Why NAPD not allowed at pilot discretion?

[pineteam]

Hello everyone,

Just out of curiosity, in our company FOM, it's written:" Noise abatement procedures shall not be implemented except where a need for such procedures has been determined. ( See ICAO Annex 16, Volume I, Part V.)"

I did not know that until recently and I don't really understand why couldn't we. Lots of folks like to insert a NADP1 especially in China where it's usually high workload shortly after airborne in some airports.

Thank you.

[rudestuff]

Noise abatement costs money?

[pineteam]

It’s an ICAO restriction not company restriction. I doubt ICAO is concerned about money saving?

[172_driver]

Unless the Airport Information pages speak specifically about noise abatement our normal procedure is at 800 ft (or OEI acc height if higher) we accelerate towards 250 kts or even ECON speed if cleared by ATC. Keeping birds in mind. Cleaning up on schedule. The most efficient way we can do things.

[pineteam]

In our company it’s 1500 AAL by default for both reduction and acceleration. But sometimes we insert acceleration at 3000 feet AAL for safety reasons. But according to ICAO, we shall not do that. But I don’t undestand why.

[172_driver]

I wouldn't put too my emphasis on ICAO docs. in this case. Compare old Annex 6(?) - Operating regulations - with a modern one let's say Part 121 or EASA Air-OPS. ICAO was a framework, but not much content is the same anymore. Things change and ultimately your CAA approves your Operations Manual.

[BizJetJock]

If you're an EASA operator, then all departures anywhere in the world are required to be Noise Abatement departures - see CAT.OP.MPA.130 and associated AMC. So there is no discretion not to!

[pineteam]

Any departure?? Oh wow ok. I operate in Asia and doing NADP does not make any sense in a lot of airports which are far from populated areas.

[BizJetJock]

I think the basic idea is that if you are always doing them then they are easy, so questions of it being a high workload departure are irrelevant. You fly the same profile as every other departure.

[172_driver]

If you're an EASA operator, then all departures anywhere in the world are required to be Noise Abatement departures - see CAT.OP.MPA.130 and associated AMC. So there is no discretion not to!

I see what the AMC is saying, but I also think it's a matter of semantics. The way I look at it; if the airport notes don't specifically say that I should use NADP1 I assume there are no close in noise sensitive areas. In that case I do a NADP2 which also happens to be more efficient than flying with flaps/slats out. There is no way of defining what "distant noise abatement objectives" are. These days RNAV routes are good at laterally avoiding what needs to be avoided.

[Intruder]

What airplane and T/O configuration? Where are you flying?

For the past 20 years I was flying 747s, either NADP1 or NADP2 was used on every takeoff. Since NADP2 has little effect on performance, I cannot figure out why your airline would tell you not to use any NADP procedure. Where does their procedure come from, and why is it used in lieu of NADP?

[pineteam]

Hi Intruder,
We use Config 1 for A319 and 320 and Config 2 for A321. We operate mostly in China and also Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand.
The restriction I quoted earlier is apparently an extract from ICAO document. I did not check the ICAO document myself. Maybe a mistake in our manual? And I don't understand why it's like that, thus my question. To be honest I do not respect that as I believe it's non sense and it reduces safety in some circumstances.

[FlyingStone]

Your OM provides a quote from ICAO Doc 8168 and is correct, however there is a paragraph before that says:

1.1 Nothing in these procedures shall prevent the pilot-in-command from exercising authority for the safe
operation of the aeroplane.

So, there is nothing stopping you from operating the aircraft in a different manner, if you deem it is safer.

If you're an EASA operator, then all departures anywhere in the world are required to be Noise Abatement departures - see CAT.OP.MPA.130 and associated AMC. So there is no discretion not to!

AMC is not legally binding, it merely provides a way to implement legislation in the Operations Manual. There is nothing (bar an authority with lack of any common sense) stopping you from implementing something different than what AMC says.

[BizJetJock]

bar an authority with lack of any common sense
I think that rules out every EASA NAA...

[Icelanta]

You as PIC have ALWAYS the last word on how to fly your aircraft. If you deem safer to implement NADP1 or 2 , then by all means do so. often, it is better to accelerate at 3000’ due workload, closeby terrain, turns away from route etc... you have brains to mold the regulations into proper Airmanship. That is why you are paid. NOT to follow blindly what is written somewhere obscure, often contradicted in another document.

[pineteam]

Thank you guys for your comments.
Icelenta, I’m with you 100%. I tried to use my common sense and good airmanship to make the flight efficient and safe and I’m not too rigid about the books. = )

[Intruder]

Indeed, the PIC has discretion to "exercis[e] authority for the safe
operation of the aeroplane." However, when you do so, have a good reason and rationale to do so when it goes against any published SOP.

Personally, I shudder when I read or hear "I’m not too rigid about the books", especially when that person shows he doesn't understand them in the first place...

[pineteam]

Hi Intruder,

Yes of course, Like I said, I’m a company guy and I try my best to be a professionnal. Maybe “not too rigid about the books” was not the correct wording. What I mean to say is that sometimes our FOM and SOPM don’t match. In that particular case, our FOM is missleading. If you comply blindy to that paragrah about noise abatement, then you shall not do NADP departure. Our SOPM has no restriction for NADP. That’s why I said I’m not too rigid about it. Especially when some instructors teach you to do things which are against it.
I would only apply minor violations from SOP for a good reason. Not trying to be a cowboy. = )

[Intruder]

Generally, the APM/FHB/SOPM (airplane specific) overrides the FOM (NOT airplane specific) if there is a conflict.

If there is a conflict or bad wording, approach your Standards department for a clarification. Best done with a specific change proposal in hand, so they can tell you why they cannot implement it, and why it reads as it does.

[172_driver]

Generally, the APM/FHB/SOPM (airplane specific) overrides the FOM (NOT airplane specific) if there is a conflict.

Ironically, I have no clue what those abbreviations stand for... except possibly SOP Manual?

Anyway, our publication hierarchy has OM-A at the top. Is that what you call FOM? Unfortunately the least userfriendly and thickest ass protector (except these days they all fit in the Ipad) of them all.

I stand by my opinion that airport notes should clarify what they want you to do. If close in noise is more important then zoom up to 3000 without an acceleration segment. If not, then clean up at your company's minimum flap retraction altitude or fly the departure as efficiently as you possibly think you can do it.

[Intruder]

AirPlane Manual/Flight HandBook/Standard Operating Procedures Manual
Flight Operations Manual

Names are changed at random, depending on year, country, and airline.