2002  on  the 
establishment  of  rules  and  procedures  with  regard  to  the  introduction  of  noise-related  operating 
restrictions at Community airports, OJ L 85 of 28.03.2002, p. 40 
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the 
assessment and management of environmental noise, OJ L 189 of 18.7.2002, p. 12 
76 airports designated by Member States currently fall under the scope of the Directive 2002/49/EC  
Council of the European Union, Doc 10117/06, 9 June 2006 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
its entry into force. It specifies further that the Commission’s report should be accompanied, 
if necessary, by proposals for revision of the Directive. The essential aim of this report is to 
indicate  how  well  the  objective  of  the  Directive  have  been  achieved  and  how  far  the 
application  of  the  Directive  has  contributed.  It  therefore  contains  an  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness of the Directive, in which particular emphasis is laid upon determining whether 
there is a need to revise the current definition of “marginally compliant aircraft” laid down in 
Article 2 d) (ie meeting the certification limits laid down in Chapter 3 by a cumulative margin 
of not more than 5 EPNdB5 – so-called "minus 5" aircraft) in favour of greater stringency. 

In  order  to  place  this  discussion  in  context,  this  report  assesses  changes  in  the  Community 
noise climate since 2002, and to see to what extent the Directive’s regulatory framework has 
contributed  to  those  changes.  This  quantitative  and  qualitative  work  called  for  a  detailed 
inventory of measures, already taken or planned at airports, under the Directive. 

2. 

THE BALANCED APPROACH 

The  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  “adopt  a  balanced  approach  in  dealing  with  noise 
problems at (their) airports” (Article 4.1). A "balanced approach"6 means "an approach under 
which Member States consider all the available measures to address the noise problem at an 
airport  in  their  territory,  namely  the  foreseeable  effect  of  a  reduction  of  aircraft  noise  at 
source, of land-use planning and management, of noise abatement operational procedures and 
of operating restrictions" (Article 2 g)). 

The  Directive  is  in  part  meant  to  specify  the  circumstances  in  which  Member  States  may 
introduce restrictions on marginally compliant aircraft, in accordance with ICAO's guidelines 
and at the same time contribute to the general objective to prevent a worsening of the noise 
climate  and  to  limit  or  reduce  the  number  of  people  significantly  affected  by  the  harmful 
effects of aircraft noise. 

The  right  of  individual  airports  to  restrict  marginal  Chapter  3  aircraft  operations  within  the 
Balanced  Approach  framework  was  accepted  internationally  in  response  to  the  complaints 
from  some  ICAO  Members  with  regard  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  925/19997  (the  so  called 
"hushkit” Regulation). That Regulation banned from the Community “recertificated” aircraft , 
defined  as  aircraft  meeting  Chapter  3  only  through  hushkitting.  It  was  repealed  when  the 
Directive  came  into  force  because  the  Directive  allowed  Member  States  to  ban  marginally 
compliant aircraft at individual airports. 

3. 

INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

On  the  basis  of  responses  from  52  airports8  it  is  clear  that  not  all  airports  interpret  the 
provisions of the Directive in the same way. 

5 
6 
7 

8 

Effective Perceived Noise in decibels 
See article 2 g) of the Directive 2002/30/EC 
Regulation (EC)No.925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation within the Community 
of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting 
the  standards  of  volume  I,  Part  II,  Chapter  3  of  Annex  16  to  the  Convention  on  International  Civil 
Aviation, third edition (July 1993), OJ of 4.5.1999, p.1 
Interviews with airports conducted by MPD Consultants for the European Commission 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The obligations upon airports appear to be fairly clear: if the authorities seek to introduce new 
operating  restrictions  on  civil  subsonic  jet  aeroplanes  after  28  March  2002  the  Directive 
requires  them  to  adopt  the  Balanced  Approach,  and  to  limit  the  restrictions  to  what  is 
necessary.  Furthermore,  Member  States  introducing  restrictions  must  follow  certain 
procedures regarding notice of introduction, assessment and implementation. In the course of 
this process, the planned effect of restrictions must be quantified. 

