Study Group Meetings

NCSG MEETING #4

Preliminary Meeting Notes
(Reviewed by the Chair—Pending Study Group Approval)

Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000

Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Kentucky

Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group (the Study Group) meeting:

J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Sam R. Rechter, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Robert Brown, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Rande Swann, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Kentucky Air National Guard, Study Group Chair
Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates
Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates
Dan Bevarly, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications
Pamela Schott, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications

DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—PRE-MEETING BRIEFING

The pre-briefing to the Study Group meeting was delivered by Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA). Mr. Crawford discussed the goals and objectives of this Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (the Study); and explained the study organization, process, and role of the Study Group and Study Group committees.

Discussion Synopsis—Study Group Meeting #4

The meeting was called to order by Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Study Group Chair, at 7:00 p.m. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved. Another motion was called for approval of notes from Study Group Meeting #3A with proposed changes included in the meeting handout. This motion was accepted, and the notes were approved with the changes. Lt. Col. Marks then called for all committee chairs to schedule meetings in the weeks prior to the next Study Group meeting to prepare recommendations on Study Group feedback to the consultant team.

Lt. Col. Marks then introduced Mr. Bill Willkie and Mr. Eric Bernhardt of Leigh Fisher Associates. Mr. Bernhardt began the consultant presentation by stating that the evening’s discussion would focus on the evaluation of Study Group-recommended noise abatement measures. Mr. Bernhardt explained that the consultant team evaluated each measure and compiled three recommended noise abatement strategies for further consideration. However, Mr. Bernhardt stated that no noise abatement measures were recommended or approved as final at this point.

Mr. Bernhardt then provided a brief review of the project schedule. He stated that the consultant team recently completed the operational database and is currently compiling potential land use and noise mitigation measures. The information in the operational database was included in Interim Report #2. Copies will be distributed to committee chairs with Project Workbooks, which are also available at each Project Information Center. Mr. Bernhardt proposed that the next consultant presentation Study Group Meeting be held in April 2000. At this meeting the consultant team will present the potential impact of each noise abatement strategy, recommended noise mitigation measures, and recommended alternatives.

Mr. Bernhardt then provided a summary of noise complaints received through the Project Website, Project Information Line, and at the Project Information Centers. A summary of all complaints and comments has been compiled in the GIS database, and was provided in the meeting handout. Based on the information received, Mr. Bernhardt pointed out that the greatest areas of concern were nighttime noise, compliance with flight tracks, and the overall volume of aircraft overflights. Mr. Bernhardt informed the group that such feedback has provided the consultant team with an indication of aircraft noise issues and potential solutions.

Mr. Bernhardt then presented revised Base Case 1998 and 2005 noise contours. He explained that data compiled during the noise monitoring program (conducted in June 1999) indicated differences in INM-predicted and actual noise levels south of the Airport. In addition, information obtained from the analysis of ARTS data dem-onstrated that certain air cargo aircraft operate at lower altitudes when departing from Louisville than assumed in the INM. Based on this information, the consultant team generated revised Base Case contours by re-running the FAA’s INM using dif-ferent departure profiles for certain aircraft types. In comparing the revised data, Mr. Bernhardt stated that the INM-predicted noise levels more closely matched the monitored noise levels. He went on to explain that single-event noise levels obtained from the monitoring data at 10 of the 20 sites correlated well with the single-event data generated in the INM. Mr. Bernhardt stated that detailed single-event information was provided in the meeting handout.

At this point, Lt. Col. Tom Marks invited questions from the Study Group.

• One Study Group member stated that the 1998 contour map represented noise generated from FAR Part 36 stage 2 aircraft, and asked whether it would be possible to use stage 3 aircraft in the 2005 contour map. Mr. Willkie responded that the 2005 aircraft fleet mix included all stage 3 aircraft.

• One Study Group member asked if the changes to the Base Case contour maps impact the data used for the 2005 contour map. Mr. Willkie confirmed that the 2005 contour map has already been modified based on the revised data.

• One Study Group member commented that it was difficult to understand which runways were being discussed when presented using L (left) and R (right) designations, and asked if the consultant team could specify runway orientation according to east or west. Mr. Willkie stated that he would use east/west designations during the presentation.

