Meeting Notes : Navigation 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.
back to NOTES       October 16, 2001

Attendees: Bob Adelberg, Terry Borne, Dorn Crawford, Teresa Cusick, Mary Rose Evans, George Hudson, Tony Copeland-Parker, John Sistarenik, Bob Slattery, Mike Zanone

The committee meeting began at 7:00 PM. The principal aims of the meeting were to (1) take account of analytical products furnished by the consultants since the last meeting, and (2) preview committee findings and recommendations for the Study Group’s Meeting #5A, where we hope to reach consensus on a preferred noise abatement strategy.

The committee approved notes of its October 2 meeting, then looked over new grid/point maps depicting peak noise event levels in the 2005 base case, and under the noise abatement alternatives. Members noted that, even under the most ambitious shifts of runway use and flight paths, most areas could still have reduced exposure. Measures to improve definition of and fidelity to flight paths were especially evident on these maps. Using the northwest quadrant as an example, the analysis showed that, even with a reversed runway preference, about half the area would experience peak levels at least 5 decibels lower, while only a few grid squares directly along the flight path would see corresponding increases. The chair composed a hand-colored overprint of the grid map to illustrate the effects observed.

For the upcoming Study Group
meeting, members agreed that the committee’s adaptation of the side-by-side portrayal of contemporary noise exposure, predicted and actual, should serve as a key anchor point. This graphic helps explain and justify the priority abatement issues leading to a preferred strategy. In particular, as noted previously, it underscores the importance of:

    • documenting noise abatement measures carefully, so that what’s modeled is what’s actually implemented

    • maintaining a healthy skepticism about the power of ‘professional judgment’ to forecast future airport noise exposure

    • monitoring and overseeing implementation, and providing authoritative feedback to operators on performance against program standards

With this image furnishing backdrop and context, the chair proposed a presentation to the Study Group highlighting observed flight tracks in current operations; proposed new tracks; impact statistics; and next steps to make a complete package. Members recalled that, while impact statistics give dramatic evidence of the potential benefits of alternatives being considered, key graphics associated with current operations give the critical context. The ‘97-’98 side-by-side has helped focus efforts on optimizing runway use in particular, and more effective implementation in general; ARTS flight tracks, which have earned the nickname “spaghetti charts,” underscore the need for better flight track management, throughout the study area.

This discussion yielded final observations and specifications for the committee’s presentation for Study Group Meeting #5A, emphasizing the value of measures analyzed to date, and the need to move ahead to measures beyond the model to complete the package. The committee planned to meet again once the final abatement package is adopted to help take stock and refine the measures. The meeting adjourned at 9:45.


back to top