Post by Travis on Oct 15, 2011 12:12:10 GMT -5
So, noise abatement. In MSFS you can launch from any airport at any time of the day and make full power takeoffs or high-speed landings with no one to bat an eye. But that's not very realistic as those of you who have flown - or lived near an airport - know.
I've tossed around ways to effectively portray noise and the need for pilots to manage their noise within the confines of MSFS and FS Captain because I feel it would present a variable challenge to manage in our flights. And I'd like to share my thoughts and ask for community input.
First off - please note that this is not a prospectus. It's not necessarily a "peek ahead." It's just my own musings - for now.
My first exposure to noise abatement was when taking PPL lessons (in little old Skyhawks), my flight school had us keep copies of printed maps of local airports with areas marked off to avoid penetrating at low altitudes and at certain RPM levels. (Meanwhile, KOAK and KSFO had what seemed to be non-stop airliners coming in on approach just a few thousand feet overhead and to the bay side.) But we were told that if neighbors reported our school's tail numbers repeatedly, it'd be bad for us. So it became important to us to manage our noise levels constantly. We learned the difference between "noise" and "sound" and that both an event's duration as well as its level were just as important to consider.
Some noise levels are measured in long term levels like Day/Night Averages or in Community Noise Levels. But that's not something that FS Captain need consider. For FS Captain it would be a matter of "do you repeatedly make noisy takeoffs and landings which could annoy the general public?" Looking at this factor, the maximum noise level for an event is termed Lmax, whereas the total amount of noise for an event is termed either your Sound Exposure Level or your Single Event Noise Exposure Level. For our purposes, SEL and SENEL would be similar. {glyph of geek eye roll}
In FS Captain, noise generation could be considered a combination of your a/c size - its number and types of engines - how much thrust they product - your speed and altitude. To do this with a future version of FS Captain is achievable I feel. As a first step we'd need an effective way to model "generated aircraft noise" on takeoff and approach. If that could be accomplished for any given aircraft (using size, # of engines, thrust rating, rpm) then it's a matter of calculating how much noise is generated on any given flight at a certain altitude. Bingo, there's a rough model for your SEL / SENEL.
As for whether it's possible for the FCOM to say "we're above a congested area / desert / forest / nothing-but-water" at any given point may or may not be the most effective method to decide if any "generated aircraft noise" would be an issue or not. Lately I've been leaning towards a model that I feel could be both simple and complex, but which could use a lot of user/community input.
I have friends who fly KSMO - Santa Monica - a lot so I'm pretty familiar with things there, having had a few hundred dollar burgers myself.
There's a single strip - 3 / 21 - nearly 5000ft long that's in a heavily residential area with pretty simple noise restrictions 24/7 - a threshold of 95db SENEL before angry letters are generated. (I'm kidding, I like Santa Monica.) A generic airliner landing can generate over 100db at 1000ft, so while it would be possible to operate a 737 on a runway the same size as the one at KSMO... airliner operations just aren't happening there.
Not only that, but KSMO also has takeoff and engine start restrictions from 2300-0700 weekdays and until 0800 on weekends. (Emergencies excepted, of course.) So in our little community noise abatement profile database, we'd note something like this:
KSMO SENEL=95,1500,1234567,0000,0000,TAKEOFF_LANDING,ALL_RUNWAYS,N|E|S|W
KSMO NOSTARTS=12345,2300,0700,ALL_RUNWAYS,ALL_CLASSES,LIFEGUARD_OK|WEATHER_NO|DELAY_NO
KSMO NOSTARTS=67,2300,0800,ALL_RUNWAYS,ALL_CLASSES,LIFEGUARD_OK|WEATHER_NO|DELAY_NO
KSMO STRICTNESS=100
There. Simply starting your engine on a non-mercy flight during those hours and risk a big FS Captain penalty. Have an event that generates over 95db (and there's 0 chance it would be overlooked) and you'll be docked points by Dutch.
Move down the coast a few miles and you have KLAX. Quite a different story! I'll just summarize the difference by noting LAX has 24/7 operations with four parallel runways... but from 0000 to 0630 takeoffs and landings generally occur simultaneously over the Pacific. Unless ATC directs east bound departures because of winds.
