The URL can be used to link to this page

09-08-1999 ARC PacketCITY OF IVIENDOTA HEiGHTS AIRPORT RELATiONS CONIMISSIOiV AGEIVD�! September 8, 1999 - Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of August 1 1, 1999 Minutes. 4. Unfinished and Newr Business: a. Consider Revised Airport Action Plan b. Review Draft Airports and Aviation Chapter of Comprehensive Plan 5. Updates a. 095 Policy Boundary — Blue Ribbon Task Force b. Airport Lease Agreements with Voluntary Nighttime Stage III Compliance 6. /�cknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MASAC Agenda for August 24, 1999 and July 27, 1999 Minutes includir�g MASAC Operations Committee Minutes of August 13 1999 b. MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of July 1999 c. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for July 1999 d. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for August 13, 1999 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8. Adj,ourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, NIlN1�tESOTA Airport Relations Commission Minutes August 11,1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, August 11, 1999, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Beaty called the meeting to order at �:OS p.m. The following memebers were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Ma�;�Roszak, and Stein. Also present were City Administrator Batchelder and Administrative Assistant Hollistet. ,•►•� • � 11 Commissioner May moved approval of the July 14, 1999 Airport Relations Commission meeting min.utes as submitted. There was no second. �� _ � Discussion: Commissioner Roszak noted the correct spelling of his name. Further, he requested that page�2 of the minutes reflect that the Commission agreed to send a new contract to MAC calling attention to the provisions in the Minneapolis contract that aze to be included in the contract with Mendota. i ) � Heights. Commissioner May requested that the Commission review the revised contract at the next meeting before it is sent to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the July 14, 1999 Airport Cornmission meeting minutes as amended. Comm.issioner May seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. AII2 NOISE PLAN OF ACTION City Administrator Batchelder had distributed a black line copy of the City's Plan of Action for review before the meeting. The draft copy shows the language used last year and changes discussed by the Commission at the last meeting. Administrator Batchelder explained that the Plan is organized into three sections: 1) topics of interest; 2) focus issues; and 3) a listing of issues with goals and action steps to achieve the goals. The Commission spent most of the meeting reviewing the Plan pa�e by page to update it for the coming year. Topics of Interest: This section lists issues by high or medium prioriiy and issues to be monitored. The chanaes discussed bv the Corrunission at the last meeting had been incorporated. Commissioner Roszak asked the criteria for categorizing an issue as high or medium priority. Administrator Batchelder explai.ned that high priority items are issues in which the City needs to be C actively involved to protect City interests. In addition to the changes made at the last meeting, Chair Beaty requested tha.t item No. 2 be changed from "Phase Out of Noisy Aircraft" to language urging the use of manufactured stage 3 a.ircraft in place of hush kit aircraft. Commissioner Roszak asked if global positioning satellites (GPS) technology assists with corridor compliance issues. Administrator Batchelder answered that it does, and part of the Part 150 Study Update is to look at new technology to see if the global positioning of a satellite would be of further assistance in the corridor. Commissioner Beaty added that GPS can also be used for equity issnes and can help with noise abatement. � � The Commission agreed to advocate that MAC "include the promotion of a new run up -pad enclosure in its CIP budget � Commissioner Roszak asked who controls defining the comdor at 90 degrees or 95 degrees... Administrator Batchelder answered that FA.A is in control. He noted that in 1989 a Blue Ribbon Task Force was established to look into corridor issues. Two recommendations were eventually . made by the task force. One was to narrow the corridor and set the northern boundary at 95 � degrees. MA.C, however, never pursued the issue with FAA. It was the consensus of the � Commission to request a writ#en response from MAC on the status of this recommendation. Commissioner Roszak further requested that the City's letter to MA.0 include a request defining the northern boundary of the corridor, which was the second Blue IZibbon Task Force recommendation: ,.._ Commissioner Beaty noted that plane departures are now based on ground tracking which brings them further north. This is a perfect example of t�yis�:g to squeeze �in more planes on a shnuiken comdor. Administrator Batchelder stated that is the reason why equity in the system is a top priority for the City. . Focus Issues: No changes were made to focus issues listed in this section. ` , Issues, Goals and Action Steps: Administrator Batchelder explained that the issues listed on the 22 pages of this section include a � goal and action steps to achieve this goal. It was the consensus of the Cominission to review this section page by page: Page 1: Under Acton step No. l, it was the consensus of the Cornmission to request a report from MAC indicafiing the percenta.ge of compliance with tower orders and continue efforts with FAA and MAC to urge higher levels of following procedure. Page 2: Commissioner Beaty stated tha.t he would like to see the City become more proactive with noise reduction and would like the City to send a letter requesting an altitude m FAA and MAC. City A � or Batchelder agreed and stated that he would like to see an altitude analysis very ground track that is used. He suggested that the City may hire its own expert consultant to analyze the information-comi.ng from MAC. Mr. Leuman noted that i# will be difficult to compaze noise levels because the next airplane may be noisier: and not at the same altitude at the same point It is diff cult to get accurate stai.istics because there�are so many variables. Commissioner Roszak requested that the letter include an inquiry as to whether � t�-..- ;,,+ .,n +t,P +r��U �==b� gTou�d lev�} noise c�n be mea,�sLu-reed ��,�,�ifnto�� ' account rvind, altiiude, etc., �`� '�"�j"�"+1'�'p'�a � av tn r�n a C011jplIter �i�lation. � Iu addition to requesting the mathematical formula for correlating noise levels, he �. ��" would also like to l�ow the number of planes departing and at what intervals - because "close=in" departures will affect capacity. . . � , Commissioner Stein noted that it is possible for Northwest NATCO facilities to input dat� into the computer to get noise readings. Administrator Batchelder noted tt�at the "close-in" contour showed relief on the Mendota Heights side of the corridor: It was the generation of "close-in" contours that triggered the FAA requirement for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. (EA�, which Eagan opposed. The change in operations under 3,0�0 feet triggered the Environmental Assessment Worksheet requirement. Commissioner May requested that the letter also inlcude a request to describe the measuring d�vices used for "close-ins". He asked what authority the FAA has with regard to any procedure MAC might devise to measure noise that would generate changes. Ad.irunistrator Batchelder e�cplained that the FAA is a safety agency. ' MAC has authority over operations. The flying level of 3,000 feet is approved by the FAA, but if changes were rnade to fly below 3,000 feet, the FAA might requ.ire another EAW. Page 3: Commissioner Beaty stated that he would like to see fines imposed as an incentive for stage 3 airplanes to be landed by 10:00 p.m. Administrator Batchelder suggested that No. 1 be revised to reflect language about nighttime restrictions, including higher landing fees, and that manufactured stage 3 airplanes be specified for use after 1p:00 p.m. �„ Commissioner Leuman noted that e mandatory rule is used b Sun Country b not other airlines. Administrator Batchelder stated that he will get a copy to add to e report. Page 4: Administrator Batchelder reported that a GIS overlay map with land uses can be. done. The problem at this time is that the City does not have coinplete data. When the needed information is obtained, GIS wil� pioduce an overlay map for the Commission's use. _ Page 5: Commissioner Roszak suggested that the City employ a consultant e�ert at the appropriate time for assistance in establishi.ng a definition of the corridor. Administrator Batchelder informed the -��- �ommission that $15,000 is budgeted each year �for noise consultants, even though it is not always used. Commissioner Roszak requested that the Council be informed that this money may be used for assistance with corridor issues. � Page 6: � Administrator Batchelder stated that action for better representation for the City on the MAC � Board is no longer a priority with the new Govemor appointments and Mayor Mertensotto now serving as Chair of MASAC. The City is adopti.ng a wait and-see a{titude to determi.ne whether legislation is needed io change the MAC commissioner appaintment process. It was noted that part of the MSP Comprehensive Plan includes parcelling out traffic to. reliever airports, such as Eden Prairie, Mounds View and Lake Elmo. There will be a public heari.ng on�. this issue during the next legislative session. Commissioner Roszak noted that there was a lawsuit on the part of outlying communities with airports that were being used to relieve traffic at the MSP A.irport. The local communities lost. Commissioners discussed the important need to educate the City's new MAC representative about the City's issues and concerns. Commissioner Beaty requested that a deadline for the end of 1999 be set for providing information to the new representative for the City. Cornmissioner Roszak emphasized the importance of knowing what ofiher communities, organizations and agencies are doing relative to airport issues and what is being discussed at their meetings. He asked if the City receives minutes or agendas of the various meetings. Administrator Batchelder stated that the City receives some of them, but he will look into making sure the City receives whatever is available. Commissioner Roszak asked if the City can work with the FAA. locally to change policy. ( Administrator Batchelder stated that it may be easier to work with the FAA through . Congressional representatives. Commissioner May suggested that Representative Vento might be a good person to conta.ct because of his opposition to motorized vehicles in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. It was the consensus of the Commission to change the City's goal on page 6 to educate policy makers and heighten awareness of the City's pasition with current legislative representatives. Page 7 & S: Commissioner Beaty stated that no one knows that Commission magnets exist. He suggested they be redesigned and consideration given as to how to distribute them. Administrator Batchelder sta.ted that they are distributed with responses to complaints received by the City. The Commission discussed ways to_ make a better effort at communicati.ng the work of the Cominission with the community. 