Study Group Meetings

NCSG MEETING #3

Date: Friday, October 15, 1999

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:

Jim DeLong, 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
Bill Simpson, UPS, Outgoing Study Group Chair
Ron Scott, Louisville Convention and Visitors Bureau, Presiding Study Group Chair
Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates
Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates
Evert Meyer, Leigh Fisher Associates
Dan Bevarly, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications
Pamela Schott, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications
Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications

DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—PRE-MEETING BRIEFING

The pre-briefing to the Study Group meeting was delivered by Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA). Mr. DeLong discussed the goals and objectives of this Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (the Study). He emphasized the importance of the Airport to the Louisville area, and the need for community members to become active in the Study process.

DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—STUDY GROUP MEETING #3

Mr. Ron Scott, Presiding Study Group Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Scott gave a brief overview of the information to be covered by the Leigh Fisher Associates consultant team. Mr. Simpson requested approval and/or changes to the notes for Study Group Meeting 2A, held on September 28, 1999. Ms. Theresa Cusick said that item #9 was left off of the Monitoring Committee prioritization list.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Scott introduced Mr. Bill Willkie of Leigh Fisher Associates, who introduced the other members of the consultant team (see Attendees). Mr. Willkie then presented an overview of the project, current status/project timeline, and new business. Mr. Willkie announced that the next Study Group meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2000 and provided a tentative agenda for the upcoming meeting.

Mr. Willkie provided a breakdown of the current noise complaints logged on the Project Website and on the Project Information Line.

One Study Group member asked if the Project Website could take complaints on-line. Mr. Eric Bernhardt of Leigh Fisher Associates, replied that the site had e-mail capabilities where complaints, comments, questions, and/or suggestions could be submitted. He added that the Project Information Line was also established for this type of input.

One Study Group member asked if it would be possible to get a copy of all noise complaints that have been received. Mr. Bernhardt stated that this information is on the Project Website and in the provided handout.

One Study Group member asked if the majority of noise complaints were logged during nighttime hours. Mr. Bernhardt confirmed that some complaints were logged during nighttime hours, and stated that nighttime noise complaints were identified on the noise complaint summary.

One Study Group member asked who tracked noise complaints received at the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Mr. Bernhardt replied that the RAA is provided with those complaints received by the ATCT. However, he explained that complaints summarized during the meeting were those provided on the Project Website and Project Information Line. (Note: Mr. Bernhardt’s statement was incorrect. The ATCT does not forward noise complaints to the RAA)

One Study Group member wanted to know if information pertaining to the location of the noise monitoring devices was available. Mr. Bernhardt stated that a graphic of the noise monitoring sites was available, and that the results of the noise monitoring program would be provided on the Project Website in the near future.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Bernhardt presented the technical data used to prepare the noise exposure maps. Mr. Bernhardt gave an overview of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) and listed the data that is input into the INM to generate noise exposure contours. These data include: airport elevation, runway layout and annual average runway use, number of aircraft operations, aircraft fleet mix, the time of aircraft operations, and flight tracks.

Mr. Bernhardt presented the forecast of aviation demand prepared for the Study. The forecast were prepared for air cargo, air carrier, commuter, general aviation, and military aircraft. The forecasts project 16% growth in annual aircraft operations between 1998 and 2005, an average increase of 2.2% per year. Of the different categories of aircraft operating at the Airport, the most growth is anticipated to occur in commuter aircraft operations. Mr. Bernhardt then presented a summary of total daytime and nighttime annual average day aircraft operations input into the INM.

Next, Mr. Bernhardt summarized (1) the methodology used to determine annual average runway use, which integrated 4 weeks of ARTS radar data and 10 years of historic weather data, and (2) the assumed runway use for daytime and nighttime arrivals and departures. Following, Mr. Bernhardt presented the generalized flight tracks that were input into the INM and explained that the flight tracks were identified based on the total 4 weeks of ARTS data collected for the study.