• One Study Group member asked if the DNL 65 was the standard for measuring intolerable noise disturbances, and noted that some monitored single-events were above 65 dB. Mr. Willkie stated that the DNL 65 is the average level used by the FAA to define significant noise levels, and added that this metric is representative of cumulative noise levels, not single event disturbances.

• One Study Group member wanted to know how often single-events occur above 65 dB. Mr. Willkie replied that this depended on location in relation to the Airport, and reminded Study Group members that the INM creates noise contours using multiple flight tracks to and from each runway.

• Referring to data provided by the consultant team, one Study Group member pointed out that UPS is responsible for 32% of all aircraft operations and generated the majority of the loudest noise events. Mr. Willkie stated that the number of loudest events is proportional to the volume of activity. Another Study Group member observed that it seems as though UPS represents more than 32% of all aircraft operations, and questioned the accuracy of the data. Mr. Willkie confirmed that the data on UPS and all other aircraft activity was accurate.

• One Study Group member wanted to know what percentage of total operations occurred during the night, since nighttime noise is the most offensive. Mr. Willkie stated that nighttime aircraft noise may seem louder than daytime aircraft noise, but not all single-event noise is generated during the night.

• One Study Group member wanted to know if the INM included Airbus aircraft. Mr. Willkie stated that Airbus operations were not included in the existing 1998 or future 2005 fleet mix.

• One Study Group member asked what could be done about aircraft that "scream" overhead. Mr. Willkie replied that older aircraft engines may account for this type of noise. He added that many older B-727 aircraft are hush-kitted to meet stage 3 noise levels, and these aircraft are still louder than the newer stage 3 aircraft.

• One Study Group member wanted to know if there were any cockpit noise abatement measures that can be implemented to reduce noise. Mr. Willkie replied that such measures are possible, and that this Study will explore such alternatives.

Mr. Willkie then proceeded to summarize the screening of noise abatement meas-ures. In his discussion, Mr. Willkie provided a summary of each Study Group-recommended measure, as well as the basis for recommending each measure be retained or eliminated from further consideration. (A matrix summarizing the screening process was provided in the meeting handout and is available on the Project Website and at the Project Information Centers). Following, Mr. Willkie proposed three noise abatement strategies that combined the recommended measures into logical combinations.

Following this portion of the presentation, Lt. Col. Marks opened the floor for questions.

• One Study Group member offered a point of clarification, stating that one committee recommended different sound absorption measures than what the consultant team assessed. Mr. Willkie stated that sound absorption measures would be assessed in upcoming aspects of the Study.

• One Study Group member pointed out that her committee recommended several measures, but only two were addressed by the consultant team. This member also asked for clarification as to why routing all aircraft arrivals onto ILS approaches was not recommended. Mr. Willkie replied that such a measure would (1) increase user delays since it requires all aircraft to be routed to increased distances from the Airport, and decrease air traffic control flexibility. However, Mr. Willkie added that since the primary intent of such a measure is to route approaching aircraft onto a straight line into the Airport, this can be achieved with other recommended measures.

• One Study Group member stated that by not changing flight corridors and flight patterns, nothing recommended by the consultant team would benefit affected neighborhoods. Mr. Willkie stated that there are a number of recommended measures that attempt to navigate aircraft to desired flight corridors. In addition, the consultant team recommended measures that will decrease random overflights nearby the Airport, change departure profiles, and help achieve consistent flight tracks—all of which effectively reduce noise and provide benefits to Airport neighbors.

• One Study Group member noted that some feasible measures, such as enforced landing fees, were also not recommended. Mr. Willkie stated that enforced landing fees were assessed, but were not determined to be feasible since such a measure discourages use of the Airport and adversely affects interstate commerce. He added, however, that any measure not recommended by the consultant team can still be recommended by the Study Group.

• One Study Group member stated that all consultant team recommendations are based on money.

