|STUDY GROUP COMMITTEES
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||CONSULTANT SCREENING AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Joint Meeting Notes
November 1, 2000
Attendees: Bob Brown, Tim Chilton, Dorn Crawford, Jim, DeLong, Emily Evans, Mary Rose Evans, George Hudson, Steve Lambert, John Lanning, Tom Marks, Joe Richardson, Denny Rued, John Sistarenik, Bob Welch, Mike Zanone
Presenters: Eric Bernhardt and Evert Meyer, LFA
This joint meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Its purpose was to hear a short informal presentation the consultants had compiled on their own initiative to give a preliminary assessment of the Study Groups three noise abatement strategies. The packet of materials they distributed to support the discussion included:
Preliminary noise contour maps for each alternative, shaded for comparison with the 2005 base case
The committees recalled that the Study Group strategies represent varying preferences for use of the two main runways in operations north of the airport, and varying divergences of operations south of the airport. Contours estimating the impacts of these strategies clearly showed the nonlinear effects of the noise scale. Changing operations from one runway to the other can have disproportionate effects if the runway uses are not roughly the same. If the portion of operations changed in a given place is small relative to the total operations, then the effect will be disproportionately small. Conversely, if the operations changed are a relatively large portion of the total, the effect will be disproportionately large. In the preliminary runs discussed, these effects had strong implications on both ends of the runways treated by the three alternative strategies:
In the north, a large number of operations had to be removed from the east runway to generate significant effects. Conversely, adding a small number of operations on the west runway had large initial effects, but further increasing those numbers had less and less additional effect.
While absorbing these observations and contemplating adjustments and refinements, a couple of immediate points arose for adjusting model inputs in succeeding runs:
The category of operations characterized as "exceptions to contraflow" needs to be treated the same as all other operations in depicting noise abatement strategies. This presentation gave the first specific layout of such operations compiled for modeling, and, perhaps because of the informal label "exceptions", they were not shifted between runways under the different strategies along with all the rest.
The chairs undertook to accept an electronic update of the three cases to implement the above changes, and to convene another meeting to study the results. A written update from the Study Group chair to the entire Study Group was put in abeyance pending these results. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.