Mr. Bernhardt then asked if there were any questions pertaining to the technical data presented.

One Study Group member asked if the current flight tracks could be "tightened". Mr. Bernhardt replied that it is possible to tighten the flight tracks using advanced navigation technology, such as GPS, and that this option would be addressed during the next phase of the Study.

One Study Group member asked why the majority of arrivals and departures were taking place on the eastern runway. Mr. Bernhardt replied that the Airport has an informal runway use program in place that requires the use of the eastern runway during non-peak periods. He explained that the western runway is still used, but as long as there is not excessive demand, the ATCT directs arrivals and departures to use the eastern runway. He reminded Study Group members that alternate runway use programs would be assessed during the next phase of the Study. This Study Group member then asked if there was preferential use of the runways according to operator. Mr. Bernhardt replied that there is no preference by type of operator.

One Study Group member asked if it was possible to determine which aircraft included in the noise monitoring program were Stage 2 and which were stage 3, and based on that information, what the amended noise contours would look like. Mr. Bernhardt replied that all air carrier aircraft assumed in the future 2005 contours were Stage 3 aircraft.

One Study Group member stated that houses located within the contours north of the Airport are very old. He asked if there are techniques which pilots can use that increase or decrease noise in that area, and whether noise monitors were placed north of the Airport. The participant stated that when B-747s fly low, the jet wash and engine noise creates a "Jericho’s Wall" effect. The participant stated that in addition to noise, this effect should be addressed during the meeting.

One Study Group member wanted to know why UPS flight tracks were not presented alone, and stated that it appeared as though other data was incorporated to take the heat off of UPS. Mr. Bernhardt replied that the 10 random days of ARTS data presented during the meeting were for presentation purposes only, and that all 10,000 operations were used to generate flight tracks. This Study Group member stated that UPS aircraft create the majority of the problem, and that a study should be done to address UPS operations alone. Mr. Scott emphasized that based on the data, UPS was not being cut any slack in this Study.

One Study Group member asked for clarification regarding future Stage 3 engine regulations. Mr. Bernhardt stated that according to FAR Part 36, as of December 31, 1999, Stage 2 aircraft can not operate in the United States. Thus, all commercial aircraft weighting over 75,000 pounds in 2005 will be Stage 3 aircraft.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Willkie presented the base case 1998 and 2005 noise exposure maps. He explained that the 1998 map reflects current aircraft noise exposure, and the 2005 map reflects expected noise exposure. Mr. Willkie noted that the noise exposure is anticipated to decrease between 1998 and 2005, reflecting the phase-in of quieter FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft operations. which are typically 10 dB louder than comparable Stage 3 aircraft.

Mr. Willkie summarized the number of housing units, people, and noise sensitive facilities estimated to be located within areas exposed to significant noise levels (+65 DNL) in 1998 and 2005. Mr. Willkie explained that the DNL 65 represents the noise level that the Federal government considers significant, and may provide funding for measures intended to decrease noise exposure in these areas. However, Mr. Willkie added that measures to reduce noise within the DNL 60 contour will also be considered in this Study.

Mr. Willkie then presented a comparison of noise exposure levels obtained during the noise monitoring program conducted in June 1999, and the noise exposure levels predicted by the INM. Mr. Willkie stated that the monitored and predicted noise levels were close, especially at noise monitoring sites located nearest the Airport. Mr. Willkie then presented a comparison of the 1998 noise exposure contours with those prepared for the 1993 Noise Compatibility Program.

Mr. Willkie then opened the floor for questions concerning the noise exposure maps.

One Study Group member wanted to know how many neighborhoods would be eliminated by the Airport. Mr. Willkie stated that assumed population reductions were a result of the acquisition program already in place. He did not know the impacts to individual neighborhoods. This participant then asked if there was information available as to which neighborhoods were going to be acquired by 2005. Mr. Willkie replied that the existing acquisition program is a matter of public record, and that more specific information can be provided by contacting the RAA.

