From:            Bernedine Lund
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] COmmissioner"s meeting Tuesday Fed 23rd
Date:              Monday, February 22, 2021 11:27:04 PM
Attachments:      PoS Commissioner 2-23-2021.pdf
PoS 2-23-2020 Fagerstrom email.pdf

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
Hi, wanted to do this in person, but signed up for FAA webinar on noise for the rest of
the week. I'll try to log in to watch the beginning of the meeting
Here are written comments along with e-mail from Tom Fagerstrom that really helps
explain the issue with the temp noise monitor.
Thanks for the video conferencing.
Bernedine

2-22-2021 PoS Commissioner's meeting, Public Comment, Bernedine Lund, resident of Federal Way,
member of QSPS and volunteer for 350 Seattle Aviation Group 

Hello, Commissioners, 
Thank you for installing the temporary noise monitor at Nautilus Grade School. The noise monitoring
company posted the results of the temp monitor A002 and I have been comparing the data from the
monitor SEA22 at Sacajawea Jr. High with that from the temp monitor. 
Some summary observations from looking at the data for from the two noise monitors: 
The flight paths are very exact and consistent. Just a small change in the flight pattern can be
seen with changes in the number of flights the noise monitors capture. This shows that the
current flight patterns do really impact particular residents and not others.
About 4-6% of the flights were captured more than once by the same noise monitor, and 
several times a flight was captured 3 times. This shows that people on the ground can hear the
same flight for over 1 min, somethings for 90 seconds. This is not how the FAA captures noise
from flights in its DNL noise metric. 
For the flights captured by both noise monitors, the flights captured on A002 were quieter and
lower than those same flights on Sea22 monitor. This seems dependent on the flight path and
beyond what I was able to look at. 
Side note: Tom Fagerstrom is always very helpful, as you can see from his e-mail, and pleasant to
work with. 
More details about the flights: 
For Dec 2020 the two monitors captured and reported 10,660 flights. The flights that were not
captured by both monitors were removed, so the final number of flights captured by both monitors 
went down to 3,403 flights.
Number of flights for Dec 2020 captured by Noise Monitors A002 and Sea22 
Sea22          A002             Totals 
Total flights captured              7,053            3,607               10,660 
Duplicate flights reported          -388             -123                 -511 
by same monitor 
Flights captured by one           -3,262            -81                -3,343 
monitor but not the other 
Flights captured by both          3,403           3,403               6,806 
monitors 

There was quite a difference in the number of flights reported by the two monitors. I was surprised by
this difference as was Chris Hall. We didn't realize how different the counts would be from what

looks like a small difference in the flight paths. Tom Fagerstrom helped us see that difference with the
diagram he sent (see his email attached). 
To compare the flights captured on both monitors, first duplicate flights and then flights reported by
one monitor were deleted. The majority of flights not evaluated were the 3,262 flights (46%) that were
only captured by monitor Sea22. The number of flights captured by both monitors was 3,403. 

After looking at such detail at this data, I have to agree with Tom Fagerstrom that Monitor 22 seems
really well placed to capture most of the flights.
As I mentioned last week, the noise from the planes is very loud at times and makes going outside even
for a walk very hard to do. The non-response from the FAA on a new noise metric and the arrogant
attitude about the public complaints needs to be addressed by more than the few people who speak up
at public meetings. The FAA's attitude makes the abuse we take with the noise all the harder to
endure.

Fagerstrom, Thomas  
To:Bernedine Lund 
Tue, Jan 19 at 11:18 AM 
Hi Bernedine, 
I'm glad that you have been able to access the data from the temporary monitor at Nautilus. The fact that
monitor 22 at Sacajawea has more SEL noise events than Nautilus is simply due to #22 being better positioned
relative to the departure and arrival flight paths. Monitor 22 at Sacajawea is one of the best positioned monitors
in the system. 
South-flow departures and the 2 noise monitor sites: 








North-flow arrivals and the 2 noise monitoring sites: 







SEL and LEQ are two separate metrics. Any ambient, or neighborhood, noise that is not associated with an
airplane is separated out and put into Community Noise LEQ. This does not influence SEL events. 
As stated in the Data Limitations tab in the Noise Tableau site, SEL and LEQ metrics are not comparable to the
calculated DNL values determined by the FAA's AEDT noise model.



In reviewing the Noise Monitoring page, we did not find an issue with the Raw Noise Data Fact Sheet
link. However, if you are having trouble loading it you may view it in the tableau site as well (Raw Noise Data
Information). We will update the Late Night Noise information on the Noise Monitoring page. The Late Night
Noise Program webpage at the site contains the latest information for review. 
Thanks again for your continued interest in the noise monitoring data. Take care and stay safe. 
Tom Fagerstrom 
Noise Programs Coordinator 
Noise Programs 
P.O. Box 68727 
Seattle, WA 98168 
Email: Fagerstrom@portseattle.org | Office: 206.787.6793 | 
Cell: 206.556.5279 | flySEA.org | 
From: Bernedine Lund  
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 4:11 PM 
To: Fagerstrom, Thomas  
Cc: Anne Kroeker  
Subject: [EXTERNAL] few questions about the noise data 
Hi, Tom, you may have seen already that I downloaded the noise data for the Temp monitor #002 at Nautilus Grade
School. I'm now working on looking at the flights that were captured on both monitors and those that were only captured
on one of the monitors: Monitor #002 captured 3,607 flights while Monitor # 22 captured almost twice as many at 7,053.
This of course brings up some questions: 
1 - do you have any ideas why there is such a large discrepancy? I know the neighborhood noise is a factor in the LEQ but
is it also a factor in the SEL values? Or does it have more to do with the flight path and/or altitude. 
2 - Is there a way to determine an estimate of the DBL difference between the two monitors? For example, is there any way
to get from any of the LEQ data to the DBL the FAA uses? Do you have any suggestions on how to compare the noise
levers between the two monitors? For example, for the estimated 3,600 flights that were captured on both monitors, I was
thinking of comparing the SEL value and the differences between the two monitors; or I could look at the differences
between the LEQ values per day. 
3 - In looking at the Aircraft Noise Monitoring System page on the PoS webpage, I see the list of documents posted under
Other, but it seems about 6 - 9 months out of date. 



Can you add more recent quarters to the Late Night Noise Limitation quarter 1 2020 results. 
4. On the same page, right under the map of the monitors there's a statement that says: 
When you click on that link, the link seems broken because the message comes up saying the page is not there. Can I find
it somewhere else or can you have the link fixed?
Thanks for your help. 
Bernedine