As to what the Directive permits or prohibits, there appear to be two areas of doubt: 

(1) 
some airports feel that it is difficult to point to what has been achieved by the 
Directive  per  se  because  much  of  what  is  permitted  under  the  Directive  was 
permitted anyway  under national law and  many restrictions were introduced by the 
Member States before 2002; 

other airports feel that the Directive does not expressly prohibit any particular 

(2) 
form of restriction.  

4. 

EFFECTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The majority of airport operators indicated that the Directive had not directly influenced the 
noise  management  around  their  airport.  Some  airports  mentioned  that  what  the  Directive 
enables was already possible under national law. This holds in particular for the German and 
UK  airports.  One  German  airport  also  indicated  that  although  the  Directive  enables 
restrictions on marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft, some bilateral air service agreements 
prohibit the introduction of such measures.  

Several  airports  said  that  the  Directive  made  the  process  of  noise  management  around  the 
airport  more  onerous  due  to  the  requirements  of  its  Annex  2.  This  annex  requires  a 
consultation  and  an  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  alternative  means  of  reducing 
noise around the airport. 

Two airports indicated a fear airlines might sue after the introduction of measures, under the 
argument that the Annex 2 requirements would not have completely been adhered to. 

Some  airports  indicated  that  even  though  the  Directive  did  not  have  direct  influence  on  the 
noise management, indirectly it had contributed for a number of reasons: 

•  the  Directive  has  served  as  a  useful  checklist  to  highlight  all  potential  measures 

available;  

•  the  emphasis  of  the  Directive  on  individual  airport  action  facilitated  the 

introduction of restrictions; 

•  the Directive helped to establish a climate of trust among stakeholders; 

•  the Directive has set a level playing field; 

•  the  Directive  has  also  raised  awareness  of  possible  action  and  good  practice 
among mid-sized and small airports (which do not fall under the application of the 
Directive). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
One  of  the  aims  of  the  Directive  was  to  enable  noise  management  around  airports  with 
particular  noise  problems.  Whether  airports  had  such  problems  may  in  part  have  been 
dependent on what action was already permitted under their national laws. Countries that had 
already national laws in place that enabled airports to manage noise will have made less use 
of  the  Directive  than  those  with  no  such  framework.  However,  at  those  airports  where  the 
national  legislation  was  not  effective,  the  Directive  may  have  contributed  to  noise 
management. 

5. 

RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED 

Restrictions on marginally compliant chapter 3 aircraft are described, based on a cumulative 
margin (as defined in the Directive) of 5 dB(A), hereafter referred to as "Minus 5" aircraft, as 
well  as  restrictions  on  aircraft  with  a  cumulative  margin  of  8  dB(A)  or  more,  night  time 
restrictions and the use of noise budgets, including the effects these different restrictions may 
have  on  traffic  However,  the  different  measures  introduced  can  overlap  to  some  extent 
because a clear division is not always possible. 

5.1. 

RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED: "MINUS 5" 

Non-operation rules for “minus 5” aircraft had been introduced by only two airports.  

Only  four  airports  said  that  they  had  introduced  partial  restrictions9  on  the  operation  of 
“minus 5” aircraft under the Directive, and went on to describe them. These comprised: 

•  three airports which introduced night bans on “minus 5” aircraft; and 

•  one  airport  which  prohibited  “minus  5”  aircraft  on  new  routes  (a  sort  of  non-

addition rule, possibly as a precursor to a non-operation rule). 