One Study Group member asked what was going to happen to the western runway. Mr. Willkie stated that the existing noise abatement program requires the eastern runway to be used as the preferential runway. He added that the western runway is currently not being used as much as the eastern runway. This participant then asked if increased use of the western runway would effect neighboring residents. Mr. Willkie stated that neighbors in the surrounding areas could be affected by such an increase.

One Study Group member questioned the ability to shift the contours to mitigate noise to acceptable levels. Mr. Willkie replied that once the noise contours are decreased with recommended noise abatement measures, the next step is to assess what can be implemented on the ground, including land acquisitions, soundproofing, etc. He affirmed that this is the work of the Study Group.

One participant commented that he would probably be dead before anything happens in his neighborhood. Mr. Willkie stated that the next step for the Study Group would be to identify what can be done to improve the quality of life for the neighbors, and to prepare these recommendations.

One Study Group member asked if there were any local representatives, specifically from the Board of Alderman, in the audience. After a request for a show of hands, Mr. Willkie replied that there did not seem to be any representatives in attendance. Mr. Willkie stated that Alderman Handy has been very involved in the Study to date. This participant then stated that a significant number of people will be affected by Airport growth, and expressed concerned about how the Cornerstone 20/20 growth initiative would affect the neighborhoods. This participant requested a government representative address these concerns for the record. Mr. Willkie replied that the work of the Study Group was focused on issues directly related to the Part 150 Study.

One Study Group member commented on the amount of noise that takes place during the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.

One Study Group member stated that he has invested $20,000 into his house to make the noise more tolerable, but that it is still difficult to hold a conversation and listen to the television. He stated that he was a prisoner in his house because he cannot go outside to enjoy the weather due to the noise.

One Study Group member wanted to know how neighbors can be assured that they are being told the truth, and that mitigation efforts will be made on their behalf. Mr. Willkie replied that an effort is being made not to over-promise what can be done, and that only reasonable mitigation measures will be recommended. He stated that continued participation in the Study Group is the primary assurance that the truth is told.

One Study Group member wanted to know if GPS flight plan monitoring had been considered in developing the new contours. Mr. Willkie stated that the future noise contours were established based on the assumption that existing flight tracks would remain unchanged. The use of GPS and other new technologies would be assessed later in the Study.

One Study Group member wanted to know if the 1998 and 2005 noise contours assumed the same use for the eastern runway. Mr. Willkie confirmed this assumption, and stated that the assumptions was made based on the existing runway use program already in place. The participant then asked if the two parallel runways could be used more evenly. Mr. Willkie replied that analysis of such alternatives is up to the Study Group.

One Study Group member stated his residence was located within the DNL 65 in the 1998 noise exposure maps, and the DNL 60 in the 2005 map. This member inquired as to how this would affect his residence. Mr. Willkie replied that aircraft noise would be noticeably less, but that if acquisition or soundproofing were recommended in the Noise Compatibility Program, residences in these areas would probably not be eligible for limited FAA funds in the earliest phases.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Willkie presented the range of potential noise abatement measures that will be considered in this Study. Mr. Willkie discussed the applicability and the feasibility of implementing each potential measure at the Airport. Mr. Willkie cautioned that noise abatement measures might have both a positive and negative effect on the noise contours, therefore, it is important to use caution when selecting noise abatement strategies.

Mr. Willkie then turned the meeting over to Mr. Scott, who turned the meeting over to other business.

Mr. Marvin Pilkenton, co-chair of the Noise Monitoring Committee, announced that a tour would be scheduled for anyone interested in visiting the noise testing facility at General Electric Appliance Park. A sign-up sheet was available at the back table.

Mr. Steve Lambert, co-chair of the Public Information Committee, announced that a sign-up sheet was available at the back table for anyone interested in signing up to receive a copy of The Noise Guardian, produced by the committee.

