Meeting Notes : Consultant Screening/Oversight 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.
February 10, 2000
Attendees: Eric Bernhardt (via phone), Mike Clancey, Don Conrad, Dorn Crawford (via phone), Mary Rose Evans, Mariano Floro, Mindy Lambert, Steve Lambert, Pete Levermore, Tom Marks, Marvin Pilkenton, Joe Richardson, Denny Rued, Bill Simpson, Marnie Varela
The meeting was held at 6:30 at the RAA Board Room.
The proposed agenda was adopted.
The notes from previous meetings on Nov. 17, 1999 and Jan. 19, 2000 had been on the web site and a print copy was passed around. We did not revisit the notes for approval.
There was a discussion to evaluate Study Group Meeting 4a. While much was accomplished at this meeting, the committee members were concerned that so much detailed technical information was given that many people could not follow. Members agreed that we need to adequately inform, but not overwhelm people who attend Study Group meetings. It was suggested that we offer the more technical information to those who want it by having it available as handouts at the meetings.
At Study Group meeting 4a, Chairman Tom Marks suggested, with no objections from the group, that the Consultant Oversight Committee look at the product that was to be sent to LFA from the Study Group. So that the committee and LFA could have a mutual understanding of what was to be studied, Eric Bernhardt of LFA joined the meeting via conference call.
The following outline of Noise Abatement Strategies from consensus of the Study Group was prepared by Dorn and distributed to committee members.
February 10, 2000
Noise Compatibility Study Group
Noise Abatement Strategies, as Approved
• Common elements
minimize contraflow exceptions
noise-optimal prescribed tracks (STARs, SIDs) with minimal exceptions
RNP or hardware specs to minimize deviation
operational measures (potential excursions)
facilities, use restrictions, regulations, management measures
document knowledge of ‘emerging’ measures
• Principal alternatives
Limit east runway preference to daytime only; southbound divergence according to destination
Eliminate runway preference; all southbound diverge on 17R
Reverse runway preference; no divergence on 17R, except simultaneous operations
• Key conditions:
Ft Knox issue resolved favorably
Results for each major lobe of noise contours
Imperatives:
• Precise definition of each strategy
measures included
measures excluded
rationale
follow-up documentation
• Close - intimate - communication on analysis
Study Group checks inputs
emerging insights relayed right away
anomalies identified for further study
course corrections when appropriate
• Open-ended review of results
think before packaging
challenge assumptions, conclusions
ongoing feedback
Results of this phase are crucial to study results. "Oops" is no longer an affordable part of the vocabulary.
Discussion was held on the "Common Elements" section. It was emphasized that all of these factors would be included in each of the three Principal Alternatives. Committee members wanted to be sure that base line turns at least five miles out be a part of the operational measures section. More specifics on each item in this section will be sent to LFA.
Each of the three "Principal Alternatives" was discussed with specific attention to landings and takeoffs south of and then north of the airport. The three alternatives are intended to study three cases for divergence on takeoffs to the south from the west runway. They are also designed to study three cases for runway use preference to the north. Differences in daytime and nighttime usage and whether to force 50% usage scenarios were also discussed. The group concluded that exact percentages were not the goal, but that something close to that could be achieved without forcing crossovers of flight paths. Eric said he thought the three alternatives were good and that he would send a memo after he gets the Study Group’s report.
The "Imperatives" section of the outline was discussed. It was agreed that open communication is imperative.
Eric said that the final report could be sent to him on Monday and left the conference call.
Marnie said she thought committee chairs should have a copy of the federal regulations that apply to this noise study. Mike volunteered to make paper copies and /or e-mail copies of the regs.
The next meeting was set for Monday, February 28 at 6:30 at the RAA Board Room.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00.