|STUDY GROUP COMMITTEES
Meeting Notes : Sensitive Facilities 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.
Pending Committee Approval
|back to NOTES||
November 22, 1999
The meeting of the Sensitive Facilities Committee was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Present were: Mike Elias, Mary Rose Evans, Tom Fitzgerald, Kim McGee, Julia Schweri, Joe Thomas, Marnie Varela , Marilyn Salings, and Bill Simpson.
Bill Simpson provided us with some current UPS information as well as what may be projected for the future. Presently UPS has 27 per weekday and 82 per weeknight flights and uses mostly 757s that hold 8000 packages. In the future, they predict 35 per weekday and 95 per weeknight flights and using the Airbus that holds 11,000 packages. Currently, UPS has incoming flights between 10:00 p.m. to 2:20 a.m. and leave from 3:45 to 5:15 am.
Marnie Varela highly suggested that someone review and re-calculate the raw data from the noise monitoring to determine if it matches the grid module presented by Leigh-Fisher. Mary Rose Evans explained that the model was ran first and then the field data from the actual noise monitoring was matched against the model to determine its accuracy.
Discussion was held concerning the 3 degree angle in which planes must approach. It was suggested we request instrument landings only, not visual approaches.
Bill Simpson stated that the Memphis, TN airport has a Federal Express hub and they have a higher number of planes in use there than UPS has here in Louisville, KY. Someone may want to contact Memphis and discuss their noise abatement/mitigation.
Discussion was held concerning the fact that the ARTS data from the control tower is only maintained for 15 days. We suggest improvement in record keeping. It was suggested we retain this information for five years. Possibly, new "noise office" personnel could review this data and present issues that warrant improvement to a "forum".
Marnie Varela asked everyone present to state what they believe would be the most important noise abatement issues in regards to sensitive facilities. Following are those issues:
1) Eliminate visual approaches and adhere to approved flight tracks. This would reduce the random and expansive flight patterns affecting more residents than necessary. Penalize if not complied with.
2) Establish flight patterns that restrict landings and takeoffs only to and from the south, except in extremely unsafe weather conditions. Penalize if not complied with.
3) Increase the time of retainment of ARTS data. Review and monitor this data daily. Create a forum to review the information and on airport noise issues to meet with the "noise office" personnel.
4) Document exceptions, such as, off the flight track, landing too low (not at the 3 degree angle, engine type too loud. Penalize those that do not adhere.
5) Use the latest acoustical shielding and soundproofing that will meet or exceed FAA requirements for repairs and testing facilities. Use berms and other noise absorption methods to minimize ground noise.
6) Put a cap on any airport expansions or developments that create additional noise at or above the 65 ldn level, unless mitigation is completed before the expansion or development.
7) Increase landing fees for aircraft that has not complied with the Phase 3
8) Approved noise abatement must be complied with in a timely fashion. Time to be appropriately set by the Study Group according to the 150 study.
The above issues would be reviewed by all in attendance and approved before submitting to Leigh Fisher in preparation for the December 7th Study Group meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.