Mr. Lambert requested that the Study Group endorse the hiring of an airport noise abatement officer. One Study Group member asked that the issue be put off until agreement could be reached on the specific role for the position. Mr. Jim DeLong commented that there were many potential roles for such a position and many differing opinions on this issue. He added that the Study’s recommendations would best determine the appropriate role for such a position. Another Study Group member suggested that a Study Group committee provide input on the selection process. Mr. Lambert asked for a show of hands regarding the proposition for an airport noise abatement officer. There were approximately 60 people in attendance and approximately 40 hands in favor.

Mr. Lambert then addressed the issue whether to move future Study Group meetings to different locations. Mr. Lambert explained that the public information committee voted in favor of keeping the meetings at the same location. Mr. Lambert asked to see a show of hands of those who would prefer keeping the same location. The majority of those attending favored keeping the meetings in the same location.

Mr. Lambert explained that the committee did not have funds for postage necessary to mail The Noise Guardian newsletter to interested parties. He explained that one option was to ask the RAA to include The Noise Guardian as an attachment to the RAA's noise meeting notices. However, Mr. Lambert suggested that the RAA may censure or edit the newsletter. Ms. Swann explained that The Noise Guardian represents the view of one party; if it is mailed out with the noise meeting brochures/fliers, all affected parties in the Study Group should have their views reflected in the newsletter. Mr. Lambert offered to Ms. Swann to create an editorial board for The Noise Guardian to assure balance in content. Ms. Swann also reminded Study Group members that much public information regarding noise and other airport issues is included in the RAA's monthly newsletter, Arrivals. She welcomed suggestions from the Public Information Committee and Study Group for topics for the Arrivals. One Study Group member suggested that donations be taken to help the Public Information Committee pay for postage. On a request for a show of hands for the newsletter to be mailed by the RAA without editing, two thirds of the audience (or approximately 40 people) endorsed it rather than it being decided by consensus. Mr. Scott asked if anyone had any additional comments for the consultant team.

One Study Group member suggested that consideration be given to a recommendation that neighborhoods located just outside of the 65 DNL have their residences insulated without cost to the homeowners.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40.