4 Commissioner Fitzer noted that the local government access channel on Cable TV would be a free source of communication available to the Commission. Commissioners discussed how this opportunity might be used and whether to broadcast certain. meetings to better i.nform residents of airport-related issues. Commissioner May suggested an Annual Open House with a Cable TV meeting. � . Commissioner Beaty suggested that the Commission first design a brochure and use it as a basis to develop an i.nformational Cable TV program. He agreed that an annual report would also be a i ) good information piece that could be sent out to the community. The Commission will cantinue its review of the Action Plan, beginning with page 9 at the ne� meeting. New Members The Commission briefly discussed the difficulty of reci-uiting new members, even though airport issues are among the biggest issues in the community. Comprehensive Plan Administrator Batchelder noted copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan which includes a chapter on aviation. He encouraged Commissioners to review it and call with any questions oz comments. Technical Advisors Report Administrator Batchelder noted the new format and differences in presentation of information in the Technical Advisor's Report. MAC is proposing to replace the old report with this new format. The Commission will have another opportunity to comment on the changes at the� next meeting before it is considered by MASAC. Administrator Batchelder also stated that he will be attending a computer training session on Excel software in order to be able to develop a spreadsheet for the Commission based on the new format of the Technical Advisors Report. The �'" purpose of the spreadsheet will be to lift certain data. for comparison purposes month to month. Airport Noise Report Commissioner Roszak stated that what needs to be communicated to congressional representatives is the City's need for more local control at the FAA. level because the airline industry is booming. Commissioner May stated that the scoping documents seemed to refer to a new standard for measuring noise that was difficult to understand. Chair Beaty had to leave the meeting at 9:OS.p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. RespectFully submitted, � Deanne Gueblaoui � Recording Secretary . . j r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS September 3, 1999 To: Airport Relations Commission � From: Kevin Batchelder, City Adiru str r Subject: Draft Aviation Chapter of Comprehensive Plan �YKiI.Y.�[��►! Enclosed please fmd a copy of the Draft Aviation Chapter of Comprehensive Plan. This draft is being presented to the City Council on September 7, 1999 for their fmal consideration. Council is being asked to authorize staff to begin a 60-day review process that includes sending this draft to the Metropolitan Council and to neighboring governmental jurisdictions for their review and comment. In September, each advisorX Corrunission is being asked to make their final review and comments to the various sections of the draft Comprehensive P1an. The Planning Commission (� will hold a public hearing on October 26, 1999 and make a formal recomxnendation to City ' Council. Council will then consider all comments and make final revisions so that our Comprehensive Plan may be submitted to the Metropolitan Council in November, or December. Review the draft Aviation Chapter of Comprehensive Plan. Suggest any revisions, additions or editing and direct staff on comrnenting to City Council. _ _ _ C C-� A 1 R P O R T P L A N Mendota Heights is a community directly and severely affected by aircraft operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Aircraft noise is a major issue for Mendota Heights because of the detrimental impacts of increased operations on the quality of (ife in existing neighborhoods and the impact of land use compatibility guidelines and noise contours on development options. In recent years, the numbers of airport operations and the percentage of departures/arrivals in the southeast corridor has increased to the point of overwhelming the capacity of the originally defined flight corridors: See fo(lowing map for reference to the location of the original flight corridors. The exclusive use of the parallel runways at MSP has led to an inequitable distribution of air traffic around MSP with those individual communities on the ends of the parallel runways suffering the burden of air naise created by this regional facility. All residential areas in Mendota Heights were in conformance with the aviation guidelines and their previous projections of air noise and air traffic, prior to adoption of the 1996 Aviation Guide Plan. Mendota Heights was the only city that adopted the Metropolitan Council noise zones and guidelines and is the only city to adopt and enforce a Noise Attenuation Ordinance. The Preferential Runway Use System at MSP relies heavily an "land compatibility" as a x guiding principle for departure determination, th j y increasing the vo(ume of traffic _ and the percentage of exclusive use of the " east corridor, which was zoned ' . commerciaUndustrial in cooperation with r' nd local plahning agencies. This increased traffic has impacted existing �� residential neighborhoods and is �� _� restricting the potential land use ..- „_ ,� �: remaining vacant land in Mendota � � Heights. - The City of Mendota Heights has v��ed strenuously to address airport noise issues. A citizen� Airports Relations Commission has been established by Mendota Heights to provide recommendations to the City Council on airport issues. This plan is a compilation of the City's work and history regarding the airport, a set of policies and actions to guide future decisions on airport, a description of the conflicts with other agencies responsible for airp�rt impacts, and a discussion of. the potential land use impacts from agency requirements. MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE Pt�1N UPDATE B�I DEVELOPMEIYT FRAMEWORK � C� � _ , •' � � J ',! �. `� • � '� , � , � , �► ;.n� •��ims�- ` :l;;:m-n`-:: i::�::°. :iiuii� _ ni� :1 �% i^ ��\\� J�� O � ♦�\\�r�.ti ��.��0 �!�� Ii�:� ��.�� :::: . � � i= i�-�� : =�.1:= �� ==_=-_�= ; :�� .�:.:i: �' f i :�i �. �� •,•._, �_�:= it�m..�.n� un,...� �. � � � �—= � �-I�"� �_ v. r !!.... i �i".ni I:Id�■ �rr�; �*� �� C C A 1 R P O R T P L A N GOe4LS AND POLICIES The overall goals in relation to airport related issues are as follows: 1. To reduce negative airpor� impacts in Mendota Heights. 2. To reduce aircraft noise through equitable distribution of flights among all communities Iocated adjacent to IVlSP. 3. To work diligently with all noise issues and agencies to decrease aircraft noise in volume and to decrease the area of noise impacts. Aircraft Noise Poticies To address the issues described herein and to pursue the goals of the City, the following are the policies of the City of Mendota Heights: 1. Increased public participation and representation through MASAC and MAC. 2: Achieve noise reduction through advocat' odified takeoff procedures and corridor comp�iance. . � 3. Advocate an equitable system. 4. Monitor ` the implementation Comprehensive Plan. and a more equitable runway use the Minneapoiis/St. Paul (MSP) airport 5. Advocate for specifiic noise_ control measures through opeGational ck�anges and advance technology. � fi. Participate with Metropolitan Council for appropriate land use guidelines in the Aviation Guide Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. HISTORY OF II�IIRPORT PL14NNING The following table provides a short history of airport and planning related actions that have occurred over the past 3� years. Included are major airport decisions by the City and other agencies that have impacted the community. MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE GS DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK C. �. C�. A I R P O R T P L A N AGENCY RESPOIVSIBILITIES Ciiy of Mendota Heiahts The �City of Mendota Heights has addressed aircraft noise issues in several ways, including the following formal actions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Membership in the Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Modification of the Land Use Plan consistent with the established aircraft flight corridor Adoption of the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance Establishment of the citizen Airports Relations Commission (ARC) to study airport issues and make recommendatiorr� to the City Council Agreement to a contract with MAC prohibiting construction of a third parallel runway Par�icipation in the Dakota County Airports Relations Commiss�on (DCARC) The Ciiy has worked through the various agencies on issues including: modification of aircraft landings and departures, supporting the installation of AN4MS, supporting the prohibition of Stage 11 aircraft, and educating homeowners about the Part 150 program. Reciional A eq ncies Two regional agencies have primary authori � airport operations and associated land use planning: the Metropolitan Airpo ; k- sion (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council. Their specific responsibili '��...