However,  of  the  airports  which  had  not  introduced  such  bans  or  restrictions  over  10  either 
definitely  expected  to  do  so,  or  had  considered  or  were  currently  considering  doing  so,  or 
indicated that they might do so in certain circumstances. There are also two special cases (two 
city airports): 

of  those  airports  which  definitely  expect  to  introduce  such  measures,  one  airport  expects  a 
total “minus 5” ban to replace a pre-Directive hushkit ban “soon”10, and one (EEA) airport 
uses pre- Directive national legislation to ban “minus 5” operations at night with effect from 
2008; 

•  one airport had considered a “minus 5” ban but dropped the scheme after a major 
operator  of  a  marginal  aircraft  type  re-equipped,  and  the  ban  therefore  became 
redundant ; 

9 

10 

Article  6.1  of  the  Directive  permits  the  introduction  of  “operating  restrictions  of  a  partial  nature”  on 
unspecified aircraft types, as part of the preferential hierarchy of actions within the Balanced Approach 
preceding the ‘last resort’ withdrawal of marginal Chapter 3 aircraft 
This airport also indicated that a more stringent definition of marginally compliant (i.e. minus 8) would 
not be further restrictive, as the night quota count restrictions in place were already more strict 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  three airports are considering “minus 5” restrictions in the context of their noise 

action plans; 

•  two  airports  felt  that  they  might  have  to  restrict  “minus  5”  aircraft  if  local 
authority  constraints  were  imposed  on  activity  as  the  price  of  planned  runway 
development; 

•  two  airports  felt  they  “might”  impose  “minus  5”  restrictions  without  specifying 

conditions; 

•  two  city  airports  admit  aircraft  on  the  basis  of  locally-measured  noise  levels  to 
meet  local  Planning  requirements  constraining  the  operation  of  the  airport,  in 
terms  of  absolute  (rather  than  certificated)  noise  levels;  this  exemplifies  the 
question  of  compatibility  of  the  Directive  with  Planning  law  in  some  Member 
States.  

In  the  case  of  the  following  airports  Member  States  have  notified  that  they  implement  the 
provisions of the Directive: 

“Minus 5” aircraft are banned from operating at night at Paris and will also be banned by day 
from  2008.  This  forms  part  of  a  policy  to  contain  the  overall  noise  nuisance  to  the  levels 
observed in 1999-2001. 

At UK London airports a new night flight regime was put in place which covers the period 
2006-2012 

At Madrid-Barajas a new set of restrictions was introduced after the summer of 2006, which 
include the gradual withdrawal of aircraft "minus 5" aircraft between 2007 and 2012 as well 
as night flight restrictions. 

The  remaining  airports  reported  no  restrictions  imposed  (or  in  prospect)  on  “minus  5” 
marginally compliant aircraft, in the context of the Directive. 

One airport indicated that there would be more clarity if there was more harmonisation across 
airports in the way they define marginally compliant aircraft.  

5.2 

RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED: "MINUS 8" AND BEYOND 

A few airports have in place or are considering restrictions that go beyond the minus 5 dB(A). 
Only  one  has  already  restricted  “minus  8”  aircraft  as  such  and  three  plan  to  require  their 
withdrawal: 

•  one airport has had a night ban on “minus 8” aircraft in place since 2003;. 

•  one (city) airport has the declared intention of being “Chapter 4 only” by 2010; 

•  another city airport indicated that any night time bans would be based on “Chapter 

4” in the future; 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
•  one  airport  has  the  declared  intention  of  banning  “minus  8”  aircraft  by  2008  if 
their  absence  is  not  achieved  through  natural  re-equipment  or  voluntary  co-
operative action before then; 

5.3. 

RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED: NIGHT 

Partial  noise  operating  restrictions11  are  not  necessarily  aimed  at  particular  levels  of 
compliance  with  Chapter  3.  Nonetheless  such  general  measures  are  also  covered  by  the 
Directive in terms of requiring formal assessment before they are introduced.  

Four respondent airports (three of which are city airports12) are closed during night time. One 
non-respondent  airport  is  known  to  operate  a  curfew.  In  addition,  a  number  of  airports  are 
closed  during  part  of  the  night.  Seven  airports  have  banned  marginally  compliant  chapter  3 
aircraft  during  the  night,  one  of  which  effectively  banned  chapter  3  "minus  8"  aircraft.  In 
addition, several German airports only allow aircraft from the bonus list13. Quite a number of 
airports have a night noise quota count system in place. Some airports have night movement 
limits instead of a quota count system. About twenty airports indicated that they do not have 
any  particular  restrictions  at  night  time,  apart  from  the  potential  closure  of  a  particular 
runway.  