				STUDY GROUP Meeting Notes
BACK to Meetings Notes				NCSG MEETING #3 Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 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: Jim DeLong, 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 Bill Simpson, UPS, Outgoing Study Group Chair Ron Scott, Louisville Convention and Visitors Bureau, Presiding Study Group Chair Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates Evert Meyer, Leigh Fisher Associates Dan Bevarly, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications Pamela Schott, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing Communications DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—PRE-MEETING BRIEFING The pre-briefing to the Study Group meeting was delivered by Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA). Mr. DeLong discussed the goals and objectives of this Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study (the Study). He emphasized the importance of the Airport to the Louisville area, and the need for community members to become active in the Study process. DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS—STUDY GROUP MEETING #3 Mr. Ron Scott, Presiding Study Group Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Scott gave a brief overview of the information to be covered by the Leigh Fisher Associates consultant team. Mr. Simpson requested approval and/or changes to the notes for Study Group Meeting 2A, held on September 28, 1999. Ms. Theresa Cusick said that item #9 was left off of the Monitoring Committee prioritization list. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Scott introduced Mr. Bill Willkie of Leigh Fisher Associates, who introduced the other members of the consultant team (see Attendees). Mr. Willkie then presented an overview of the project, current status/project timeline, and new business. Mr. Willkie announced that the next Study Group meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2000 and provided a tentative agenda for the upcoming meeting. Mr. Willkie provided a breakdown of the current noise complaints logged on the Project Website and on the Project Information Line. One Study Group member asked if the Project Website could take complaints on-line. Mr. Eric Bernhardt of Leigh Fisher Associates, replied that the site had e-mail capabilities where complaints, comments, questions, and/or suggestions could be submitted. He added that the Project Information Line was also established for this type of input. One Study Group member asked if it would be possible to get a copy of all noise complaints that have been received. Mr. Bernhardt stated that this information is on the Project Website and in the provided handout. One Study Group member asked if the majority of noise complaints were logged during nighttime hours. Mr. Bernhardt confirmed that some complaints were logged during nighttime hours, and stated that nighttime noise complaints were identified on the noise complaint summary. One Study Group member asked who tracked noise complaints received at the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Mr. Bernhardt replied that the RAA is provided with those complaints received by the ATCT. However, he explained that complaints summarized during the meeting were those provided on the Project Website and Project Information Line. (Note: Mr. Bernhardt’s statement was incorrect. The ATCT does not forward noise complaints to the RAA) One Study Group member wanted to know if information pertaining to the location of the noise monitoring devices was available. Mr. Bernhardt stated that a graphic of the noise monitoring sites was available, and that the results of the noise monitoring program would be provided on the Project Website in the near future. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Bernhardt presented the technical data used to prepare the noise exposure maps. Mr. Bernhardt gave an overview of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) and listed the data that is input into the INM to generate noise exposure contours. These data include: airport elevation, runway layout and annual average runway use, number of aircraft operations, aircraft fleet mix, the time of aircraft operations, and flight tracks. Mr. Bernhardt presented the forecast of aviation demand prepared for the Study. The forecast were prepared for air cargo, air carrier, commuter, general aviation, and military aircraft. The forecasts project 16% growth in annual aircraft operations between 1998 and 2005, an average increase of 2.2% per year. Of the different categories of aircraft operating at the Airport, the most growth is anticipated to occur in commuter aircraft operations. Mr. Bernhardt then presented a summary of total daytime and nighttime annual average day aircraft operations input into the INM. Next, Mr. Bernhardt summarized (1) the methodology used to determine annual average runway use, which integrated 4 weeks of ARTS radar data and 10 years of historic weather data, and (2) the assumed runway use for daytime and nighttime arrivals and departures. Following, Mr. Bernhardt presented the generalized flight tracks that were input into the INM and explained that the flight tracks were identified based on the total 4 weeks of ARTS data collected for the study. Mr. Bernhardt then asked if there were any questions pertaining to the technical data presented. One Study Group member asked if the current flight tracks could be "tightened". Mr. Bernhardt replied that it is possible to tighten the flight tracks using advanced navigation technology, such as GPS, and that this option would be addressed during the next phase of the Study. One Study Group member asked why the majority of arrivals and departures were taking place on the eastern runway. Mr. Bernhardt replied that the Airport has an informal runway use program in place that requires the use of the eastern runway during non-peak periods. He explained that the western runway is still used, but as long as there is not excessive