• One Study Group member stated that the Kentucky Air National Guard (KYANG) aircraft warmed up their aircraft’s engines for eight minutes one evening. This members asked if turboprop engines required longer run-ups, and if such long run-ups were excessive. Lt. Col. Marks replied that run-up periods vary depending on weather conditions, and stated that an average run-up lasts about five minutes. This same Study Group member noted that noise near his residence has recently increased due to run ups. Lt. Col. Marks replied that recent noise monitoring conducted by the KYANG in neighboring areas confirmed that most noise was generated from Interstate 65. This member restated that the noise from the KYANG seemed excessive, and pointed out that aircraft run-ups were a reason to recommend hush houses. Lt. Col. Marks agreed, and added that moving the run-up location towards the center of the airfield may also reduce noise.

• One Study Group participant claimed that Mr. Willkie seemed to "sugar coat" the recommendations in his presentation, and appeared to be skirting the real issues. This member also inquired why so many recommendations were "voluntary." Mr. Willkie replied that all recommendations pertaining to flight procedures would have to be voluntary since adherence to such measures are up to the individual pilot’s discretion.

• One Study Group member wanted to know how far out inbound flight patterns are effective. Mr. Willkie replied that, depending on air traffic, aircraft may enter an arrival flight pattern from three to 20 miles away from the Airport.

At this point, Mr. Willkie proceeded with his presentation. Mr. Willkie presented a range of potential remedial, compensatory, and preventive noise mitigation meas-ures recommended for Study Group consideration. Mr. Willkie summarized each measure and discussed the pros and cons of each measure in regard to potential screening criteria. The list of all measures presented and screening criteria was included in the meeting handout.

Lt. Col. Marks thanked Mr. Willkie for his presentation and opened the floor for questions.

• One Study Group member stated that the consultant team was "blowing smoke," and wanted to know when something will actually be done. This member stated that UPS is the main problem, and stated they should act as a better neighbor. This person also stated that the consultant team is not doing anything, and wanted to know who will actually tell UPS to limit nighttime operations. Mr. Willkie replied that such a measure would have to be approved by the FAA.

• One Study Group member stated that the RAA should be responsible for the noise since they obtain the fees charged to UPS for landing at the Airport. Mr. Willkie stated that the consultant team has provided recom-mendations on feasible measures for further study, including changing runway use. It is the work of the Study Group to evaluate these recommen-dations as part of Study process. All measures that come out of the Study Group, he stated, will be individually approved or rejected by the FAA. If they are not approved, he added, the Study Group may exercise legal recourse.

• One Study Group member proposed that the group participate in a class action lawsuit.

• One Study Group member stated that it was a good idea that aircraft not diverge 15 degrees when departing from Runway 17R, and asked if it was possible to retain this measure, which was not included in the recommenda-tions. Mr. Willkie reminded the Group that any measure not recommended by the consultant team could be considered for further study if recommended by the Study Group.

• One Study Group member stated that Contraflow recommendations should be reconsidered. In addition, this participant suggested moving UPS to Bullit County, and stated that the Airport should not consider using the west runway. This member also wanted to know which airplanes were responsible for the "screaming" noise, and stating that the Study Group has never gotten a straight answer to this question. Finally, this member asked that all aircraft be required to take vehicle emissions tests.

• One Study Group member wanted to know about what she perceived to be pollution on her roof and the siding on her house. She stated that she is ready for a class-action lawsuit.

• Lt. Col. Marks reminded the entire Group about the nature and purpose of the committees, stating that those who were not involved with a committee were not fully participating in the process. He also said that no final deci-sions had been made, and that the Study Group committees were playing a large part in the decision-making process.

• One Study Group member asked if any measures were recommended that may cause UPS to lose money, and would such measures have to be justified to the FAA. Mr. Willkie replied that any noise reduction recommendation has to provide a measurable benefit, financial and otherwise.

• One Study Group member stated that it appears as though the FAA protects an air carriers rights to make money over the community’s right to sleep. Mr. Willkie reaffirmed that all costs associated with proposed measures will be considered by the FAA, especially those that affect Airport access.

• One Study Group member asked if aircraft dump fuel when landing. Mr. Willkie replied that fuel dumping occurs only in emergency situations, generally away from urban areas, and is not a routine procedure due to fuel costs.

• One Study Group member stated that he has observed aircraft flying directly over his house with mist coming off the wings, and wanted to know why the mist was permissible. Mr. Willkie explained that the mist was condensation.

