Narrative:

The B727 departed first, followed by the MD88 with 3 NM separation. I instructed the B727 to increase speed to 250 KTS due to traffic in trail. B727 refused citing county noise abatement procedures. The B727 was instructed to stop climb and turn south. Pilot again refused and stated he would comply with initial clearance to accelerate. MD88 was immediately turned north (which was a violation of noise abatement criteria) to avoid loss of standard separation. In conclusion: this happens every other day here at pbi and I'm sick of it. Either somebody in a position of power does something to eliminate this problem or the controllers will delay the traffic departing to avoid career ending separation errors. This is my 6TH report on this very subject. Callback conversation with noise abatement office revealed the following information: analyst learned from a callback to the airport noise abatement office that there are different procedures for GA and air carrier aircraft operations. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter indicated the procedures utilized are based on company or aircraft specifications regarding climb out and speed adjustments required to honor the noise procedure. Reporter indicated that no action would be taken against the company of an aircraft that was taken off the noise route by ATC in order to ensure separation was maintained with another aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR IMPLIES THERE IS A PROB WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY NOISE ABATEMENT PROC BTWN SUCCESSIVE DEPS WITH MINIMAL 3 MI SEPARATION WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRES THE DEP CTLR TO INTERCEDE TO ENSURE SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED.

Narrative: THE B727 DEPARTED FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THE MD88 WITH 3 NM SEPARATION. I INSTRUCTED THE B727 TO INCREASE SPD TO 250 KTS DUE TO TFC IN TRAIL. B727 REFUSED CITING COUNTY NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS. THE B727 WAS INSTRUCTED TO STOP CLB AND TURN S. PLT AGAIN REFUSED AND STATED HE WOULD COMPLY WITH INITIAL CLRNC TO ACCELERATE. MD88 WAS IMMEDIATELY TURNED N (WHICH WAS A VIOLATION OF NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA) TO AVOID LOSS OF STANDARD SEPARATION. IN CONCLUSION: THIS HAPPENS EVERY OTHER DAY HERE AT PBI AND I'M SICK OF IT. EITHER SOMEBODY IN A POS OF PWR DOES SOMETHING TO ELIMINATE THIS PROB OR THE CTLRS WILL DELAY THE TFC DEPARTING TO AVOID CAREER ENDING SEPARATION ERRORS. THIS IS MY 6TH RPT ON THIS VERY SUBJECT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST LEARNED FROM A CALLBACK TO THE ARPT NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROCS FOR GA AND ACR ACFT OPS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR INDICATED THE PROCS UTILIZED ARE BASED ON COMPANY OR ACFT SPECS REGARDING CLBOUT AND SPD ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO HONOR THE NOISE PROC. RPTR INDICATED THAT NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE COMPANY OF AN ACFT THAT WAS TAKEN OFF THE NOISE RTE BY ATC IN ORDER TO ENSURE SEPARATION WAS MAINTAINED WITH ANOTHER ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.