demand, the ATCT directs arrivals and departures to use the eastern runway. He reminded Study Group members that alternate runway use programs would be assessed during the next phase of the Study. This Study Group member then asked if there was preferential use of the runways according to operator. Mr. Bernhardt replied that there is no preference by type of operator. One Study Group member asked if it was possible to determine which aircraft included in the noise monitoring program were Stage 2 and which were stage 3, and based on that information, what the amended noise contours would look like. Mr. Bernhardt replied that all air carrier aircraft assumed in the future 2005 contours were Stage 3 aircraft. One Study Group member stated that houses located within the contours north of the Airport are very old. He asked if there are techniques which pilots can use that increase or decrease noise in that area, and whether noise monitors were placed north of the Airport. The participant stated that when B-747s fly low, the jet wash and engine noise creates a "Jericho’s Wall" effect. The participant stated that in addition to noise, this effect should be addressed during the meeting. One Study Group member wanted to know why UPS flight tracks were not presented alone, and stated that it appeared as though other data was incorporated to take the heat off of UPS. Mr. Bernhardt replied that the 10 random days of ARTS data presented during the meeting were for presentation purposes only, and that all 10,000 operations were used to generate flight tracks. This Study Group member stated that UPS aircraft create the majority of the problem, and that a study should be done to address UPS operations alone. Mr. Scott emphasized that based on the data, UPS was not being cut any slack in this Study. One Study Group member asked for clarification regarding future Stage 3 engine regulations. Mr. Bernhardt stated that according to FAR Part 36, as of December 31, 1999, Stage 2 aircraft can not operate in the United States. Thus, all commercial aircraft weighting over 75,000 pounds in 2005 will be Stage 3 aircraft. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Willkie presented the base case 1998 and 2005 noise exposure maps. He explained that the 1998 map reflects current aircraft noise exposure, and the 2005 map reflects expected noise exposure. Mr. Willkie noted that the noise exposure is anticipated to decrease between 1998 and 2005, reflecting the phase-in of quieter FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft operations. which are typically 10 dB louder than comparable Stage 3 aircraft. Mr. Willkie summarized the number of housing units, people, and noise sensitive facilities estimated to be located within areas exposed to significant noise levels (+65 DNL) in 1998 and 2005. Mr. Willkie explained that the DNL 65 represents the noise level that the Federal government considers significant, and may provide funding for measures intended to decrease noise exposure in these areas. However, Mr. Willkie added that measures to reduce noise within the DNL 60 contour will also be considered in this Study. Mr. Willkie then presented a comparison of noise exposure levels obtained during the noise monitoring program conducted in June 1999, and the noise exposure levels predicted by the INM. Mr. Willkie stated that the monitored and predicted noise levels were close, especially at noise monitoring sites located nearest the Airport. Mr. Willkie then presented a comparison of the 1998 noise exposure contours with those prepared for the 1993 Noise Compatibility Program. Mr. Willkie then opened the floor for questions concerning the noise exposure maps. One Study Group member wanted to know how many neighborhoods would be eliminated by the Airport. Mr. Willkie stated that assumed population reductions were a result of the acquisition program already in place. He did not know the impacts to individual neighborhoods. This participant then asked if there was information available as to which neighborhoods were going to be acquired by 2005. Mr. Willkie replied that the existing acquisition program is a matter of public record, and that more specific information can be provided by contacting the RAA. One Study Group member asked what was going to happen to the western runway. Mr. Willkie stated that the existing noise abatement program requires the eastern runway to be used as the preferential runway. He added that the western runway is currently not being used as much as the eastern runway. This participant then asked if increased use of the western runway would effect neighboring residents. Mr. Willkie stated that neighbors in the surrounding areas could be affected by such an increase. One Study Group member questioned the ability to shift the contours to mitigate noise to acceptable levels. Mr. Willkie replied that once the noise contours are decreased with recommended noise abatement measures, the next step is to assess what can be implemented on the ground, including land acquisitions, soundproofing, etc. He affirmed that this is the work of the Study Group. One participant commented that he would probably be dead before anything happens in his neighborhood. Mr. Willkie stated that the next step for the Study Group would be to identify what can be done to improve the quality of life for the neighbors, and to prepare these recommendations. One Study Group member asked if there were any local representatives, specifically from the Board of Alderman, in the audience. After a request for a show of hands, Mr. Willkie replied that there did not seem to be any representatives in attendance. Mr. Willkie stated that Alderman Handy has been very involved in the Study to date. This participant then stated that a significant number of people will be affected by Airport growth, and expressed concerned about how the Cornerstone 20/20 growth initiative would affect the neighborhoods. This participant requested a government representative address these concerns for the