At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Willkie asked each committee to develop input for the Study Group to decide which measures should undergo detailed evaluation.

Lt. Col. Marks then moved the meeting to committee reports.

Mr. Denny Rued, co-chair of the Noise Monitoring Committee, stated that the committee recently met with members of the consultant team. Mr. Rued reported that the committee’s noise monitoring questions were answered satisfactorily. Mr. Willkie added that members of the consultant team would be available after the meeting to address additional Study Group questions or concerns.

There were no further committee reports.

Lt. Col. Marks then opened the floor one last time for questions and comments.

• One Study Group member asked if the construction of berms and other noise barriers were voluntary measures. Mr. Willkie replied that if the construction of a berm was a Study Group recommendation and approved by the FAA, the Airport would be eligible to receive federal funds for construction.

• One Study Group member observed that the RAA should have implemented some type of sound barrier system before aircraft began using the Airport.

• One Study Group member asked if committee members would be provided with a color copy of the consultant team’s presentation. Mr. Willkie replied that a copy of the presentation would be available on the Project Website.

• One Study Group member inquired as to the role of the Strategic Planning Committee. Lt. Col. Marks stated that this committee’s role was to consider long-range policy issues, such as future land use.

• One Study Group member asked if the consultant team has worked with other communities on similar projects, and wanted to know if this Study was different in any way. This member also questioned whether the consultant team should guide the community, or recommend what should be done. Mr. Willkie replied that the Study Group committees are doing a very good job in identifying workable solutions. Although the consultant team brings expertise to the process, he said, there is no "right" way of solving the community’s issues. Another Study Group member stated that all responsibility seems to be falling on the community members. Mr. Willkie replied that the consultant team’s goal is to provide the Study Group with supporting analysis, and that it is best for the consultant team to continue to provide suggestions based on experience, gather input from the committees, and examine the feasibility of potential ideas.

• One Study Group member added that the Study was far from over, and urged all in attendance to continue with the process.

Lt. Col. Marks then announced that Study Group Meeting, #4A is tentatively scheduled for February 3, 2000.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.