� _ __ e in Technical Plan E. The Metropolitan Airports Com ��MAC} is responsible for operating and managing the Airport System in t�� win Cities Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Council establishes policies to gui aircraft operations and local land uses in order that they are consistent with one another. The regionai agencies have differing responsibilities and report independently to the State. The Metropolitan Council and IVletropolitan Airports Gommission have produced differing data and projections for aircraft operations and associated noise contours. Conflicts in Planninn The City of Mendota Heights planned its land used according to the planned flight corridor, and adopted land use guidelines into an ordinance format in 1987. Operations have strayed to existing residential areas outside of the planned corridor however, significantly impacting several neighborhoods. IMPACTS Otd FUTURE LAND USE PLANNING Mendota Heights has planned its land uses in relation to the defined southeast aircraft corridor. Residential areas were developed in compliance with the aviation guidelines MENDOTA HEIGHT'" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 65 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK � � C A I R P O R T P L A N and planned air traffic corridors. However in 1996, ihe Metropolitan Council changed its noise zones and guidelines, and it appears the southeast corridor has been effectively changed. This change not only makes many residential areas apparently inconsistent with operations, it means that established residential neighborhoods are subject to air traffic that was not intended to be in that area. In addition to an apparent e�anded corridor and major impacts on neighborhoods, the Metropolitan Council and the MAC disagree on the projected aircraft noise contours. The change in zones and uses by the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide Plan combine both the 1996 contours with the 2005 contour map with the north/south runway operational, anticipating a maximum amount of traffic in all directions. The contours shown by the MAC predict 2005 operations to be in accordance with only the 2005 map, showing aircraft traffic will be reduced in the southeast corridor), when the north/south runway is completed. See the map on the following page for refierence to the MAC predicted 2005 operations. According to the Metropolitan Council, operations are expected to continue to fan out over areas outside of the planned corridor. The City is concerned that by officially changing this contour, aircraft will be pemritted to fly outside ofi the planned corridor, over residential neighborhoods. This potential change in operations in turn aff many more vacant and existing properties than e�ected and predicted in past (,,�' ,� � se planning by the City. Land uses were aniicipated according to the previou ��: pted noise zones. A changing landscape of noise contours is detrimenta .~, ' range land use planning efforts by � ._ � ) the City, past and future, and unde, „ h, �� i appropriatefy for neighbofioods. Several vacant parcels of land -;: I�ndota Heights are impacted by the new Metropolitan Council Noise Policy � es. The change in the location of the zones and the uses in the zones poses problems for property owners and the City in determining the appropriate land use. (Each of the larger affected properties is addressed specifically in the �and Use Plan chapter of this Comprehensive Plan.) MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 6� DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK � ( � i_ FiQure A1: 2005 DNL contours for Alternatives 1 and 2(North parallel nin�vay option) y (Metropolitan Airports Commission) Sede In Mpat N �'l�._'llt'Z .��': ��)�)� D��L C1�11Il�ltI'� tOI'.aIiZI'Il�itl�'Z� � Qlll� C� (�OI"C�1-�OLiCI11'llll\�'a�' O(�t10I1� ��Ietro�olitan Airports Comiilissi��n�? 1(� m t '} 08/19/99 THU 12:46 FAx 6127256310 Environment and Noise 1�letropolitan Airports C'ommis�ion Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs .FA� T'rans�at°ttal DATE: July 13, 1998 . •- •� r .� T'O: 1V�r. Kevin B$tchelder CO111PANY.• ; � NUI�IBER O� PAGES {WdTH FAX �OT�ER): 1lIESSAGE: Kevin: Mendota Heights 651-452-8940 26 As you requested, the following i.nformation concerns the nighttirne agreements with aircraft operators at MSP. I ha�e included copies of the Northwest A.irlines 1nc. agreement with respect to their noise agreement, and a copy of the section of the Sun Country Lease agreement pertaining to noise penalty. I am aiso including cop- ies of the voluntazy ni:ghttime agreements with the cargo operators; Emery World Wide, Ryan International. Federal Express, UPS, and Airborne Express for night- time stage 2 use. Please keep in mind that the 1992 voluntary nighttime agreements with the cargo operators were a resuli of NOT being able to implement a.1VIAC ordi- nance to prohibit the use of stage 2 aircraft at night due to the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act and FAR Part 16i requirements. These agreernents did reduce the use of stage 2ai_rcraft during the nighttime hours from 54% in the second quarter of 1993 to only 17% in the fourth quarter of 1994, a substantial reduction, and noticed by the communities at the time. Please call if you have any ques�ions. 6D40 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN554�0 6I2 726-8100 FAX 612 726-5296 t�ool C� C " 08/19/99 THU 12:47 FA1 6127256310 Environment and Noise I�002 � � � , 1 : ' + . '.; . 1 ! f, . �, . �' � ARTICLE XXI PUBLIC POLICY REPRESENTATIONS AND Ct?VENAI�ITS; REMEDIES . 2I. l. Noise. Lessee agrees that it shall cause its Affiliate, NAI, with Respect to noise abatement at the Airport to: (a} consent to provide its Proportionate Share of Air Carrier Funding for soundproofing, purchase assurance, and other project costs for Off-Airport Aircraft Noise Costs of not Iess than $2,000,000 per year, beginning in I994 through the date of termination of the Scheduled Airline Operating Agreement and Terminal Building Lease; (b) accept delivery of Stage 3 Aircraft in 1992 having an aggregate Purchase Price of not less than $390,000,000; (c} limit its Proportional Utilization of Stage 2 Aircraft at the Airport beginning in calendaz year 1992 (calculated on an annualized basis} to no more than the Proportional Urilization of Srage 2 Aircraft at the Airport in any calendar year above the prior calendar year's Utilization, beginning in 1993 (as compared with 1992 Utilization}; and . (d) comply with an 11:00 p.m. to 6:OQ a.m. curfew at the Airport for sched�led passenger arrivaIs ar depaztures of NAI Stage 2 Aircraft during such time period. . Section 21.100 above shall not be deemed ta prevent NAI from increasing its Proportional Utilization of Stage 2 Aircraft at the A.irport in the event af force majeure. � r � 08/19/99 THU 12:4r FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise LQ.j003 ...�.`� \ .� : `F rther cavenants and agrees that any such rejection shal�. au omatica2ly constitute rejection of all other such lease�, .,;he er o= not further action is taken by Lessee or such Affili es to do o• The provisions af this Se�tion 20.2 (1a} sha3,1 not - iect the dete�rminatian of whether any cr�ntract or agreement con�t itutes 3�}lease �far purposes of § 365 af the Bankruptcy Code� (or any similar pravision}. � (n) Na. Investment Pronosa2. The Lessee�ovenants and agrees to nat, and to cause all of its Affiliat s to not, suhmit any proposal for i�vestment in the Lessee or an�f its Affiliates, or request any investment in the Lesses o= of its Affiliates, from any retirement,`��ension or simiia= fu�a�inistered by ti�e Minnesota�State Board of Investment. Far purpases of this Section 2o.2(n), investment" shall include any� raperty delivered to or exchanged with any Persdn whether �gainst delivery of stock, evidence of indebtedness, or.other obligatians ar security. . � (o) Net Wor-�h. At an� time that no Major Debt is outstanding, Lessee shall. ca�se`•�NAI- to maintain a 3'angible Net worth of not less than $i, 000.;�000, 004.. QO and Lessee shall cause NAI to furnish to Lessar a ce��iiicate setting forth the Tangible Net t�orth of NAI and a deta3l"ed calculatzon thereof as of the end af each calendar quarter �t the times and��aiong with the statements reguired by Section •d.l(a) (ii) and (iiij`�.:hereof. (p) Trans ctions with Al.fred Checc zi•. Associates Inc, or r�ffiliates. A1 � transactiQns between Lessee �or any A.ffiliate of the Lessee, nd Alfred Checchi Associates, ��Inc., a Delaware corporation shall be on terms no less favorable to�..Lessee (ar such Affil.iate) than would be available if the Person. were not an Affiliat , excapt that this prohibition shall not apply to (i �orma �rran ements between airlines if the a } such rrangements, in the opinion of Lessee�sgmanagementf�cs in the be interest of Lessee, (ii) any transaction pursuant��•�:to the isting Agreement, or (iii) any transaction between Lessee' nd a Guarantor or between Guarantors. � � W � ARTICLE XXI \� \ PIIBLTC POLICY REPRE3ENTATZONB A:ND COYEN�iNTB: REMEDIES Z�.l. Noise. Lessee agreas that it shall� cause its �ffiliate, NAI, with respect to noise abatement at the Airpart to: (a) consent to provide its Proportionate Share of Air Carrier Funding for soundproo�ing; purchase assurance and other project costs for Off-Airpart Aircraft Noise Costs of not less than $2,000,000 per year, beginning in 1994 through the date of teratination af the Scheduled Airline Operating Agreement and Terminal Building Lease; accept delivery of Stage 3 Aircraft in 1992 having an aggregate Purchase Price of not I,ess than $390, 000, 000; �0 08/19/99 THU 12:48 FA� 6127256310 Environment and Noise J_. " �:�' '.(i � �� '�1: r:� �". � "� �,. .:�: � (c) limit its P=oportional Utilization of stage 2 Aircraft at the Airport beginning in calendar year 1992 (ca3culated on an annualized basis) to no more than the Proportional UtiZization af�Stage 2 Airc=aft throughout NAI's Domestic system, and (i} not to increase its Prapflrtional Util.izatian of Stage 2 Aircraft at the Airport in any calendar year abave the p=ior calendar year's Utilization, beginning in 1993 (as compa=ed with 1992 Utilizatian); and {d) compl.y with an 11:00 p.m. to 6:OQ a.m. curfew at the Airport for scheduled passenge= arrivals o= departures of NAI Staga 2.Airc=aft during such time pe=iod. �ection 2I.Z(c) above shall not be deemed to prevent NAI from :ncreasing its ProportionaZ Utilization of Staqa 2 Aircraft at the �,irpart in the event of farce majeure. -�-21.2. Emplovment and Headquarters. Lessee agrees that it :hall, and shall cause its Affiliates, NAI and NWA with respect tfa •cploym �t and Corporate Headquarters: ,= (a} \(pve=aIl Employmer�t} To cause Affiliated Employ es to 13� employed in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metr o3.itan are � and the State of Minnesata at � Substant ' 3.1y the 1.eve3.