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.
Attendees: Robert Barker, Ernie Blankenship, Terry Borne, Dorn Crawford, Aaron Lucas, Norm Nezelkewicz, Steve Rogers, Bill Simpson, Bob Welch, Mike Zanone
The meeting was called to order shortly after 7:00 PM. Several papers were distributed at the opening of the meeting for committee members’ review and further study, including:
• Proposed agenda
• Notes of the previous meeting
• Discussion paper on prospective noise abatement measures
• Extract of Oct 15 consultant presentation on potential measures and screening criteria
• Compendium of correspondence on runway use assumptions (for reference; most distributed and discussed at previous meetings), including:
• Consultants’ report of Aug 27
• Committee’s inquiry of Sep 3
• Consultants’ response of Sep 14
• Committee’s further inquiry of Oct 12
• Subsequent exchanges of email between the Project Manager, committee chair and consultants
• Reminder notice of December 7 Study Group meeting
The main items for the agenda were a review of the noise contours presented by the consulting team at the last Study Group meeting; selection of noise abatement measures to present for Study Group adoption to guide further analysis; and a review and update on committee interaction with the consulting team on runway use assumptions.
Noise exposure contours presented on October 15th showed a radical departure from patterns forecast in the previous study for areas north of the airport. The committee is still studying potential explanations for the difference, both to determine what remediation is in order, and to avoid any similar problems in the current effort.
The committee reviewed noise abatement measures suggested in the last consultant presentation, and considered ways either to refine these suggestions to address specific problems at SDF, or to add measures not already suggested. Members first emphasized that measures formulated now are to set up a firm analysis – not make final recommendations for adoption. Finding the principal categories presented in October adequate as a framework, the committee arrived at the following list:
Runway Use Programs
Alter preference for east runway
Limit runway preference to daytime only
Eliminate runway preference
Reverse runway preference
Raise tailwind threshold for reversing flow to 10 knots
No exceptions to contraflow, unless emergency
Flight track changes
Set uniform departure criteria for turning
Altitude
Distance
Navigation markers
Geographic features
Make west runway divergence 15°, not 20
Apply divergence to all departures on west runway
Approach and departure procedures
Route all arriving traffic into IFR approach corridor - no cancellations
No VFR
Noise-optimal SIDs/STARs
Advanced navigation technology
Ground-based: markers, beacons, lasers, other
Airborne: GPS/FMS (current vs milspec), microwave, other
Airport facilities (referred to New Technologies Committee)
"Hush houses"
counter-frequency generators
Airport use restrictions
Conformance to noise compatibility program (NCP) by all aircraft
Airport regulations
Require NCP briefings for all ATCT personnel and pilots using SDF
Measures to enhance, monitor, or enforce noise abatement
Show effect of full conformance to current NCP, compared to base case
Noise monitoring
Flight track monitoring
Returning to the consultants’ runway use analysis, the committee heard an update of exchanges between the chair and the consulting team suggesting the need for added rigor in representing runway use decisions. The chair invited additional feedback on future steps, with the intent in the meantime to continue pursuing clarity and rigor in modeling airport operations.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM, anticipating a lead role in establishing noise abatement measures for analysis in the December 7 Study Group meeting.