				STUDY GROUP Meeting Notes
BACK to Meetings Notes				NCSG MEETING #4 Preliminary Meeting Notes (Reviewed by the Chair—Pending Study Group Approval) Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Kentucky Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group (the Study Group) meeting: J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Sam R. Rechter, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Robert Brown, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Rande Swann, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Kentucky Air National Guard, Study Group Chair Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates Dan Bevarly, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications Pamela Schott, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—PRE-MEETING BRIEFING The pre-briefing to the Study Group meeting was delivered by Dorn Crawford, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA). Mr. Crawford discussed the goals and objectives of this Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (the Study); and explained the study organization, process, and role of the Study Group and Study Group committees. Discussion Synopsis—Study Group Meeting #4 The meeting was called to order by Lt. Col. Tom Marks, Study Group Chair, at 7:00 p.m. A motion to adopt the meeting agenda was approved. Another motion was called for approval of notes from Study Group Meeting #3A with proposed changes included in the meeting handout. This motion was accepted, and the notes were approved with the changes. Lt. Col. Marks then called for all committee chairs to schedule meetings in the weeks prior to the next Study Group meeting to prepare recommendations on Study Group feedback to the consultant team. Lt. Col. Marks then introduced Mr. Bill Willkie and Mr. Eric Bernhardt of Leigh Fisher Associates. Mr. Bernhardt began the consultant presentation by stating that the evening’s discussion would focus on the evaluation of Study Group-recommended noise abatement measures. Mr. Bernhardt explained that the consultant team evaluated each measure and compiled three recommended noise abatement strategies for further consideration. However, Mr. Bernhardt stated that no noise abatement measures were recommended or approved as final at this point. Mr. Bernhardt then provided a brief review of the project schedule. He stated that the consultant team recently completed the operational database and is currently compiling potential land use and noise mitigation measures. The information in the operational database was included in Interim Report #2. Copies will be distributed to committee chairs with Project Workbooks, which are also available at each Project Information Center. Mr. Bernhardt proposed that the next consultant presentation Study Group Meeting be held in April 2000. At this meeting the consultant team will present the potential impact of each noise abatement strategy, recommended noise mitigation measures, and recommended alternatives. Mr. Bernhardt then provided a summary of noise complaints received through the Project Website, Project Information Line, and at the Project Information Centers. A summary of all complaints and comments has been compiled in the GIS database, and was provided in the meeting handout. Based on the information received, Mr. Bernhardt pointed out that the greatest areas of concern were nighttime noise, compliance with flight tracks, and the overall volume of aircraft overflights. Mr. Bernhardt informed the group that such feedback has provided the consultant team with an indication of aircraft noise issues and potential solutions. Mr. Bernhardt then presented revised Base Case 1998 and 2005 noise contours. He explained that data compiled during the noise monitoring program (conducted in June 1999) indicated differences in INM-predicted and actual noise levels south of the Airport. In addition, information obtained from the analysis of ARTS data dem-onstrated that certain air cargo aircraft operate at lower altitudes when departing from Louisville than assumed in the INM. Based on this information, the consultant team generated revised Base Case contours by re-running the FAA’s INM using dif-ferent departure profiles for certain aircraft types. In comparing the revised data, Mr. Bernhardt stated that the INM-predicted noise levels more closely matched the monitored noise levels. He went on to explain that single-event noise levels obtained from the monitoring data at 10 of the 20 sites correlated well with the single-event data generated in the INM. Mr. Bernhardt stated that detailed single-event information was provided in the meeting handout. At this point, Lt. Col. Tom Marks invited questions from the Study Group. • One Study Group member stated that the 1998 contour map represented noise generated from FAR Part 36 stage 2 aircraft, and asked whether it would be possible to use stage 3 aircraft in the 2005 contour map. Mr. Willkie responded that the 2005 aircraft fleet mix included all stage 3 aircraft. • One Study Group member asked if the changes to the Base Case contour maps impact the data used for the 2005 contour map. Mr. Willkie confirmed that the 2005 contour map has already been modified based on the revised data. • One Study Group member commented that it was difficult to understand which runways were being discussed when presented using L (left) and R (right) designations, and asked if the consultant team could specify runway orientation according to east or west. Mr. Willkie stated that he would use east/west designations during the presentation. • One Study Group member asked if the DNL 65 was the standard for measuring intolerable noise disturbances, and noted that some monitored single-events were above 65 dB. Mr. Willkie stated that the DNL 65 is the average level used by the FAA to define significant noise levels, and added that this metric is representative of cumulative noise levels, not single event disturbances. • One Study Group member wanted to know how often single-events occur above 65 dB. Mr. Willkie replied that this depended on location in relation to the Airport, and reminded Study Group members that the INM creates noise contours using multiple flight tracks to and from each runway. • Referring to data provided by the consultant team, one Study Group