� existing as af February 29, 1g92 hich was 17,883�..ti persons} (calculated annually}• provided, however;•�Duluth Emplayees at the Dulut Facility and Hibbing Einployees at the Hibbing Facil' y. shall not be inciud�d in�determining compliari�e wi this provision 21.2 (a} ; . '�� (b) (Duluth Employrnent7 To cause t be emplgyed at the Duluth Facility Duluth Employe s at�Substantially the following levels: (.i} not less than 300 Du2uth Employees not later ti�an ne 30, I995; (ii) after June 30, 1995 until the e ective date in (iii) below, an annually increasing er of Duluth Empioyees and for any day, not le�� tYian the number of Duluth Employees that were ployed��on any preceding day and in no event less th n 300 DulutY� Employees; and (iii) not iess than l, Q Duluth Emplo�ees not later than three (3} year after the Duluth� Facility becomes operational or une 30, ].998, whiche�er first occurs, and to main in at least such level af employment (cal.culated�nnually thereafter) ; \ (�) (Hibbin Employment}. To cause ta be emplo� Hibbin Facility Hibbing Employees at Substan fallo ing levels: (iv) not less than 20 Emp oyees not later than September 30, 1995; S tember 30, 1995 until the effective dat elow, an annually increasing number of Empl,oyees and for any day, nat 2ess than the 41 d at the ti lly the o �� ,f �ng (v) ter e in i) Hibbi number of t� 004 � 08/19/99 THU 12:49 F�� 6127256310 Environment and Noise 1�005 Richard H. Anderson Senior Vice President Technical Operarions & Airport Affairs Norchwesc Airiines, Inc. Deparanent C7-8000 5101 Northwest Drive St. Paul VIN 55112-3o34 - September 3, 1997 612 '727-4043 612 726-4942 Fax Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South. Minneapolis, MN 55450 RE: Voluntary Air Carrier Agreem�nt to Manage Stage 2 Operations at MSP Dear Jeff: This dacument sets forth #he terms of NORTHWEST ALRLINES Vo[untary Noise �-- � Managemen# Meihodology Agreement for execution by the Metropolitan Airports Commission {MAC}. NORTHWEST AND MAC V4LUNTARILY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. in consideration of the execution and compliance with this voluntary agreement by alI air carriers operating aircraft greater than 75,000 pounds, the MAC wii! not adopt a regulationlordinance limiting activity of Stage 2 aircraft. 2. Nor�hwest agrees to use ifs best efforks from the effective date af this agreement ta scheduEe all aircraff operations so that depar�ures and arrivals ai the MinneapoEis/St. Paul Iniernational Airpo�f {MSP) will not occur during the Nighttime Period (11 p.m. - 6 a.m. local time). 3. Subject #o provision 4 belaw, Northwest agrees to use best efforts to limit its utiEization af Stage 2 Aircraft a# MSP (measured as Annual Average Daily Stage 2 Operations) to meet the fallowing Annual0bjective: not #o exceed the previous year's Annua! Average. Dai[y Stage 2 Operations. Given a valid adjustment �o a carrier's federaily es#ab�ished Stage 2 Base Leve! [as speci�ed in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91 861 J a carrier's MSP Annual �verage Daiiy Stage 2 Operations Objective will be adjusted accordingly. o�'LDt�'r� 1�KLM:. �c4t. 1�+ �� . -1q<g�1+ 08/19/99 THU 12:49 FA<Y 6127256310 Environment and Noise 4. MA� agrees to permit Northwest tfie follawing exceptions for operating Stage 2 aircraft at MSP under circumstances that are beyond the control. oi ihe Air Carrier: (a} landings necessita#ed by in-fligh# mechanical probiems, fuel shartage, or other emergency #iight conditions; (b} delays or aircraft substitution due to mechanical emergencies; (c) air traffic contro{ (ATC) delays at MSP, at #he preceding departure airport, or within the ATC system; or (d) weather conditions (at depariure terminal, destination terminai, enroute, ar at MSP). 5. MAC and Northwesi further agree that except as providecf in FAR Part 91.873 [valid fecieral waiver provisions], after December 3'i, 1999, Northwest sha11 not operafe to or fram the Minneapolis/St. Paul tniernational Airpo!�t any airplane subject to FAR Part 91.801(c) [civil subsonic iuri�ojet greaier than 75,000 poundsj, uniess that airplane has been shown #o camply wiih S#age 3 noise levels. 6. Northwest agrees to cooperate with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} in maximiZing use of MSP's Runway Use System, consiste�t with safe operating procedures. Narthwesi agrees to conduct fEight crew training programs designed #o reduce noise impacts. Such apera#ionai training procedures should include: a. Use af approved noise abatement takeoff procedures. b. Utiiiza#ion of minimum fanding flap settings, consisteni with � safe aperating procedures. c. Minimize use of reverse thrust on landing during nighttime � hours, cansistent wiih safe operating procedures. d. Training operations wi11 not be carried out at the Airpo�t except for the initial departure and finaI arrivai. 7. Northwes# agrees to provide�to MAC, on a quarterly basis, its actua! utilizatio� af aircraft, by aircraft type and specifying whsther each aircraft operation is Stage 2 or Stage 3. Northwest agrees to list in eaci� quarferly report the circumstances surrounding operation of Stage 2 aircraft relative to the exceptions listed in provision 4 of this agreement, and to provide sucF� additional explanation as MAC may reasonably require. 8. MAC will repa�i Calendar Quarter Pragress Monitoring and Annual Objective Monitaring (Not to Exceed the Previous Year's AnnuaJ Average Daily Stage 2 Operations) by air carrier and by totaf airport performance for the time periods - 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., and total overall performance. Tatal Annual Average Daily Stage 2 Qperations is the objective Moniioring Criteria. 08/19/99 THU 12:50 FAY 612r256310 Environment and Noise 9. MAC and Northwest mutuaily establish the 1994 Annua! Average Dai[y Stage 2 Operations Baseiine as part of this agfeement. Northwest Air(ines' initial 1994 Baseline is 380.6 Average Daily Stage 2 Operations. Calendar year 1995 was the first annuai fnformafiona! Year - Your pertormance in 1995 was 373.2 Average Daily Stage 2 Operations, determined from MAC's Airpari Noise and Operations Moniioring Sysiem (.ANOMS), and FAA radar informatian. Calendar year 1996 will be the f rst 4bjective Monitoring- Year. 10. MAC agrees to request ail air carriers operating turbojet aircraft grea#er than ?5,000 pounds currently serving MSP, and future new entrants, to execute this Voiuntary Agreemeni. 11. Nothing in this P+greement is intended to negate or repiace any pre- existi�g agreements between the parties. _- 12. Whiie both parties agree to use.their best efforts ta camply. with the requirements of this Voluntary �greement, both MAC and Northwest reserve the right to withdraw from this agreement by providing the qther _ Party ninety days advanc� written notice. Aut rized Narthwest Official ACC PTED AND AGREED BY THE MCTR � Ot1TAN A1i�PORTS COMM1SSiON �� _ � .. � . � ` i: � 'i " � �' ;a �' - ,. � — 08/19/99 THU 12:50 Fdl 6127256310 Environment and Noise 7. Nnise Penaities Sun Country agrees not to operate or schedule the operation of Stage 2 aircraft between the hours of 'S0:3Q p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Sun Country agrees to pay a�1;Q00 pef operation penalty fee for operations in violation af these hours beginning with the date of beneficial occupancy. Penalties witl be de#ermined based on quarteriy reports submitied by Sun Country and any other information available to MAC. Sun Couniry shalt keep a current iist of aircraft numbers and �focurnentation cartiiying that the aircraft have been hush-kitted on file with MAC at a!I tirnes. The following exceptions are granted for operating non-S#age 3 airctaft during the curfew hours sta#ed above: (a} iandings necessitated by inflight mechanicai problems, fuel shortage, or other emergency conditions; (b) delays or aircrafit substitution due to mechanical emergencies; (c) air traffic control (ATC) delays at MSP, at the precading departure airport, or within the ATC system between those airparts; ar, (d) weather conditions enraute or at MSP. Sun Country further agrees tha# no Stage 2 aircraft will be operat�d at the Airport after December 31, 1999. � 8. Diiiqence bv Airiine Sun Country, and those operating under agreement with Sun Country, in ti�e conduct �, of its and their authorized business acfivities an the Leased Premises and on the `--' Airport, shall fumish such service on a fair, equa! and not unjustly discriminatory basis to aIE users thereof, and shali charge fair, reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory prices far each unit of sale or services; provided, however, that Sun Country and #f�ose operating urider agreement with Sun Caunfry shail be allowed to maice reasanabEe and not unjustly discriminatory discounfs, rebates, ar other similar types af price reducfions to volume purchaser5. Sun Cauntry shall have al! the rights and privileges tQ conduci alE business operations authorized under the terms of this Agreement, provided, however, that this Agreement st�a11 not be construed in any manner io grant Sun Cauntry, or those claiming -under ii, the exclusive right to use tfte Leased Premises � or faciiities of the Airport o�ti-►er ihan ti�ose Leased Premises leased exclusively to Sun Cauntry. 9. Ramp and Builciina Maintenance A. Condiiion of Leased Premises Sun Country ai its own cast and expense shail take good care of the Leased Premises and the buildings, structures or improvements at any time located thereon and sha11 keep and mainiain them in gaod ord�r and repair ar�d in a clean and neat condition.� Sun Country shall not suffer or permit any waste or nuisance on the Leased Premises or anything thereon that shali interfere with the rights of other air(ines or MAC in connection with the use of portions of #he Airport not leased tQ Sun Country. ln the e�ent Sun Counfry fails to take good care of the Leased Premises, MAC is authorized ta provide such maintenance or repair as needed and to charge Sun Country for the cost of providing such 13 08/19/99 THU 12:51 FAY 6127256310 Environment and Noise [�009 , .. Date: 3� 1�e � a�, METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION �: j� '� ,.,_,. • �I.