5.4. 

AIRPORT NOISE BUDGETS 

Apart  from  the  restrictions  on  marginally  complaint  aircraft,  or  (partial)  night  closures,  the 
application of noise budgets may also be regarded as a restriction.  

Noise budgets do not directly restrict the operation of a particular aircraft, in contrast to night 
time restrictions and restrictions on marginally compliant aircraft, but they restrict access by 
the fleet as a whole. Noise budgets restrict the overall noise during a certain period of time, 
which could be seasonally related or annual. As such, it may be more regarded as an operating 
restriction on the airport, than on the airlines. 

On  the  other  hand,  noise  budgets  do  limit  the  access  of  civil  subsonic  jet  aeroplanes  to  an 
airport.  Although  the  Directive  covers  also  noise  budgets,  this  is  not  obvious  to  all 
stakeholders. 

The use of noise budgets is favoured at many airports over operating restrictions on particular 
aircraft. Particularly in the UK, noise budgets apply at many airports.  

6. 

EFFECTS OF OPERATING RESTRICTIONS 

Some airports offered their comments on the impact of operating restrictions introduced.  

11 
12 
13 

As defined by article 2 e) of the Directive 2002/30/EC 
As designated by annex I of the Directive 2002/30/EC 
A list established by the German Federal Ministry of Transport which provides a further classification 
of aircraft within Chapter 3. Aircraft on this list have an advantage over aircraft not on the list, as to 
having less flight restrictions and /or getting charged lower landing and take-off fees 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
With  regard  to  the  potential  for  relocation,  one  airport  remarked  that  because  of  the 
combination of its strategic location and its high share of point-to-point traffic, it did not fear 
operators relocating. On the other hand, another airport indicated that it would only consider a 
ban on marginal chapter 3 aircraft if it were mandatory and applied across all EU airports.  

In most instances,  airports  indicated that in their view, airlines  had responded by  using less 
noisy  aircraft  and  some  rescheduling  between  night  and  day  time  in  case  of  partial 
restrictions.  

Only one airport indicated that the restrictions introduced had resulted in fewer services and 
frequencies being offered.  

Related  to  this  issue  is  that  the  restrictions  imposed  are  not  always  actual  restrictions  in  a 
‘practical  sense’.  At  one  airport,  the  restriction  on  marginal  chapter  3  aircraft  was  pre-
emptive, to show the commitment to noise management to the local community and to deter 
any  potential  operators.  At  another  airport  the  actual  noise  count  is  less  than  half  the  noise 
quota count. On the other hand, there are also airports which relax their environmental limits 
as they start to bite. 

7. 

AIRCRAFT OPERATING INDUSTRY 

The  aircraft  operating  industry  considers  the  Directive  as  protection  against  the  use  of 
operating restrictions as a  first resort, and as a guarantee of a reasonable timescale for their 
introduction  of  restrictions  and  of  proper  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  such 
restrictions. 

Some types of operator seemed to feel the marginal restriction aspects of the Directive almost 
irrelevant  to  them  as  the  economic  pressures  of  their  business  have  already  driven  them  to 
virtual  Chapter  4  fleet  composition  by  “natural”  replacement.  Other  industry  sectors  would 
prefer  maximum  protection  from  restrictions  in  the  Directive,  allowing  the  “natural” 
replacement to run its course.  

