Yes; in theory you do – see here. It is an airspace requirement.
However, and we have multiple threads here – search for “journey log” – it isn’t clear whether the intention was to carry it only for international flights, or domestic as well.
And as with 34.567% of EU regs it isn’t clear whether any national CAA (or which national CAA) even understands them, let alone is interested in implementing them 
The problem is that nobody knows which 34.567% this is… Most people can’t even find the latest version of any EU reg because they are in so many places.
“You also need a journey log, which is a book where you log all flights for a particular aircraft.”
- are you sure one is needed in Europe for an N-reg aircraft?
what_next wrote:
It is not. Period!
It is, period!!
If the problem is airplanes buzzing around the pattern from a flying school all day long than it would be wise to have quieter club planes yes. That can be accomplished without this nonsensical noise certificate for small GA airplanes. The whole problem stemmed from airlines who are filling up the skies in ever increasing numbers with their Stage 3 and 4 engines. So technology came to the rescue because manufactures realized that if they were going to fill Europe with a 10 fold increase in flights they would have to limit the noise around those major hubs. Of course as in everything political a blanket approach were introduced. The sledgehammer to kill the fly approach.
We are big brother, we have the power and you better listen and fall in line.
Oh Achim I do care, that is why I propose a more personal approach. Giving any resident that complains about noise foam ear plugs. Supplied of course by a very concerned govt., free of charge, which means no VAT. This way they can use it when the neighbor cuts his grass or trims their bushes or when a hot headed Testosterone filled youth goes through the neighborhood with either their car radios blasting or their motorcycle tuned for max noise Harley style. See a multi purpose use approach. Perhaps we can have Angela endorse it and present this new approach to the EU.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Its nonsense period.
It is not. Period! Let’s see how stupid this discussion can get?
C210_Flyer wrote:
Am I going to sell my plane only to have a motor glider with no comparable utility?
You are missing a point here. There are different allowed noise levels for different categories of aircraft. The noise certificate states how far your individual aeroplane stays away from that limit of it’s category . A loud motorglider (they exist!) may pay a higher landing fee than a quiet piston twin. The further a plane stays away from the allowed noise limit, the more discount you will be given for the landing fee. This is supposed to be an incentive to get a quieter prop fixed when yours is due for overhaul anyway. It has worked very well so far in as much as aircraft are concerned which do a lot of landings, e.g. flying school or club aircraft or glider tugs.
C210_Flyer wrote:
All these exclusionary rules dependent on monetary penalties only …
No, unortuntely not. The ultimate penalty is airfield closure or severe reduction in opening hours or movements. This is happening all the time. Granting a discount to quiet aeroplanes is one of the few measures an airfield situated in a noise sensitive environment (as are 90 percent of them in central Europe) has got to avoid more drastic measures.
Eugene, you miss the point here. The noise dependent landing fees are not to make money (no airfield here makes money), it is to demonstrate to the public that the airport encourages silent aircraft. The airport has to regularly present a plan and measures how it addresses the neighbors’ desire to enjoy a calm day.
The higher fee is just one thing — many airfields in Germany/Switzerland ban aircraft from landing on Sundays and during lunch breaks unless they fall into the best noise category, demonstrated by the worldwide ICAO standard “noise certificate”. It’s a political thing and given your frequent rants about politics, I think you are familiar with the concept of “something has to be done about it” (no matter what “something” is)…
Just because you do not care about noise does not mean that the majority of the population doesn’t care either.
NB: The USA are an ICAO member and therefore N-reg certified aircraft have noise certificates.
Its nonsense period. Its all about money. Just how does the noise certificate (other than costing me money) change the behavior of the pilot? Are you not going to fly because a SE prop makes noise? The fact that you are flying a 79 DB airplane as opposed to a 78 DB one will cost an additional 5 Euro will that stop you from using the airport? Does that 1 DB make a difference on the ground? Am I going to sell my plane only to have a motor glider with no comparable utility?
Off course if the fees are high enough you wont land at all ,as in the case of airport Handling Charges.
All these exclusionary rules dependent on monetary penalties only enforce the fact that it divides the population into classes of wealthy and less than wealthy causing more and more jealousy of ones neighbor and internal discord. Yeah look at the rich bastard playing over my head let me call the complaint hotline.
Instead the question should be raised what moron would build a house at the end of a runway when the airport was there first. And if it is so then dont complain. No need to bring that topic up its just infuriating.
The only noise related issue I’ve confronted flying into urban, suburban and rural areas in the US is measurements at one or two airports that I’m told generate a nasty letter if you exceed whatever limit they’ve laid down. I’ve never received such a letter, but I’ve heard of it happening. Otherwise I’m based at an airport with roughly 600 daily movements of piston and jet aircraft, conducted entirely over houses and businesses. There is a group that fusses about noise as a hobby, and that once resulted in the pattern altitude going up 200 feet, (now reversed) but the group has had no other measurable effect in decades.
Nobody here flying their own piston-engined plane would know what a ‘noise certificate’ means, and most people in the area seem to like the idea of having an airport nearby with some cool privately owned planes coming and going – I’m thinking of for instance the Yak formations etc peeling off overhead that make a fair bit of noise.
C210_Flyer wrote:
…because we dont have such nonsense in the US…
Achim was quicker, but just for completeness, noise abatement is just as much an issue in the “no-nonsense US” then elsewhere. Only that in the US the tables published by the aircraft manufacturers are taken as basis for the noise figures (see here: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22942) as opposed to actual measurements like e.g. in Germany. As a matter of fact, the actual measurements are usually “better” than the numbers supplied by the manufacturer, especially if noise reduction measures (like different propellers or exhausts) have been applied to the aircraft.
And additionally, but slightly off topic, I would like to draw the attention once again to Concorde which was “killed” by US noise regulations – arbitrarily invented on purpose to protect their domestic aircraft manufacturers.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Make one up like all N reg owners have to do because we dont have such nonsense in the US.
A noise certificate is not nonsense but an ICAO standard. The self-declared N-reg noise certificates are not fabricated but it is your authority under FARs to fill out the standard form yourself with correct data.
Airport noise is a hot topic in the US, too — in the densely populated urban areas. Airports in Germany and other countries charge based on the noise certificate as a response to noise complaints. This way they demonstrate to the concerned public that they actively discourage loud aircraft. Whether a given aircraft is loud or not is not the question, it is mainly a political thing. Personal freedom ends where it limits other people’s personal freedom. As aviators we should respect the desire of others to not have to endure aircraft noise.
I used to have my office in Santa Clara, California. The noise from the departing MD-11 cargo airplanes was deafening and the reason I left it for another office. You will not find MD-11 airplanes over here because the airport fees are extremely high. Same for Tupolev passenger airplanes, it’s all about the noise. As an example, the noise surcharge at airport Stuttgart with the highest for Tupolev.