�1 Director af Commeccial Management � Airiirte Affairs SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, lNC. 'i �rt--=— - - - -1`� _ ' y � Titte � C�`. � . . � , �r; ,rt v-�- r-e. �� r' 08/19/99 THU 12:51 FA1 6127256310 Environment and Noise __ S 770126th Avenue So. • Mirrneapolis, MN 55450-1088 • ARJNC MSPXZSY o FAX 6�2-726-5694 • 612-726-5252 Augusi 19, 1992 Mr. Jeffrey H,amiel Executive Direcior Metropolitan Airports Commission 6Q40 2$th Avenue Sou.ih Minn.eagolis, Mi�' S5450 RE: VQLUNTARY AiRLLNE A�REEMEI`TT TO ELIMI�TATE STAGE 2 OPER4TIOI�TS AT MSP DURING rTIGHTTi11�fE PERIQD Dear Mr. I�amiel: VVe apgreciate the opportuniiy to work wiih the METROPOLITANAIRPORTS COI�ZM.ISSION (M.,AC) staff to negotiate ihe elimination af Stage 2 operations at iVISP during the �Tighttime , � ' Period. This letter sets forth tTie texzns of StTN COUNTRY AIRLII�TE'S (Airline) negotiated Voluntary Agreement for execution by MAC. AIRLLNE AND MAC VOLUNTARILY AGREE .AS FOLLOWS: L Subject to execution af and camgliance with this vol�ntary agreer�ent by aIl camers ogeraf�ing aircraft greater than ?5,Ofl0 pounds, MAC will not adopt a regulation/ ordinance Iimiting nighttime activity af Stage 2 airc�-aft. 2. Airline agrees io ase its best efforts fram the effective d.ate of this agreement to schedule all aircraft ogeratians so tha� departures and arrivals at MSP will not occur duri.ng the Nighttime Period (11 p.m. - 6 am. C.S.T. or C.D.T.). 3. Subj ect to pmvision 4 below, Airline agrees that it will not scnedule or operate any Stage 2 aircraft at MSP duri.ng the Nighitime Perio� Tris provision shall ta.ke e�'ect as oi 11 p.m., December 31, 1992. 4• IVLgC agrees to permit Airline the follawing exceptions for operating Siage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period under circumstances that are beyond ihe control of Airline: (a} landings necessitated by inflight mechanical problems, fuel shortage, or other emergency flight condifaons; (b) delays or aircraft substitufaon due to mechanical emergencies; (c) air traffic contml (ATC) delays at Ib%SP, at the preceding departure airport or within the ATC system between these airporfs; or (d) weaiher' conditions (enroute or at MSP). C 08/19/99 THU 12:52 FA1 6127256310 Environment and Noise �. Airline agrees to cooperate with the FAA in ma�mizing use of 1VISP`s Run.way Use System. Cc�nsistent with safe operating procedures, Airline agrees to acceierate flight crew training grograms designed to reduce noise im.pacts. Such ogerational irai.ning procedures shauld include: a. Use af approved noise abatement takeoff procedures. b. Uiilizatian af �*r+;�+;mum landing flap settiugs, consistent with sa.fe ogerating procedures. c. Min.imize use� af reverse ihrust on Ianding during nighttime hours, consis�ent with safe operating procedures. cL �aining aperations will not be carried out at the Airport except for the initial departure and final arrival. 6. Airli.ne agrees to provide to MAC, on a qua,rierly basis, its acivat utilization of aircraf�, by aircraft type and specifying wheiher each aircraft ogeration is Stage 2 or Stage 3. ' Airiine agrees to list in each monthly report the circumstances surroun.ding any operation af Siage 2 ai.rcraft within the Nighttime Period and to provide such additional explan.ation as MA.0 may reasonably require. 7. MAC agrees to request ail� aixline and all-carga camers currently serving MSP to execute this Voluntary Agreemen� 8. Nothing i.n this Agreement is intended io negate or replace any pre-existing agreements between the Pariies. 9. While bath par£ies agree to use theirbesi effarts ta comply with the requirements ofthis Voluntary Agreement, both MAC and Airli.ne reserve the right to withdraw fram this agreement by providing the o�her Party ninety days advance written notice. Aut ri Ai.rline Ufficial ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE METR�POLITAN AIRPORTS COMM3SSION BY ITS DATE �� 08/19/99 THU 12:52 FAY 6127256310 Enyironment and Noise 1Q.1012 � / �/1�LINES August 12, 1992 A Campany Mr. Jeffery W. Hamiel Executive Director Metropolitan A.irports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55454 RE : VOLUPITARY AIRLINE AGREEMENT TO. ELIMINATE STAGE 2• OPERATIbNS AT MSP DURING NIGHTTIME PERIOD Dear Mr. Hamiel: We appreciate the opportunity to work with the METROPOLITADI AZRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC} staff to negotiate the elimination o`f Stage 2 operations at MSP du=ing the Nighttime Period. . This letter sets forth the terms of EMERY WORLDWIDE AZRLINB'S (Airline) negotiated Voiuntary Agreement ior executi-c5n by MAC. AIRLINE AND MAC VOLUNTARILY AGREE AS FOLLOW5: l. Subject to execution of and compliance with this voluntary agreement by all carriers aperating aircraft greater than 75,Q00 pounds, MAC wi].1 not adopt a regulation/ordinace limiting nighttime activity of Stage 2 aircraft. 2. Airline agrees to use its best effarts frorn the effective date of this agreement to schedule all aircraft operations so that departures and arrivals at MSP will not occur during the Nighttime Period (11 p.m..- 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T.�. � � 3. Subject to provision 4 helow, 'Airline agrees that it will not schedule or operate any Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period. 2his provision shall take effect�as of 11 p.m., December 31, 1992. 4. MAC agrees to permit Airline the following exceptions for operating Stage 2 Aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period under circumstances that�are beyond the control of Airline: (a) landings necessitated by inflight mechanical problems, fuel shortage, or other emergency flight conditions; (b} delays or aircraft subatitution due to mechanical' emergencies; {c} airtraffic cantrol (ATC) delays at MSP, at the preceding departure airport or within the ATC system between these airgorts; or (d} weather conditions {enroute or at MSP}. 5. MAC further agrees to permit Ai=line to operate Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period, with prior notification, in those special, non-recurring situations where a client shipper notifies Airline ori date of shipment that items requiring overnight aircargo service from MSP cannot physically be delivered to Airline in time for the aircraft's scheduled (pre-11 g.m.) departure time. In addition, MAC agrees tn permit Stage 2 operations during tha Nighttime Period, with prior ONE EMERY PLAZA, DAYTON INTERNATIONA� AfFPORT, VANDALtA, OHIO 45377 M.II-ES AHEAU 0$/19/99 THU 12:53 F�� 6127256310 Environment and Noise notification, on those nan-recurrent occasiona that the volume of ; freight tendered ta the Airline on date of shipment necessitates the � addition of a flight which reasonably cannot be operated by Stage 3 equipment or requires the substitution.of larger Stage 2 aircraft for the acheduled Stage 3 aircraft. 6. Air2ine agrees to caoperate with the FAA in maximiz.ing use of MSP's Runway Use System. Consist�nt with safe operating procedures, Airline agrees ta accelerate flight crew training programs designed to reduce noise impacts. Such operational training procedures should include: a. b. c. d. Use of approved noiae abatement takeofi procedures.. Utilization of minimum landing flap aettings, consistent with safe operating procedurea. Minimize use of reverae thrust on landing during nighttime hours, consistent with safe aperating procedures. Training operations will not be carried out at the Airport except for the initial departu=e.and final a'rrival. 7. Airline agzees to p=ovide to MAC,. on a quarterly basis, its actual utilization of aircraft, by aircraft type and specifying whether each aircrait operation is Stage 2 or Stage 3. Airiine agrees to list in each manthly report the circumstances surrounding any operation of Stage 2 aircraft within the Nighttime Period and to provide such additional explanation as MAC may reasonably =equire. 8. 9. MAC agrees to request all airline and all-cargo carriers currently serving MSP to execute this Voluntary Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nec}ate or replace any pre- existing agreements between the Parties. 10. While both parties agree to use their best efforts to comply with the requirements of this Voluntary Ag�eernent, both MAC and Airline reserve the right to withdraw from this agreement by praviding the ather party ninet days advance written notice. �� rstL i� Donald A. Smith Director, Flight Operations ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION BY ITS DATE LQ.J 013 08/19/99 THU 12:53 FAY 6127256310 Ens�ironment and Noise [�014 ' ' j1; —, , � �;;,. , t_ .'-. �� 'yan /nterr�a�onal Air/ines � August 25, 1992 R�C��VEL� AUG 31 19g2 Mr. 7effrey W. Hamie! EXEGUTIVE UI�ECTOfi Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South � Minneapalis, MN 55450 RE: VOLUNTARY AIRLINE AGREEMEidT TD ELIMINATE STAGE 2 OPERATIONS AT IvISP DURING NIGHTI'IME PERIOD Dear Mr. Hamiel: We appreciate the oppartunity to work with ihe METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC) staff to negotiate the elimination of Stage 2 operations at MSP during the Nighttime Period. � This letter sets forth the terms of RYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (Airline) negotiated �Ioluntary Agreement for executian hy MAC. , AIRLiNE AND MAC �IOLUNTARILY AGREE AS FOLLQWS: l. Subject to execution of and compIiance with this voiuntary agreement by a]t carriers operating aircraft greater than�i5,000 pounds, MAC wiIi not adapt a regutation/ordinance limiting nighttime aetivity of Stage 2 aircraft. 2. AirIine agrees to use its best efforts from the effective date of this agreement to schedule all aircraft operations so that departures and anivals at MSP will not occur during the Nighttime Period {11 p_m. - 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T.). 3. Subject to provisian 4 beiow, Airline agrees that it will not schedule or ogerate any Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period. This pravision shall take effect as of 11 p.m., December 3I, 1992. 