The express carrier industry stressed to the services of the Commission that they would like to 
see the Directive revised to overcome some difficulties of definition and interpretation, and to 
enhance  and  clarify  the  protection  they  feel  the  Directive  should  offer  them.  They  consider 
that restrictions – including partial restrictions - on Chapter 4 aircraft should be specifically 
prohibited  (cf.  Article  6.2  for  City  airports)  given  that  in  their  view,  for  example,  operating 
restrictions and penalties based on noise levels could effectively prohibit or limit the operation 
of Chapter 4 compliant aircraft at night. They see operational restrictions (such as the setting 
of  monitored  noise  limits  and  preferential  runways)  as  a  potential  “grey  area”  requiring 
clarification  so  as  to  avoid  possible  circumvention  of  the  Article  4.4  requirement  to  base 
restrictions on certificated noise, and so as to prohibit effectively discriminatory restrictions, 
even if not so designed.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
8. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES 

In the light of the evaluation process of the Directive, local and regional authorities, as well as 
a  number  of  associations,  have  presented  recommendations14.  In  general, 
those 
recommendations are much wider than the operating restrictions envisaged by the Directive. 

With  regard  to  the  operational  organisation  of  airports  and  night  flights  they  essentially 
recommend that: 

•  more attention should be paid to population density when the flight trajectories are 
defined  and  to  make  maximum  use  of  new  low  noise  operating  procedures  like 
continuous descent approach 

•  noise  standards  of  the  World  Health  Organization15  should  be  better  taken  into 

account 

•  compensation policies should be introduced for the most exposed population 

•  consideration should be given to the wishes and expectations of local groups via 

better information, public participation and mediation 

They conclude that although the problems which are due to noise nuisance from night flights 
may differ from one European airport to another, targeted curfews and operational restrictions 
must  lie  at  the  heart  of  national  and  EU  policies  in  order  to  avoid  sleep  disturbance  for  the 
population living under the flight paths. 

Attention  is  also  drawn  to  the  importance  of  avoiding  urban  degradation  which  sometimes 
results  locally  from  airport  development.  It  is  recommended  that  economic  development  of 
the  peripheral  areas  of  cities  must  not  be  dissociated  from  the  social  development  of  these 
areas. That goes beyond considering positive economic effects as a compensation for noise- 
and  atmospheric  pollution:  ways  must  be  found  to  avoid  impoverishment  which  sometimes 
results locally from airport development. 

9. 

MARGINAL AIRCRAFT IN FLEETS 

The total numbers of marginal aeroplanes using Community airports are relatively low.  

Moreover, fewer short haul marginal aircraft from overseas are likely to use European airports 
(although  they  may  come  from  the  Community  or  Europe’s  neighbours).  Also,  some 
companies use foreign registered aircraft for their European operations. 

Nonetheless, to put marginality in context, it is useful to show the proportions of generic types 
of aircraft which might be defined as marginal. This analysis is in Table 1.  

14 
15 

See for instance: http://www.airportregions.org/publications/doc/arc_special_report_2_2007.pdf 
See forthcoming guidelines on night-time noise at: 
http://www.euro.who.int/Noise/activities/20040721_1 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Chapter 3 Jets in Fleet Context 

-8 to   
-10
245

-5 to   
-8
151

-0 to   
-5
49

Chapter 3 Identified Jet Aircraft
-0 to -10 
not 
further 
allocable
107
1.0% 3.2% 5.2% 2.3%
376
135
6.1% 3.6% 5.1% 2.2%
1201
806
5.6% 3.1% 6.8% 3.8%

Total 
Chapter 3
552
11.8%
1042
17.0%
4138
19.4%

1460

219

312

671

* Unident- 
ified 
Aeroplanes
72
1.5%
498
8.1%
1132
5.3%

Total Jet 
Fleets (all 
types)
4,676
100.0%
6,143
100.0%
21,345
100.0%

Marginality :

EC, EEA & Switzerland

Europe

World

 * Unidentified aeroplanes of types identified as including significant numbers of Chapter 3 aircraft. 

Source : Consultants' analysis of JP Airline Fleets and DGAC & EASA databases.

In general, the analysis indicates that the fleet that is not chapter 4 compliant composes only a 
relative small share of the total fleet using EU airports.  

These  numbers  indicate  that  even  if  all  aircraft  with  a  cumulative  Chapter  3  margin  of  less 
than  10  dB  were  no  longer  allowed,  this  would  only  affect  a  relatively  small  share  of  total 
landings and take-offs. 

10. 