And there are other factors to dampen down noise complaints that can come into play such as "no early turns on departure." At KLAX for departures on the 20s, you're supposed to fly straight and pass the coastline before you begin a turn. Something like that could easily be factored in with a ruleset as well.
And yes there are many other factors that could be used to create even more realistic noise abatement rulesets Some airports have different rules for "classes" of aircraft. For example, do you prefer to fly your jobs in an older "Class II" airliner? You might have to limit your operational hours at certain airports more than your friend who likes a more modern "Class III" job would.
Anyway, going back to FS Captain, we could define several generic noise abatement profiles for different types of airports. There could be rural/isolated airports where noise isn't an issue. Then there could be military airports where noise is part of the package. So we'd be targetting small to medium sized "regional" airports as well as "airline-servicing" hubs. These airports could further be divided into "normal" "noise sensitive" and "overnight curfew" airports.
I'd see implementing this in FS Captain as a three-fold option. First, users could simply not use it. Fair enough. (If you want to fly your 75,001 lb private jet in and out of KSJC at any hour of the night, this would be a good thing. ) Second, users could choose to fly with noise abatement in an advisory mode. At the end of a flight you'd be notified of any noise abatement violations, but not receive any penalties - sort of a "training mode." Or users could choose to fly with noise abatement rules active and receive bonuses or penalties.
Here's where we run into a bit of a reality shock though. There's no way that Dutch or I could write out realistic profiles for each and every airport in the world. Or even the US. Or even California. We would have to ship with a good set of generic rules to cover all airports, although I could easily be encouraged to write profiles for several "popular" airports. (As long as I had access to the real rules of course.)
If there were enough interest among the users to collect more real-world profiles, I could be encouraged to write a simple editor application to automate and check the rule syntax. Profiles could then be collected, vetted, and shared with interested users.
I'll stop here and welcome any input. Does this read as something reasonable? Interesting? Boring?? Would everyone be happy with a set of generic rules, or would you want to model realistic conditions at your_favorite_airports?
Regards,
I've tossed around ways to effectively portray noise and the need for pilots to manage their noise within the confines of MSFS and FS Captain because I feel it would present a variable challenge to manage in our flights. And I'd like to share my thoughts and ask for community input.
First off - please note that this is not a prospectus. It's not necessarily a "peek ahead." It's just my own musings - for now.
My first exposure to noise abatement was when taking PPL lessons (in little old Skyhawks), my flight school had us keep copies of printed maps of local airports with areas marked off to avoid penetrating at low altitudes and at certain RPM levels. (Meanwhile, KOAK and KSFO had what seemed to be non-stop airliners coming in on approach just a few thousand feet overhead and to the bay side.) But we were told that if neighbors reported our school's tail numbers repeatedly, it'd be bad for us. So it became important to us to manage our noise levels constantly. We learned the difference between "noise" and "sound" and that both an event's duration as well as its level were just as important to consider.
Some noise levels are measured in long term levels like Day/Night Averages or in Community Noise Levels. But that's not something that FS Captain need consider. For FS Captain it would be a matter of "do you repeatedly make noisy takeoffs and landings which could annoy the general public?" Looking at this factor, the maximum noise level for an event is termed Lmax, whereas the total amount of noise for an event is termed either your Sound Exposure Level or your Single Event Noise Exposure Level. For our purposes, SEL and SENEL would be similar. {glyph of geek eye roll}
In FS Captain, noise generation could be considered a combination of your a/c size - its number and types of engines - how much thrust they product - your speed and altitude. To do this with a future version of FS Captain is achievable I feel. As a first step we'd need an effective way to model "generated aircraft noise" on takeoff and approach. If that could be accomplished for any given aircraft (using size, # of engines, thrust rating, rpm) then it's a matter of calculating how much noise is generated on any given flight at a certain altitude. Bingo, there's a rough model for your SEL / SENEL.