member pointed out that UPS is responsible for 32% of all aircraft operations and generated the majority of the loudest noise events. Mr. Willkie stated that the number of loudest events is proportional to the volume of activity. Another Study Group member observed that it seems as though UPS represents more than 32% of all aircraft operations, and questioned the accuracy of the data. Mr. Willkie confirmed that the data on UPS and all other aircraft activity was accurate. • One Study Group member wanted to know what percentage of total operations occurred during the night, since nighttime noise is the most offensive. Mr. Willkie stated that nighttime aircraft noise may seem louder than daytime aircraft noise, but not all single-event noise is generated during the night. • One Study Group member wanted to know if the INM included Airbus aircraft. Mr. Willkie stated that Airbus operations were not included in the existing 1998 or future 2005 fleet mix. • One Study Group member asked what could be done about aircraft that "scream" overhead. Mr. Willkie replied that older aircraft engines may account for this type of noise. He added that many older B-727 aircraft are hush-kitted to meet stage 3 noise levels, and these aircraft are still louder than the newer stage 3 aircraft. • One Study Group member wanted to know if there were any cockpit noise abatement measures that can be implemented to reduce noise. Mr. Willkie replied that such measures are possible, and that this Study will explore such alternatives. Mr. Willkie then proceeded to summarize the screening of noise abatement meas-ures. In his discussion, Mr. Willkie provided a summary of each Study Group-recommended measure, as well as the basis for recommending each measure be retained or eliminated from further consideration. (A matrix summarizing the screening process was provided in the meeting handout and is available on the Project Website and at the Project Information Centers). Following, Mr. Willkie proposed three noise abatement strategies that combined the recommended measures into logical combinations. Following this portion of the presentation, Lt. Col. Marks opened the floor for questions. • One Study Group member offered a point of clarification, stating that one committee recommended different sound absorption measures than what the consultant team assessed. Mr. Willkie stated that sound absorption measures would be assessed in upcoming aspects of the Study. • One Study Group member pointed out that her committee recommended several measures, but only two were addressed by the consultant team. This member also asked for clarification as to why routing all aircraft arrivals onto ILS approaches was not recommended. Mr. Willkie replied that such a measure would (1) increase user delays since it requires all aircraft to be routed to increased distances from the Airport, and decrease air traffic control flexibility. However, Mr. Willkie added that since the primary intent of such a measure is to route approaching aircraft onto a straight line into the Airport, this can be achieved with other recommended measures. • One Study Group member stated that by not changing flight corridors and flight patterns, nothing recommended by the consultant team would benefit affected neighborhoods. Mr. Willkie stated that there are a number of recommended measures that attempt to navigate aircraft to desired flight corridors. In addition, the consultant team recommended measures that will decrease random overflights nearby the Airport, change departure profiles, and help achieve consistent flight tracks—all of which effectively reduce noise and provide benefits to Airport neighbors. • One Study Group member noted that some feasible measures, such as enforced landing fees, were also not recommended. Mr. Willkie stated that enforced landing fees were assessed, but were not determined to be feasible since such a measure discourages use of the Airport and adversely affects interstate commerce. He added, however, that any measure not recommended by the consultant team can still be recommended by the Study Group. • One Study Group member stated that all consultant team recommendations are based on money. • One Study Group member stated that the Kentucky Air National Guard (KYANG) aircraft warmed up their aircraft’s engines for eight minutes one evening. This members asked if turboprop engines required longer run-ups, and if such long run-ups were excessive. Lt. Col. Marks replied that run-up periods vary depending on weather conditions, and stated that an average run-up lasts about five minutes. This same Study Group member noted that noise near his residence has recently increased due to run ups. Lt. Col. Marks replied that recent noise monitoring conducted by the KYANG in neighboring areas confirmed that most noise was generated from Interstate 65. This member restated that the noise from the KYANG seemed excessive, and pointed out that aircraft run-ups were a reason to recommend hush houses. Lt. Col. Marks agreed, and added that moving the run-up location towards the center of the airfield may also reduce noise. • One Study Group participant claimed that Mr. Willkie seemed to "sugar coat" the recommendations in his presentation, and appeared to be skirting the real issues. This member also inquired why so many recommendations were "voluntary." Mr. Willkie replied that all recommendations pertaining to flight procedures would have to be voluntary since adherence to such measures are up to the individual pilot’s discretion. • One Study Group member wanted to know how far out inbound flight patterns are effective. Mr. Willkie replied that, depending on air traffic, aircraft may enter an arrival flight pattern from three to 20 miles away from the Airport. At this point, Mr. Willkie proceeded with his presentation. Mr. Willkie presented a range of potential remedial, compensatory, and preventive noise mitigation meas-ures recommended for Study Group consideration. Mr. Willkie summarized each measure and discussed the pros and cons of each measure in regard to potential screening criteria. The list of all measures presented and screening criteria was included in the meeting handout. Lt. Col. Marks thanked Mr. Willkie for his presentation and opened the floor for questions. • One Study Group member