|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||Summary Notes
March 7, 2002
RAA Board Room
Attendees (clockwise): Mary Rose Evans, Robert Barker, Bob Slattery, Tim Chilton, Bill Simpson, Dorn Crawford.
The meeting was called to order at 6:17 pm by the chairman, Bill Simpson. The Metrics Committee charter was reviewed.
® Metrics Charter: Reviews scientific means to measure airport noise exposure, and weighs effectiveness of alternatives. Examines resulting criteria to direct and gauge relief, and makes recommendations to the 150 Study Group.
The chairman explained the purpose of the meeting which was to: determine the committee position, or positions, on existing proposals for the study of airport noise monitoring, event metrics, and measuring the contribution of individual users within the Part 150 Study Groups recommendations. (These terms are extracted from study group instructions provided via letter to the study consultant).
Simpson also explained that the issues being discussed were of particular concern to him in his position representing UPS, and wanted that disclosed to avoid any conflict of interest as committee chair.
The committee then reviewed a historical timeline of proposals of the above issues. The timeline indicated that originally, two years ago, the concept of event metrics and "limits on individual users" was considered by the study group among a broad range of ideas, in an atmosphere described as "brainstorming" or "any idea is a good idea". Subsequently these proposals were rejected by the consultant, but nonetheless continued to receive endorsement by the study group through a letter drafted to the consultant.
Appreciation of the impact of limits on carriers has grown in succeeding months, along with the broader interest of maintaining a consensus Louisville program. Consequently the Study Groups focus has shifted from limits to just collection and evaluation of data. Simpson explained that he felt the original position was clear, though he disagreed with it, but that the current position seems vague. Dorn Crawford explained that the current position is one of seeking general use of metrics to examine individual operations of interest. He explained that the term metrics includes, but is not limited to "noise metrics". Distance metrics, for example, could also be employed when examining an individual operation. The result of the examination could be discussions with operators. It was during this dialogue that committee members understood the broader definition of the term "metric(s)".
Simpson explained that UPS, and air carriers in general, believe adherence to locally defined noise limitations are subjective and redundant to national and global regulations, and that airport-funded mitigation based on an INM-generated contour is the primary mechanism to remedy noise exposure. This mechanism provided the entire "pot of noise" to work with. Simpson stated that track adherence, within a reasonable level of fidelity, was a goal of UPS and that he expects track, or flight path, adherence to be monitored. He explained that event monitoring in terms of noise is an additional burden on top of the existing and proposed commitments to (1) contra-flow, (2) track adherence, (3) the "offset", and (4) national and global noise regulations. He stated that if the study group were asked to endorse any system that monitors an aircraft operation beyond reasonable track adherence, using reasonable distance metrics, UPS consent would not be achieved.
Bob Slattery stated that the airports noise management system would include a portable noise monitor for use in verifying INM data and in supporting community relations efforts. This was not viewed as a problem by UPS.
Tim Chilton assisted the meeting acting as facilitator by clarifying the positions represented in the group. Robert Barker expressed concerns about the study achieving its objectives and the need to insure we are successful.
Tim expressed support for a permanent noise monitoring system, and Mary Rose Evans explained that, through her national noise contacts, she has learned that one particular area of the country regrets the installation of such systems.
It was apparent that the meeting yielded an increased understanding of the issues by all parties, including individual positions and the definition of terms. It was agreed that no action would be taken until the consultant presented their proposals at NCSG meeting 6.
The meeting adjourned at approx. 9:05 pm.