As for whether it's possible for the FCOM to say "we're above a congested area / desert / forest / nothing-but-water" at any given point may or may not be the most effective method to decide if any "generated aircraft noise" would be an issue or not. Lately I've been leaning towards a model that I feel could be both simple and complex, but which could use a lot of user/community input.
I have friends who fly KSMO - Santa Monica - a lot so I'm pretty familiar with things there, having had a few hundred dollar burgers myself.
There's a single strip - 3 / 21 - nearly 5000ft long that's in a heavily residential area with pretty simple noise restrictions 24/7 - a threshold of 95db SENEL before angry letters are generated. (I'm kidding, I like Santa Monica.) A generic airliner landing can generate over 100db at 1000ft, so while it would be possible to operate a 737 on a runway the same size as the one at KSMO... airliner operations just aren't happening there. Not only that, but KSMO also has takeoff and engine start restrictions from 2300-0700 weekdays and until 0800 on weekends. (Emergencies excepted, of course.) So in our little community noise abatement profile database, we'd note something like this:
KSMO SENEL=95,1500,1234567,0000,0000,TAKEOFF_LANDING,ALL_RUNWAYS,N|E|S|W
KSMO NOSTARTS=12345,2300,0700,ALL_RUNWAYS,ALL_CLASSES,LIFEGUARD_OK|WEATHER_NO|DELAY_NO
KSMO NOSTARTS=67,2300,0800,ALL_RUNWAYS,ALL_CLASSES,LIFEGUARD_OK|WEATHER_NO|DELAY_NO
KSMO STRICTNESS=100
There. Simply starting your engine on a non-mercy flight during those hours and risk a big FS Captain penalty. Have an event that generates over 95db (and there's 0 chance it would be overlooked) and you'll be docked points by Dutch.
Move down the coast a few miles and you have KLAX. Quite a different story! I'll just summarize the difference by noting LAX has 24/7 operations with four parallel runways... but from 0000 to 0630 takeoffs and landings generally occur simultaneously over the Pacific. Unless ATC directs east bound departures because of winds.
And there are other factors to dampen down noise complaints that can come into play such as "no early turns on departure." At KLAX for departures on the 20s, you're supposed to fly straight and pass the coastline before you begin a turn. Something like that could easily be factored in with a ruleset as well.
And yes there are many other factors that could be used to create even more realistic noise abatement rulesets Some airports have different rules for "classes" of aircraft. For example, do you prefer to fly your jobs in an older "Class II" airliner? You might have to limit your operational hours at certain airports more than your friend who likes a more modern "Class III" job would.
Anyway, going back to FS Captain, we could define several generic noise abatement profiles for different types of airports. There could be rural/isolated airports where noise isn't an issue. Then there could be military airports where noise is part of the package. So we'd be targetting small to medium sized "regional" airports as well as "airline-servicing" hubs. These airports could further be divided into "normal" "noise sensitive" and "overnight curfew" airports.
I'd see implementing this in FS Captain as a three-fold option. First, users could simply not use it. Fair enough. (If you want to fly your 75,001 lb private jet in and out of KSJC at any hour of the night, this would be a good thing.
) Second, users could choose to fly with noise abatement in an advisory mode. At the end of a flight you'd be notified of any noise abatement violations, but not receive any penalties - sort of a "training mode." Or users could choose to fly with noise abatement rules active and receive bonuses or penalties.Here's where we run into a bit of a reality shock though. There's no way that Dutch or I could write out realistic profiles for each and every airport in the world. Or even the US. Or even California. We would have to ship with a good set of generic rules to cover all airports, although I could easily be encouraged to write profiles for several "popular" airports. (As long as I had access to the real rules of course.)
If there were enough interest among the users to collect more real-world profiles, I could be encouraged to write a simple editor application to automate and check the rule syntax. Profiles could then be collected, vetted, and shared with interested users.
I'll stop here and welcome any input. Does this read as something reasonable? Interesting? Boring?? Would everyone be happy with a set of generic rules, or would you want to model realistic conditions at your_favorite_airports?
Regards,
in my take on noise rules, but after looking at the AIP for EGLC, I see nothing that would be difficult to implement.
).