stated that the consultant team was "blowing smoke," and wanted to know when something will actually be done. This member stated that UPS is the main problem, and stated they should act as a better neighbor. This person also stated that the consultant team is not doing anything, and wanted to know who will actually tell UPS to limit nighttime operations. Mr. Willkie replied that such a measure would have to be approved by the FAA. • One Study Group member stated that the RAA should be responsible for the noise since they obtain the fees charged to UPS for landing at the Airport. Mr. Willkie stated that the consultant team has provided recom-mendations on feasible measures for further study, including changing runway use. It is the work of the Study Group to evaluate these recommen-dations as part of Study process. All measures that come out of the Study Group, he stated, will be individually approved or rejected by the FAA. If they are not approved, he added, the Study Group may exercise legal recourse. • One Study Group member proposed that the group participate in a class action lawsuit. • One Study Group member stated that it was a good idea that aircraft not diverge 15 degrees when departing from Runway 17R, and asked if it was possible to retain this measure, which was not included in the recommenda-tions. Mr. Willkie reminded the Group that any measure not recommended by the consultant team could be considered for further study if recommended by the Study Group. • One Study Group member stated that Contraflow recommendations should be reconsidered. In addition, this participant suggested moving UPS to Bullit County, and stated that the Airport should not consider using the west runway. This member also wanted to know which airplanes were responsible for the "screaming" noise, and stating that the Study Group has never gotten a straight answer to this question. Finally, this member asked that all aircraft be required to take vehicle emissions tests. • One Study Group member wanted to know about what she perceived to be pollution on her roof and the siding on her house. She stated that she is ready for a class-action lawsuit. • Lt. Col. Marks reminded the entire Group about the nature and purpose of the committees, stating that those who were not involved with a committee were not fully participating in the process. He also said that no final deci-sions had been made, and that the Study Group committees were playing a large part in the decision-making process. • One Study Group member asked if any measures were recommended that may cause UPS to lose money, and would such measures have to be justified to the FAA. Mr. Willkie replied that any noise reduction recommendation has to provide a measurable benefit, financial and otherwise. • One Study Group member stated that it appears as though the FAA protects an air carriers rights to make money over the community’s right to sleep. Mr. Willkie reaffirmed that all costs associated with proposed measures will be considered by the FAA, especially those that affect Airport access. • One Study Group member asked if aircraft dump fuel when landing. Mr. Willkie replied that fuel dumping occurs only in emergency situations, generally away from urban areas, and is not a routine procedure due to fuel costs. • One Study Group member stated that he has observed aircraft flying directly over his house with mist coming off the wings, and wanted to know why the mist was permissible. Mr. Willkie explained that the mist was condensation. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Willkie asked each committee to develop input for the Study Group to decide which measures should undergo detailed evaluation. Lt. Col. Marks then moved the meeting to committee reports. Mr. Denny Rued, co-chair of the Noise Monitoring Committee, stated that the committee recently met with members of the consultant team. Mr. Rued reported that the committee’s noise monitoring questions were answered satisfactorily. Mr. Willkie added that members of the consultant team would be available after the meeting to address additional Study Group questions or concerns. There were no further committee reports. Lt. Col. Marks then opened the floor one last time for questions and comments. • One Study Group member asked if the construction of berms and other noise barriers were voluntary measures. Mr. Willkie replied that if the construction of a berm was a Study Group recommendation and approved by the FAA, the Airport would be eligible to receive federal funds for construction. • One Study Group member observed that the RAA should have implemented some type of sound barrier system before aircraft began using the Airport. • One Study Group member asked if committee members would be provided with a color copy of the consultant team’s presentation. Mr. Willkie replied that a copy of the presentation would be available on the Project Website. • One Study Group member inquired as to the role of the Strategic Planning Committee. Lt. Col. Marks stated that this committee’s role was to consider long-range policy issues, such as future land use. • One Study Group member asked if the consultant team has worked with other communities on similar projects, and wanted to know if this Study was different in any way. This member also questioned whether the consultant team should guide the community, or recommend what should be done. Mr. Willkie replied that the Study Group committees are doing a very good job in identifying workable solutions. Although the consultant team brings expertise to the process, he said, there is no "right" way of solving the community’s issues. Another Study Group member stated that all responsibility seems to be falling on the community members. Mr. Willkie replied that the consultant team’s goal is to provide the Study Group with supporting analysis, and that it is best for the consultant team to continue to provide suggestions based on experience, gather input from the committees, and examine the feasibility of potential ideas. • One Study Group member added that the Study was far from over, and urged all in attendance to continue with the process. Lt. Col. Marks then announced that Study Group Meeting, #4A is tentatively scheduled for February 3, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
				back to top