STUDY GROUP COMMITTEES
Meeting Notes : Noise Metrics Committee

Committee notes reflect the views and opinions of the committee members and not necessarily those of the Noise Compatibility Study Group, Coordinating Council, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, or the Consultant Team.

Pending Committe Approval
       
back to NOTES       Attendees:

Marvin Pilkenton
Robert Barker
Dorn Crawford
Bill Simpson

RAA Board Room, 6:30 pm, January 25, 2000

    • The committee reviewed the committee presentation made on abatement proposals in comparison to the summary submitted to LFA

      • All items were thought by the group to be represented

    • A question arose regarding the updated contours with the lower air cargo departure profiles

      • The group wanted a better feel for variability in the INM

        • Temperature
        • Humidity

    • It was concluded that the committees concerns were accurately represented by the study group summary submitted to LFA

There were numerous concerns expressed by the committee regarding how these study group proposals were reflected in the consultant presentation and the matrix. The committee did not see direct reflection of some measures, having mostly to do with East runway preferences and approach and departure procedures. The committee reviewed the navigation committee’s summary of the consultant presentation and felt it captured their concerns.

Refer to cross-match table created by Navigation committee.

    • Ground based

      • Would like to see investigation or data for counter-generators

    • Overruns

      • Expand on reply
      • Committee referring to fully rated surface

    • Airports restrictions

      • Expand on reasons against single-event restrictions

        • Particularly part 161 reference

          • Quantify activity impacted by an SEL

    • Committee continues to be concerned about lack of INM modeling to quantify and illustrate benefits of measures

    • Key point – the proposed strategy contains three measures

      • Two -- Equal distribution and preferential use of West rwy at night – were juxtaposed to the committees recommendations
      • The third – daytime contraflow -- did not come from the recommendations

Mitigation

    • Screening criteria

      • Regarding "consistency with established land use planning policies"

        • Concern over harmonization and coordination with other programs

          • Complementary programs with other agencies with matching goals

            • Ex.: flood plain mitigation efforts may be compatible with "65 LDN" efforts

        • Conflicting goals considered conversely

    • "Noise benefit"

      • should be quantified by INM, based on metrics studied to consider the annoyance impact

        • C-weighted
        • SEL
        • Lmax
        • 1/3 octave band measurement

    • "Cost considerations"

      • quantify to at least "order of magnitude"

    • Remedial measures

      • Soundproofing

        • Use of proper metric

    • Preventive measures

      • Overlay zoning, building code requirements

        • Use of proper metric
         

back to top