ESTIMATION OF POPULATION NOISE EXPOSURE 

Table  2  sets  out  for  the  years  2010  and  2015  three  possible  marginal  aircraft  phase  out 
scenarios have been modelled in addition to the Base Case for these two years, as follows: 

•  Base Case - No change to the Directive and the way it is interpreted and applied 

by airports, and no change to the fleet mix; 

•  Scenario  1  -  Band  1  aircraft  phased  out  -  effective  phase-out  of  marginally 
compliant Chapter 3 aircraft at Community airports as defined in the Directive ie 
as  meeting  the  certification  limits  of  Chapter  3  by  not  more  than  a  cumulative 
margin of 5 dB(A); 

•  Scenario  2  -  Band  1  and  2  aircraft  phased  out  -  effective  phase-out  of  t  aircraft 

meeting Chapter 3 limits by not more than a cumulative margin of 8 dB(A); 

•  Scenario  3  –  Band  2  and  3  aircraft  phased  out  -  effective  phase-out  of  aircraft 
meeting Chapter 3 limits by a cumulative margin of not more than 10 dB(A), thus 
permitting only Chapter 4 operations. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Estimates of Total Population Exposure for Community Airports. 

Comment 

Total 
Population 
within 
Lden16 
55dB 
(millions) 

Total 
Population 
within 
Lnight17 
45dB 

(millions) 

2002 

2006 

2010 Base 

2.2 

2.2 

2.4 

2.7 

3.0 

3.2 

From 2002 to 2006 Lden 55dB population 
increases by less than 0.1million 

From 2006 to 2010 Lden 55dB population 
increases by 10% 

2010 Scenario 1 

2.3 

3.1 

Lden 4% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 2 % reduction over base case 

2010 Scenario 2 

2.3 

3.1 

Lden 5% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 3 % reduction over base case 

2010 Scenario 3 

2.3 

3.1 

Lden 6% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 4 % reduction over base case 

2015 Base 

2.7 

3.2 

From 2010 to 2015 Lden 55dB population 
increases by 9% 

2015 Scenario 1 

2.6 

3.2 

Lden 4% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 2 % reduction over base case 

2015 Scenario 2 

2.6 

3.2 

Lden 4% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 2 % reduction over base case 

2015 Scenario 3 

2.5 

3.1 

Lden 5% reduction over the base case 

Lnight 3 % reduction over base case 

16 

17 

This  is  the  noise  indicator  which  describes  the  average  noise  during day,  evening  and  night  (24  hour 
period). 
his noise indicator describes the average noise during the night. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following broad conclusions can be drawn from these results.  

•  Base Case contours grew very little from 2002 to 2006; 

•  Base Case contours are expected to grow from 2006 to 2010 with total population 

exposure increasing by 8-10% over this period.  

•  Base Case contours are expected to grow from 2010 to 2015 with total population 
exposure  increasing  with  the  population  within  Lden  55dB  expected  to  increase 
by about 9%, and the population within Lnight 45dB increasing by about 2% (a 
lower increase due to night restrictions). 

•  Populations within Lnight 45dB contours are bigger than Lden 55dB, by 25-30%.  

•  Scenario 1 gives small benefits – a reduction in population of about 4% for Lden 

55dB and 2% of Lnight 45dB. 

•  Scenario 2 gives similar benefits to Scenario 1 - a reduction in population of about 

4-5% for Lden 55dB and 2-3% of Lnight 45dB. 

•  Scenario 3 gives similar benefits to Scenario 2 - a reduction in population of about 

4-5% for Lden 55dB and 3-4% of Lnight 45dB. 

The  purpose  of  the  figures  in  table  2  is  focused  on  the  overall  effect  on  noise  exposure  of 
marginal aircraft  at  Community  airports, rather than obtaining accurate population exposure 
estimates.  Most  airports  indicated  that  they  had  Lden  and  Lnight  contours  and  population 
estimates either  complete, in progress or planned for later in the year. It could  be expected, 
given  the  requirement  of  Directive  2002/49/EC,  to  have  these  contours  reported  to  the 
Commission by December 2007. Those harmonised noise maps should provide more detailed 
data and more accurate population estimates than have  been possible for  all the  airports for 
the purpose of this report. 