4. i�iAC agrees to permit Airline the following exceptions for operating Stage 2 ` aircraft at MSP during the Nighttirne Period under circumstances that are beyond the contral of Airline: (a) landings necessitated by inflight mechanical problems, fuel snoctage, or other emergency flight conditians; (b} delays or aircraft substitution due to mechanical emergencies; (c) air tra�c contro! (ATC) delays at MSP, at the preceeding departure airpart or within the ATC system between these airports; or (d} weather canditions (enroute or at MSP). 5. MAC further agrees to permit Airline to operate Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period, with priar notification, in those special, non-recurring situations where a ciient shipper notifies Airline on date of shipment that items requiring overnight air cargo service from MSP cannot physicaliy be delivered to Airlina i.n time far the aircraft's scheduIed (pre-I1 p.m.) departure time. In Corpotate Headquarters 1600 Airport Road Wichita, Kansas 67209-1990 316 946-4990 Dayton Hub 303 CorporaCe Center Drive Vandalia, Ohio 45377 513 89&8&48 lndianapalls Hub 5522 Dividend Road indianapolis, Indiana 46241 3'17 247-7558 08/19/99 THU 12:54 FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise t�015 addition, MAC agrees io permit Stage 2 operations dvring the Nighttime Period, with prior notification, on those non-recurrent occasions that the volurne of freight tendered to the Airline on date of shipment necessitates the addition of a flighi which reasonably cannot be operated by Stage 3 equipment or requires the svbstilutian of larger Stage 2 aircraft for the scheduleti Stage 3 aircraft. 6. Airline agrees to cooperate with the FAA in maximizing use of MSP's Runway Use System. Consistent with safe operating procedures, Airiine agrees to accelerate flight crew training programs designed to reduce noise impacts. Such ogerationat training procedures should include: a. Use of approvetl noise abatement takeoff procedures. 6. Utiiizatian of minimum landing flap settings, consistent with safe aperating pracedures. Minimize use of reverse thrust on landing during nighttime hours, cansistent with safe operating grocedures. d. Training operations will not be canied out at the Airport except for the initial departure and final azrivaf. 7. Airline agrees to provide to MAC, on a quarterly basis, its actual utilization of � aircraft, by aircraft type and specifying whether each aircraft operation is Stage --. 2 or Stage 3. Airline agrees to list in each monthly report the circumstances surrounding any operation of Stage 2 aircraft within the Nighttime Period and to provide `such additional exglanation as MAC may reasonably require. 8. MAC agrees to request all airline and ail-cargo carriers currently serving MSP to execute this Voluntary Agreement. 9. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to negate or replace any pre-existing agreernents between the Parties. 10. While bo#h parties agree to use their best e€forts to comply with the requirements of this Voluntary Agreement, both MAC and Airline reserve the right to wi raw this reement by providing the other Party ninety days advance � wr" e no e. � Authorized Airline Official ACCEPTED AI�tD AGREED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION : ITS DATE 08/19/99 THU 12:55 FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise �egal Departmen� 2065 Corporate Avenue Memph�s. TN 38732 901395•3382 U.S. Mail: Box 727 , Mempnrs.TN 38t94-7842 PAX:90�.3g5-3456 September 2a, 1992 4akoln &Wnie NaLional QU31LN Award � 1990 lbinner Mr. Je�frey W. Hamiel Executive Directar Metropolitan Airports Commiasion 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 RB : VOLUNTARY AIRLINB AGR.B�SNT TO BLINLTNATE STAGB 2 OPFsRATIONS AT' MSP Di7RING NIGHTT� PSRIOD Dear Mr. Hamiel: We appreciate the opportunity to wark with the METROPOLIT.AN AIRPORTS COMMISSION {�,C) staff to negotiate �� the appropriate restrictions on Stage 2 operations at MSP duririg the Nighttime Period. � This letter sets forth �he terms of FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONS'S {Airline} negotiated Voluntary Agreement for execution by MA.C. AIRLINE AND MAC VQLUNTAR.ILY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subj ect ta execution of and cornpliance with this or a subs�antially similar Voluntary Agreement by all carriers ogerating aircraft greater than 75,OOQ pounds, MAC will not adop� a regulation/ordinance limit.ing nighttirne activity of Stage 2 aircraft. 2. Airline agrees to use its best eff.orts from the effective date of this Agreement to schedule all Stage 2 aircraft operation� so that departures and arrival.s. at MSP will not occur during the Nighttime Period {11 p�.m. - 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T,}, 3. Subject to provisions 4, 5, and 9 below, Airline agrees that it will not schedule ar aperate any Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during �he Nighttime Period. Th�s provisian shall take effect as of 11 p.m., December 3I, 1992. j 08/19/99 THU 12:55 FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise l�017 Mr . Jef f rey W. Ha.m_iel September 24, 1992 Page 2 4. MAC agrees ta pernlit Airline the following exceptions for operating Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period under circumstances that are beyond the reasonable control of Airline: (a) landings neceseitated by inflight mechanical problems, fuel sho=tage, or other emergency flight conditions; (b) delays or aircraft sub�titution due to mechanical problerns, maintenance� requirements, or weather conditions; (c) air �.raffic control {ATC) delays at MSP, at the preceeding departure airport or within the ATC sys�em between these airports; or (d) weather conditions (enroute or at MSP}. 5. MAC further agrees to permit Airline to operate Stage 2 aircraf t at MSP during the Nighttime Period, with prior notification, in tho�e special,.non-recurring situations where a client shipper �.otifies Airline that items requirin.g overnigYit air cargo service from MSP cann.ot physically be delivered to Airline in time for the aircraft's scheduled (pre-11 p.m.} departure time. In addition; MAC agrees �o permit Stage 2 opera�ions during the Nighttime Period, with prior notification, on those non-recurrent occasians that the volume of freight tendered to the Airline necessit�ates the addition of a flight which reasonably cannot be operated by Stage 3 equipment or requ�.res the substitution of Stage 2 aircraft for the scheduled Stage 3 aircratt. 5. Airl.ine agrees to cooperate with the FAA in maximizing use of MSP'9 Runway Use System. Consistent with safe aperating procedures, Airline agrees to adopt or con.tinue flight crew training programs designed to reduce noise impacts. Such operational training procedures should include: a. Use of approved noise abatement takeoff procedures. b. Utilization of minimum landing flap settings, consistent with safe operating procedures. c. Minimize use of reverse thrust on landing during nighttime hours, consistent with safe operating procedures. d. Training operations will not be carried out at the Airport except for the initial departure and final arrival. � 08/19/99 THU 12:56 F�� 6127256310 Environment and Noise 1�j018 �� . .. -- Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel September 24, 1992 Page 3 7. Airline agrees to provide to MAC, on a quarterly basis, its actual utilization of aircraft, by aircraft type and specifying whether ea.ch aircraft operation is Stage 2 or Stage 3. Airline agrees to list in each quar�erly report the circumstances su=rounding any operation of Stage 2 aircraft within the Nighttime Period and to provide such additional explanation as MAC may reasonably require. 8. MAC agrees ta request all air carriers currently serving MSP to execute this or a substantiall.y similar Valuntary Agreement. 9. N'othing in this Agreement is intended to negate or replace any pre-existing agreemen�s between the Airline and MAC, including, without I.imitations, that certain Letter Agreement dated May 14, 1.986 between Airline and MAC. 1Q.� Whil.e both parties agree to use their best efforts to comply with the requirements of this Voluntary Agreement, both MAC and Airline reserve the righ� to withdraw from this Agreement by providing the other party ninety {g0) days advax�.ce written notice. a�:• ,. �..�.. � : ' Ca� � • i :i� 1� IC '•s• • , ••�• • � i �_il BY ITS DATE FXSJJ.34Q7 08/19/99 THU 12:56 FA1 6127256310 Environment and Noise C�019 ' ��:..' - -- i-'!�% �'i;_i' +�G:_ t —a�a _ F'�"�-iL :J TLi `_:i�_1'_'i:�F:__�r'. r HLi::.�:�'1 . , i � ` � � � �v t � . `\ . �� . . . . . . . I .��. . �cv .-r''�' y�,• v ..,n ,..,, ��.': . . .::5.✓•;:.. � ?:!�•rp . _7:ts;;v;l±@, n"Y" 4J223� � C �:1��:,., •.;v ��`\.�� ;SCJ�) �'?�'J-3C�0 Sep�.e3aber 8, �992 3iz'. S�ef�re� W. �ami.el F.xec�t4iv� pi.rectb�.- Metropa�itan Airports Cammissian si�� ZSth Avene�e Souti� 3�inneapoli�, M!3 55�§50 Re: Valuntary A.iriina Agr�emeat tc► Eli.�inat+� 5tage 2 operations at M5P i7t�r�3� N�g �:�i�t� F�riad bear �, Ham�.el: . We apnr�ciate th�e op�ortunity to wr�rk with ��,e �e�ro�alitan �.irports Con�issiar� (ifA�) staf� to aego�iate tl�.e ��.iainat�.on o� Stage 2 operatians at MSP during the �tighttilas Period. This lett�� sets. ft�rt.h tha t�:�as �rf United Parcel Sesvice Ca_'s (Asr3.ine} negoti�ate+d Vo2utt�ary Ac�r�ant for ��cution 13� �i�.C_ Air�ine and Y3AC v+�3uritari3.y a�ee as �ol�ows: . 3. Subject to executian of and c�ruplia�nce wzth ihis vaiun��ary agre�.ent hy all ��.xriers operating aircr�ft greater `.han 7�, 400 pQunds, i�iAC wi? 3. not a8apt a regul.ationforr�.zna.n�e limiting nighttime ac-"ivity of Stage 2 aircraft_ ' 2. Air�ine agrees to us� its b�s� efforts fro�s the effec�iv� dat� of �is agraem,ent to �che2tu3e S'Eage 2 aircrait ap�rafi.ions sct ti�.a.t d�p�ures �nd arrisrais at i�SP �'iI.1 ns�t occur during tb.e �iigh�tim� Period {13 �.�z.. - 6 a.�. C.S.T_ �a= c_�.2.}. 3_ Bxc�:pi as �provided in provisi+�t2s 4 and 5 be�.ow, �.irline agrees t�at it will nQt schedtil.e or �+�sz-ate any Stag� 2 aircraft a� i�SF e�urzng the 2�iigiz�ti.me pc�ri.bd. .This prc�vision sh�ll 'take effec� as of Z1 p.m.r D��ember 31, 199�. 4_ MAC anci �i*-line u:�ders��nd that th� follo�wing $Ya.�ll b� considered excegtions for operatirsg Stage 2�.ircra�t at 2�P dvring th� 2+Tiga�time P�xiod und�= circumstarices that are beyond the control of AirZi��: (�} 1ar�din�s n�esszta�ed by infligbt m�chanical proi��ens, �ue�. short�ga, ar other eruergency f3ight can�itzans; (bj dela�s or airc.�-aft s�stitution due t4 rnechanica3. �mergencie�; {�) air traffic 7GS5J2o 08/19/99 THU 12:57 FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise .. --- �-�� L 1i � v_ r=h.."