record. Mr. Willkie replied that the work of the Study Group was focused on issues directly related to the Part 150 Study. One Study Group member commented on the amount of noise that takes place during the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. One Study Group member stated that he has invested $20,000 into his house to make the noise more tolerable, but that it is still difficult to hold a conversation and listen to the television. He stated that he was a prisoner in his house because he cannot go outside to enjoy the weather due to the noise. One Study Group member wanted to know how neighbors can be assured that they are being told the truth, and that mitigation efforts will be made on their behalf. Mr. Willkie replied that an effort is being made not to over-promise what can be done, and that only reasonable mitigation measures will be recommended. He stated that continued participation in the Study Group is the primary assurance that the truth is told. One Study Group member wanted to know if GPS flight plan monitoring had been considered in developing the new contours. Mr. Willkie stated that the future noise contours were established based on the assumption that existing flight tracks would remain unchanged. The use of GPS and other new technologies would be assessed later in the Study. One Study Group member wanted to know if the 1998 and 2005 noise contours assumed the same use for the eastern runway. Mr. Willkie confirmed this assumption, and stated that the assumptions was made based on the existing runway use program already in place. The participant then asked if the two parallel runways could be used more evenly. Mr. Willkie replied that analysis of such alternatives is up to the Study Group. One Study Group member stated his residence was located within the DNL 65 in the 1998 noise exposure maps, and the DNL 60 in the 2005 map. This member inquired as to how this would affect his residence. Mr. Willkie replied that aircraft noise would be noticeably less, but that if acquisition or soundproofing were recommended in the Noise Compatibility Program, residences in these areas would probably not be eligible for limited FAA funds in the earliest phases. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Willkie presented the range of potential noise abatement measures that will be considered in this Study. Mr. Willkie discussed the applicability and the feasibility of implementing each potential measure at the Airport. Mr. Willkie cautioned that noise abatement measures might have both a positive and negative effect on the noise contours, therefore, it is important to use caution when selecting noise abatement strategies. Mr. Willkie then turned the meeting over to Mr. Scott, who turned the meeting over to other business. Mr. Marvin Pilkenton, co-chair of the Noise Monitoring Committee, announced that a tour would be scheduled for anyone interested in visiting the noise testing facility at General Electric Appliance Park. A sign-up sheet was available at the back table. Mr. Steve Lambert, co-chair of the Public Information Committee, announced that a sign-up sheet was available at the back table for anyone interested in signing up to receive a copy of The Noise Guardian, produced by the committee. Mr. Lambert requested that the Study Group endorse the hiring of an airport noise abatement officer. One Study Group member asked that the issue be put off until agreement could be reached on the specific role for the position. Mr. Jim DeLong commented that there were many potential roles for such a position and many differing opinions on this issue. He added that the Study’s recommendations would best determine the appropriate role for such a position. Another Study Group member suggested that a Study Group committee provide input on the selection process. Mr. Lambert asked for a show of hands regarding the proposition for an airport noise abatement officer. There were approximately 60 people in attendance and approximately 40 hands in favor. Mr. Lambert then addressed the issue whether to move future Study Group meetings to different locations. Mr. Lambert explained that the public information committee voted in favor of keeping the meetings at the same location. Mr. Lambert asked to see a show of hands of those who would prefer keeping the same location. The majority of those attending favored keeping the meetings in the same location. Mr. Lambert explained that the committee did not have funds for postage necessary to mail The Noise Guardian newsletter to interested parties. He explained that one option was to ask the RAA to include The Noise Guardian as an attachment to the RAA's noise meeting notices. However, Mr. Lambert suggested that the RAA may censure or edit the newsletter. Ms. Swann explained that The Noise Guardian represents the view of one party; if it is mailed out with the noise meeting brochures/fliers, all affected parties in the Study Group should have their views reflected in the newsletter. Mr. Lambert offered to Ms. Swann to create an editorial board for The Noise Guardian to assure balance in content. Ms. Swann also reminded Study Group members that much public information regarding noise and other airport issues is included in the RAA's monthly newsletter, Arrivals. She welcomed suggestions from the Public Information Committee and Study Group for topics for the Arrivals. One Study Group member suggested that donations be taken to help the Public Information Committee pay for postage. On a request for a show of hands for the newsletter to be mailed by the RAA without editing, two thirds of the audience (or approximately 40 people) endorsed it rather than it being decided by consensus. Mr. Scott asked if anyone had any additional comments for the consultant team. One Study Group member suggested that consideration be given to a recommendation that neighborhoods located just outside of the 65 DNL have their residences insulated without cost to the homeowners. The meeting adjourned at 9:40.
				back to top