A  more  in-depth  analysis  of  the  trends  in  noise  emissions  at  five  EU-airports  (Amsterdam, 
Lisbon, Glasgow, Toulouse, Warsaw)18shows that the trends may differ from one airport to 
another. These five case studies indicate: 

•  All airports show an increase in contour area in the hypothesis of an unchanged 
fleet mix. This growth is 5 to 15% for the coming 4 year period (2006 to 2010) 
and 18 to 24% for the period 2006 – 2015. 

•  Even if all marginal chapter 3 aircraft would be replaced, the Lden 55 contours are 
estimated  to  grow  by  between  13  to  20%  up  to  2015.  The  growth  in  Lnight  45 
contours under such a scenario lies between 14 and 22%. 

•  For each airport, the development in Lden 55 contour area is very similar to the 
development of the Lnight 45 contour area at that airport. This conforms that the 
increasing trend in night-time noise drives the increase in overall noise (Lden). 

18 

MPD Study of Aircraft Noise (2007) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  A replacement of all chapter 3 aircraft by chapter 4 aircraft would reduce the Lden 

55 contour growth by about 4.5 to 6.5 percentage points. 

•  The impact of a replacement of all chapter 3 aircraft by chapter 4 aircraft on the 

Lnight 45 contour differs considerably between the case study airports. 

•  Results vary between a reduced growth of 1.5 to 7.0 percentage points, depending 

on the current night time regime in place. 

•  The difference in contour area between replacing all aircraft with a margin < 5 dB 
with chapter 3 requirements, and all aircraft with a margin < 8 dB is less than half 
a percentage point.  

In  short,  these  case  studies  confirm  that  contour  areas,  particularly  during  the  night,  are 
expected to grow considerably, with natural  fleet  replacement lowering the estimates. If the 
fleet  would  be  composed  of  chapter  4  aircraft  only,  this  could  significantly  reduce  contour 
growth at some airports in the light of their specific local situations. 

11. 

CONCLUSIONS 

•  The Directive puts a harmonised structure for a balanced approach in place and it 
has  been  useful  in  ensuring  that  all  interests  are  taken  into  account  when 
restrictions are considered. 

•  However,  the  Directive  has  only  been  used  in  the  case  of  a  limited  number  of 
airports; some stakeholders are of the opinion that it is not sufficiently clear and 
some  Member  States  already  had  similar  provisions  under  national  law  prior  to 
the entry into force of the Directive. 

•  Moreover, its impact in respect of marginally compliant aircraft is limited because 
the  number  of  these  aircraft  is  comparatively  small  due  to  their  natural 
replacement; 

•  More generally, the number of people affected by noise, particularly at night, has 
increased  since  the  Directive  came  into  force,  due  to  a  general  increase  in  the 
number of movements, in spite of the possibility to introduce partial restrictions. 

•  Our  prediction  is  that  the  number  of  people  affected  by  noise  will  continue  to 

grow although the situation may differ between airports. 

•  For  that  reason  the  Commission  intends  to  examine  ways  of  clarifying  the 

provisions of Directive 2002/30/EC and its scope. 

•  It  will  also  consider  whether  changes  in  the  current  Directive,  such  as  the 
definition  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft,  are  needed.  In  doing  so,  it  will  take 
account  of  the  outcome  of  the  estimates  described  above,  predicting  that  the 
growth  in  the  number  of  people  affected  by  noise  could  be  reduced  by  a  more 
stringent definition of marginally compliant aircraft. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
•  In 2009, the Commission will assess the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC 
regarding  the  assessment  and  the  management  of  environmental  noise  around 
airports and will submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council. 

The  Commission  is  looking  forward  to  receiving  reactions  from  stakeholders  in  the  next  3 
months and aims to include them in the envisaged examination of the Directive. 

EN 

14 

   EN