STUDY GROUP
Meeting Notes

BACK to Meetings Index    
PI Committee Presentation
February 3, 2000

The Public Information Committee feels the recommendations submitted by Leigh Fischer Associates Team are NOT ready for public consumption.

a. Incomplete, inadequate, and misleading
b. Does not promote public understanding of noise problem
c. Does not promote public participation in the solution

PI Committee’s major concerns regarding some of the consultant’s measures addressed:

A. Concerned only with the model 65 Ldn contour:

    1. Some recommendations will increase noise levels in the 55+ Ldn contours, while only offering moderate concessions to the 65 Ldn contours.

    2. (Recommendation: Take a holistic approach, not targeting just the 65 Ldn contours at the sake of the other contours.)

B. Concerns centered on maximizing airport, not lessening noise in surrounding communities/neighborhoods.

    1. Hesitant of recommendations with adverse economic effects to RAA/carriers.

    2. Communities as "non-sensitive areas"

C. Consultant’s suggestions of strategies for further analysis:

    1. "Contraflow during daytime hours" option does not derive from any consensus Study Group initiative?? Potential to raise the current 60 Ldn contour to up to 65 Ldn contour in the south.

D. Key consultant discrepancies that need further addressing

    1. Runway use:

      a. Recommendation: Reexamining three separate measures; preference daytime, no preference and reverse preference runway use.)

    2. Flight Tracks:

      a. Some categories addressed were not asked for by Study Group (i.e., Dispersed/Fanned-out flight tracks)

      b. Some categories were not addressed as asked for by Study Group (i.e., Divergence and uniform turning criteria)

    3. Approach Procedures:

      a. STAR not having affect on 65 Ldn contours

      b. Voluntary delayed flap & gear extensions – little to no measurable benefit

    4. Departure Procedures:

      a. Close-in and Distant thrust procedures; too vague/lacking results

      b. Reduced thrust departure; did not recommend citing safety reasons.
      (Recommendation: further and closer examination.)

E. Direct public involvement concerns lacked serious consideration and analysis (i.e., Airport Noise Office, Community Noise Forum, etc.)

The Public Information Committee recommends the areas listed above (at a minimum) be revisited by LFA according to the original study group’s criteria.