• Notes of the previous meeting

• Leigh Fisher’s August 27 memo on runway use assumptions (for reference; initially distributed at the previous meeting)

• Initial committee response of September 3, for discussion and further development

• Chair’s translation of a recent article on the Louisville relocation program, citing the noise study and its Web site, from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

• Sample airport contraflow operations report

• RAA briefing for pilots on the current noise compatibility program

The main items for the agenda were the consultants’ runway use analysis, and committee issues and priorities to guide further study efforts. Preliminary discussion addressed whether pilots faithfully observe noise abatement procedures. Committee members (and pilots) Bob Welch and Mariano Floro clarified that all aviators (civilian air carrier and military) follow strict procedures in their climb profiles and turns; the problem is not with the operator but rather the procedures. In addition, procedures are different for air carriers, flying mostly turbojets, and the Air National Guard, flying turboprop transports. Tolerances in departures can vary according to weather conditions, which can be a major factor in determining ground tracks off the departing runway. The committee’s focus, by this account, should be on better procedures to minimize noise exposure.

This discussion touched on the consultants’ report on runway usage. Peak usage, contraflow and staggered runway operations were mentioned in order to lay out options for the committee’s consideration. Departure clearances and altitude restrictions were further discussed. The dialogue clarified why certain ground tracks are developed. Questions persist among committee members over whether, as a matter of course, aircraft comply with their clearances. With considerable tolerance necessary for weather conditions, committee pilots maintained that a high percentage of aircraft are in compliance with directions.

The meeting moved specifically to consider what issues and priorities the committee should recommend to the Study Group to guide further work and consultant analytical support. The committee’s standing agenda issues were used to shape the discussion. Bob Welch laid out an initial recommendation, which was adopted with little modification:

1. Land compatibility/noise corridors – How can we minimize incompatible land use by making corridors of excessive noise as small as possible?
2. Approach and Departure patterns – What specific procedures can be prescribed to make approaches and departures as consistent and predictable as possible?
3. Runway Preferences – Which are the most effective choices of runway, direction, and time of day to minimize noise exposure without degrading operations?
4. Day/night noise pattern discrimination – How can we discriminate between measures most effective at reducing daytime noise exposure, versus nighttime exposure?
5. Instrumentation – What available navigation instruments, both cockpit- and ground-based, can contribute most to consistent flight procedures?
6. Visual Flight Rules – When, and under what conditions, should aircraft depart from instrument flight patterns?
7. Conformance with noise abatement procedures – What measures would best enable and encourage fidelity to noise-sensitive flight procedures?

A presentation for the Study Group will be given on the details of these subjects at its next meeting, Sep 29.

Returning to the consultants’ runway use analysis, the committee agreed that the memo reporting these results raised several questions needing further treatment. Members endorsed the preliminary reply (attached) asking for additional information and insights, and welcomed the prospect of further feedback from Leigh Fisher Associates. The chair invited members to study the memo further, and relay any additional concerns.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM, with acknowledgement of progress and an intent to continue following up on issues of interest.

back to top