�E'i I��'S , _tcL i _ �ii= =iiT.:., i % '�i--- .'��•_�t .'i-;�._-• --c Mr . J�tfrey W . Haraiel Saptcmber 8, I932 Page 2 control .(A2Cj delays at M�P, xt th� preceding depar�.ure airpoxt ar u'ithin th� ATC s�stem bet�r+eer� -th�ese a.irparts: or (d� weatizer c4nditi�ns ��nraute ar at �SP7. 5. rfA� further unders�ands Airline's need to ogerate Stag� 2 aircraft a� MSP d�.ring the I+Tightti�++a Period,� tai�h prior na�i�'icatian, in thase speci�i2 f nas�-schedtiled situ�tior�,s �rb.er� a client shitper na�ifies �Airiir�e an date af shipmsnt tha� ite3as =�guiring �ve��.ght air cargo service irom M5P c�nzzot ph�sica3ly ise d�livered �cr Airl3n� �.n �i� fvr t�ie �ircrait�s $cheduied (gre-il p.m.} ,departure tim�:. In adc3s.tion, M.�iC und�r'sta3�ds �.he ne+et� for Siage 2 ogerat.ions . during th� ii.ightti�� ' Fa=iodf with priar no�ificatian., .on �thase occasi.azzs tha-� tF�e volum� of -fre.ighic teatlereci �a t�i� A�x�3ir�e on date Qf shipm�nt necess�.t�t2s �h.e addition flf a fliqht sahici�. reasonably cazzz�c�t i�e op�rated hy Stage 3 eqzz�.p�aent or requirss the su�stitution oi �.ax�ger Stage 2 �ircr�ft fa� the sch2duled stage 3 aircraft. 6. Airline agrees ta cooparat� wzth -Ehe FA�i in saa�..i.�i.zing us� of 3SSP's Rzuiway iise Syst�a. Consisteni .wifi.l�. safe operating !) procedures, .Airline agre,es �o ad��t f3.ight creW training progra� c��sic�ed to redace nozsa i�npa c.ts _ Such operatianal txai.nizig , procedures s�.ould in�c3ude: a. . use af approv�d nais� abate�ent ta.I�eaff procedur�s. b. Utili2ati�on of �znimum I.�a.c�ding f.Lap s�ttings, consistent �rit�. saf� operating graced�zr�s. c. Minimia�a us�. t�� r�ver�e thrust on landincj during . nig2ittime hQUrs� cons�.steni with sa�e aperating brocedures. d. Training ap�x�.tions wi��. n�t b� carried out �t �he Air�ts:.^'� ex�cept f4r tb.e initial d�partux�. and firtal arri�sra 1, 7. A2rlin� agrees to �rovide to MAC, on a r�xarterly basi�, its z�ctual t��il.ization of ait�cra�t, by air�raft type and speczfying wh�ther each aircraft oger�ttic�n is S�age � or Stag'e 3. Airline agre�s t4 list 3.n �his quarterly re.part the �ircumstances surraunt3ing anp aper�atian. �f stage 2 aircragt wi�hin ttie 2�ighttime Period and ta provide such adaitiorlaZ �xpZanatiort as �C ma� r.easonab��r r�quire. 8. MAc agre=s to request all airline and all-ca�go carriers cusxently serving MSF to execUte this vol�nta=-y' Ac�ce�m�nt.' t� 020 C � 08/19/99 THU 12:57 FAY 6127256310 Environment and Naise C�021 -_ -`' -- 1i�FJi i=F�:�f', iJ;='� �= i=ii�= >=:F==ii�::� }'[t 4'IL_l�r�l::;:.��. �{-1l:C.L':_� Pir_ Jeffreq W_ Ha�e3 �. Septem.�r S , 399� Pag� 3 9_ Na�hing in t,his Agreem�nt is inte�zded to negate ar r+�place any pre-�xist_r=g agr�em�nts betwee.� th� Paries _ 1(7, Whi2e both parties agree to use tiaei.r b�s�t �f�orts tQ camply with the r�qu.ir�ments of this �o3.�tary Agreem�nt, bath 3�lAC � an�t Azrlir�� resexve ths right to �rithdra�►t irom this p,x�recsm.�nt by providing the other part�y ninety (9a) days advance vrritt�n notice. ��'-�-� �'� .�.� --- Author�.zed Aisliue �r i�cial ACCP'PTED A3�i37 A�REED Bv THE� 1KETRUFOI�2TAN AIR�'�RTS �COI�T33ISSIt�N T3Y = =TS: DATE: »::r: TOTA� PFtG�. �� =F:� C 08/19/99 THU 12:58 FAY 6127256310 Environment and Noise 1 :Y �� i• r, �� March 1, 1993 Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Directr�r Metrapalitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue Sauth Minneapolis, MN 55450 RE: VOLUNTARY AIRLINE AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE STAGE 2 OPERATI�NS AT MSP DURING NIGHTTIME PERIOD Dear Mr. Hamiel: We appreciate the oppartunity to work with METR�POLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC) staff to negotiate the eliminatian of Stage 2 operations.at MSP during the Nighttime Period (11 p.m. - 6 a.m. C.S.T. or C.D.T.). This letter sets forth the terms of ABX AIR, INC.' ("Airline") negotiated Voluntary Agreement for execution by MA.C. AIRLINE AND MAC VOLUNTARILY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subject to execution of and compliance with this voluntary agreement by all carriers operating aircraft greater than 75,000 pounds, MAC will not adopt a regulation/ordinance limiting nighttime activity of Stage 2 aircraft. 2. Subject to provisions 3 and 4 below, Airline agrees that it will not schedule or aperate any Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period. This provisian shall take effect as of the date this Agreement is app=oved by MAC. 3. MAC agrees to permit Airline the following exceptions far operating Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during tha Nighttime Period under circumstances that are reasanably beyond the control oi Airline: (a} landings necessitated by infl'ight mechanical problems, fuel shortage, or other emergency flight conditions; (b) delays or aircraft substitution occasioned by mechanical failures; (c) air traffic control (ATC) delays at MSP, at the preceding departure airport or within the ATC system between these airports; or (d) ;aeather conditions (enroute or at MSP} . 4. MAC further agrees ta permit Airline to operate Stage 2 aircraft at MSP during the Nighttime Period in non-recurring situations where a client shipper notifies Airline on date of Airborne Air Park 145 Hunter Drive Wilmington, OH 45177 t513) 382•a591 LLQ.)) 0 2 2 � C 08/19/99 THU 12:58 F�X 612�256310 Environment and Noise 1�023 Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel March l, 1993 Page 2 shipment that items requiring overnight air cargo service fram MSP cannot physically be delivered to Airline in time for the aircraft's scheduled (pre-11 p.m.) departure time. In addi- tion, MAC agrees to permit�Stage 2 operations during the Nighttime Period on those non-recurrent occasions that the volume of freight tendered �o the Airline on the date of shipment necessitates the addition of a flight which reason- ably cannot be operated by Stage 3 equipment og requires the substitution af larger Stage 2 aircraft far the scheduled Stage 3 aircraft. Airline shall report to MAC the operation of f lights under this paragraph within seven (7) warking days of the date of oparation. . � 5. Airline agrees to cvoperate with the FAA in maxi�izing use of. MSP's Runway Use system. Consistent with safe�operating pro- cedures, Airline agrees to accelerate fZight crew training programs desi9ned ta reduce noise impacts. Such operational training procedures should include: � a. b. c. d. Use af approved noise abatement.takeoff procedures. Utilizatifln of minimum landing flap settings, consistent with saie operating procedures. Minimize use of reverse thrust on landing during night- time hours, consistent with safe operating procedures. Training operations will nat be carried aut at the Airport except for the initial departure and final arrival. 6. Airline agrees to provide to MAC, an a quarterly basis, its actual utilization of aircraft, by aircraft type and speci- fying whether each aircraft operation is Stage 2 or Stage 3. Airline agrees to list in each mo�thly report the circum- stances surrounding any operation of Stage Z�aircraft within the Nighttime Periad and to provide such additional explana- tion as MAC may reasonably require. 7. E� MAC agrees to request all airline and all-cargo carriers currently serving MSP to execute this Voluntary Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended ta negate or replace any pre-existing agreements between the parties. � � C�� 08/19/99 THU 12:59 FAX 6127256310 Environment and Noise Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel Ma=ch 1, 1993 Page 3 9, While both parties agree to use their best efforts to comply with the requirements af this Voiuntary Agreement, both MA.0 and Airline reserve the right ta withdraw from this Agreement by providing the other Party ninety days advance written natice. �� '� - �_ - � _ Jaseph Hete � Senivr Vice President-Administration ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS C�MMISSION BY ITS �� I� 024 :.__�(_ ) ;' � � .,; � .�' ', • , , .� � � .. ; ,� '. • : • r' � ; �; � ,, , �, . ' ,, ,,, � ��. �"' ♦. ( �, . :. : �� :� '�. � \ �� ,.. . 1 �~�F� �� L F< � �� S� e � �� t r�.,� '� � �,� y h '�! t� r�. j i � �, �y � •3,. �t z. r� j�. �+-� 1 -� ��r 4Cs %�.r � � r � �. � �� ip� r �`1� {[ s � �� €�- � F � � �.�i'£�- � L '-'-r � ��:S�t,. 4 � � � �;� fd �,, s. t . i� �-d s �� i� �:� i-.-,ca.�. s } 5i', `� ��,�` (�'�'�`,> �a4 +3 �r i �., t-��I t� �.� � S ,�,�- � -� ;'�� .r� ! ft � � �.�,� � t ,.�, . . . _ ., ,. „ � .� < , , � � � � . � �P . .:. , � � � •;�, �,. : . . • � � I ❑ MASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for � August 24, 1999 . ❑ Minutes of the July 27, 1999 MASAC meeting ❑ Minutes of t�ie August 10, 1999 MASAC Communications Advisory Board ❑ Minutes of the August 13, 1999 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments and cover memos ❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program Update C] RMT Site Location Update ❑ July 1999 Technical Advisor's Report and Monthly Corridor Report ❑ Blank Noiselvlonitoring and Information .Request �orm �Gc,v T ` =� �`re-`.�G� , Cc� u 5 ��-�.�. � s� O �-�- �' "f- �� / w�-o ir� c�. `� t'''`Ej t J �- i � � �" -� �, �- �. -�� .� �� n�N � � � � 5 ��-��- �tit � �-� ��o � � % v,.o , �. �sc�. {-�, o�, �ut,,,�fi- � �-� �� `� t ``'`� ~ � � � � L�ft � . i(1/t-b Wt.-l� .� CG�t�^ t�-O �' � S� �v` �' v �� t 11\ ��\ c t J GC..�C! � (� t"'d ��t�'� / � � �' {--�� „� . , � � T- � �f �. f �_ . �. .,.,,, . .'� .. �, � . ;. � � , ,�� i� �� •i : •� ► � ��•.�� • � . 71� F� �`€�'� �� n� '� �?-�I' ��a� r�- � n � � E � ��':� < u � t fi �Y!°F,n-c� i � �++ .6 � r� ��.�Y, -� ,�� _, � £ �- .� £ p,, ��( y J� .t � : �.f �� 2^x �E l'l� 3 � {�s��i s�-2 � Y:�+�- 6i.� �� [ �-{ p�`.3 � C j �� t 5 � �r �: i, � -� � F' � 'L j� p 14 $ ¢ 3�. . '�x '��q�{ i�i�.{ [� E��c• �j `2S � ., r0.�^.. C � T�� •�.YI � � d�� 663�? � �a .�:w �tr.+' tl,'.h F �1 .fiF( �14sT. .� �� :� ii �:�:7 � � bG L.�. � (S �u��. i, �usses will depart the General C�ifices at 7:30 p.m. ENI�0�J7'E 1. Call to Order, Roll Call �__ � 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting July 27,1999 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications 4. August 10, 1999 Communications Advisory Board Report �. August 13, 1999 Operations Committee Report — Mark Salmen 6. Part 1�0 Update Progress Review 7. RMT Site Location Update 8. Report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings - Dick Saunders 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting 10. Technical Advisor's Reportand Monthly Corridor-Report 1 l. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 12. Items Not on the Agenda � �' 13. Adjournment Next Meeting: September 28,1999 C� 1►I-� 1 �� : :,�►11 I 1 /'I TO: MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: Continuing Education, Air Traffic Center Tour DATE: August 17, 1999 �SA� As a follow-up to the MASAC Audit that was conducted in January 1998, the Aviation Noise and Satellite Program staff is continuing the efforts to conduct on-going education programs for MASAC mernbers. One of the recommendations from the MASAC Audit was to coordinate a tour of the Farmington Air Traffic Control Center. At the August 24, 1999 MASAC meeting, Federal Aviation Administration personnel will provide a tour of the Air Traffic Control Center, located in Farmington, MN. The tour coordinator will escort small groups throuQh the airways and air trafFc positions located within the center facility. To facilitate this tour the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs office has coordinated transportation to and from the facility. The bus will depart at 7:30 P.M. from the MAC General Office building parking lot at 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. If there are an�� special transportation needs, please contact us immediately at 612- 72�-6326. The bus will return to the parking lot following the tour around 10:00 P.M. This tour is contingent on good weather. Due to specific training programs cunently in place at the ATC Center, Controller work load will dictate available tour escorts. If we happen to have sianificant weather or high controller work loads on August 24, we will have a reaularly scheduled meeting beginning at 7:30 P.M. at the MAC general offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, in the MASAC construction trailer. These tours are intended to provide an enhanced understanding of the noise pro�rams at MSP and ho�l� air traffic interacts with the local controllers. We believe this will be a very informative evening that will address many of the common questions �•ou may have concerning aircraft operations on a large scale perspective. '.< �.,' >, •� 'I'' i' TO: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUBJECT: Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Update DATE: August 16,1999 The installation of the five new RMTs is nearing the frnal sta�es. On August 4-6, 1999 Larson Davis was on site and installed all of the noise monitoring equipment at each of the sites. On August 6, 1999 all the new sites were inspected by representatives from Morcon, Miller Dunwiddie, Machaud Cooley Erickson and MAC representatives. As a result of the inspections a punch list was developed and those items are being addressed at this time. Following completion of the noise monitoring equipment installation, the system inteQration work began. The system integration work is going well and it is anticipated this process will be completed with the final acceptance testing on AuQust 20, 1999. At the August 24, 1999 MASAC meeting, MAC staff will provide additional information on the status of the RMT installations. If you have any questions or cornments please contact me at 612-725-6328. i��: ►� � : � �.�,_�, ; TO: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator MASAC SUBJECT: New Draft Technicai Advisor's Report and 1Vlonthly Corridor Analvis DATE: August 16, 1999 Effective communication and data dissemination are the focal points of successful analyses and the art of conveying complex information in a meanin�ful manor. As a result, the MASAC Operations Committee underwent a review of the content and format of the Technical Advisor's Report and Monthly Corridor Analysis. Draft report proposals were submitted by Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff at the July 9, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting and the report review/revision topic was addressed at that meeting, as well as, the meeting on August 13, 1999. The community perspective provided by the membership at the July 9, 1999 and August 13, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meetings was critical to the success of the review/revision sessions. To ensure proper resource utilization contributing to the optimal outcome of the proposed Technical Advisor's Report and Monthly Corridor Analysis packages, all of the technoloQical resources available were considered, includin� but not limited to, ANOMS capabilities, internet capabilities and reportin� capabilities. As a result of the review conducted by the MASAC Operations Committee, a new draft Tecl�nical Advisers Report and Monthly Corridor Analysis was developed. The intent of the revie«� and revision of the documents was to ensure the hiQhest de�ree of communication intearit}� and provide pertinent information dissemination with respect to aircraft impact information for communities surrounding the Minneapolis/St. Paul Internationa] Airport. At the Auaust 13, l 999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the draft Technical Advisers Report and Monthly Corridor Analysis formats were approved and forwarded to MASAC for approval. In an effort to provided MASAC members with the new formats, it was decided tliat the Julv 1999 Technical Advisers Report and Monthly Corridor Analysis would be reported in the ne�� report formats for review and comment. At the Auaust 24, ]999 MASAC meetin� the new report formats and report distribution metl�ods «�ill be briefed, as a result, please come prepared with ideas and proposals for the ne�� report formats and effective/e�cient distribution methods. I f vou ha��e am� questions or comments please contact me at 612-72�-6328. Co�nments on Technical Advisor's Report Ju1y 30, 1999 Mr. Mark Salmen, Chairman MASAC Operations Committee �/o Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 — 28`�' Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota �5450-2799 Dear Mr. Salmen: I wish to submit two comments re�ardin� the new E.recutive Summan•� of the Technical Advisor� s Report to the committee for its consideration. My comments are somewhat narrow in scope; having mainly to do with the narrative portions of the report, arid the percentage fieures reported there. Before, makin� those comments I would like to emphasis my appreciation, as an interested partv. for the 'VLA C havin� had the ;n.�mpticr. t� institute some unilateral changes in an attempt to make these reports more meaninQful, and for the generally superb nature of those changes. � First, in the new narrative portions — see for instance page 3 of the Summary for June, 1999 — the MAC staff uses words like "bulk," "concentrated," increase," "predominate," "trend," ; j "down," and "consistent." My somewhat modest observation as to all these words is they are all essentially undefined. That is, they really don't impart much hard information to the reader. To both save staff rime each month (in thinking up new editorializations), and to reduce possible misinterpreta.tions, I suggest that a standard set of statements be developed, and that those same statements be made each month with regard to the data. For instance, if the MAC wishes to comment about departure traffic through the SE "corridor," they could say it either stayed the same from last month (or last year), or increased, or decreased; but, they might not want to have to thinl: of something new to say about it each month. Secondly, I think I detected, in the nanative portions, a misuse of the percenta.ges reported elsewhere. For instance, in the first nanative paragraph on page 3 of the June, 1999 Executive Summary, the MAC states that, "The use of the crosswind runway increased by 26.�% more departures on 22... .'' I counted the increase in the number of departures on 22 as 215°io (i.e., 7,838 in June vs. 2,48$ in May). Similarly, the percentage-of-all-departures on 22 for the month increased bv ?0�% from May to June (i.e., from 1?.9% of all departures for all operations and camer jet operations in May to 39.4% of ail departures in June). The "26. S% " can be described as the increase in percentage points far the departures on 22 as compared to the total in each month. I suQgesi that a sta.ndard sei of percentaae increases, or percentage point increases, be adopted for reporting each month. Th� youu. , �, .�� !� �nce Starrcha MASAC Rep., City of Eagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 8, 1999 Nir. Charles Martensotto Chairman, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abazement Councii 6040 2$�' Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN Dear Mr. Martensatta, I propose herein yet another noise metric for MASAC to publish. I call it RELATZVE RESIDENTIAL NOISE (RR71�. � RRN =(Avg. DNL for morrth) x(No. of Residenccs) The attached data sheet "Calciilation of Relalive Resideutial Noise by Community" shows exactly how the calculation is proposed. The mo�rthIy average DNL af all ANOMS stations in r,ach a�munit�' is averaged to give the corrununity average. This DI�iL. is multiplied by the number of residences in the 65 DNL cantour. It's simple. � The attached data sheet shocvs calculatioas fior five conununities aro�nd the airport for which HN'I'B has es�timated the number of resideaces within tbe 65DNL. The result is a baz chart, "Relative Residential Noise", which is attached: 'This.bar chart B�P��' illustrates the relativ�e cro�nmunity dist�ress caused bY airport noise and suffiered by residences. I propase that MASAC publish the bar chart each month with comparative data from gast montfis or years to show Prog�'ess ort naise abatemern. This simple graphical tool will provide MASAC with the ability to ex�lain the overall complex rela#ionshiPs of its work to the public. Noise abatemeat progress will be immediafely apparent ta the public and i# wilI sliow the intent of MASAC to provir� ti�is information. I will be pleaseii to explain and defend this metric, and, of course, to help with impraveme,�t in �e standardiza.ticm and accurac.y of input data. Very sincerel Neil Clark 5917 Crrass e Ter. Nfinneapolis, MN 55419 {'�:: m ,�� O O O '� 300 X J � � � 200 U N U � � 100 .� � d'_ � Avg. for May '1999 �v��s Kicn t��om �agan Men.Hts Calculation of Relative Residential Noise by Cornmunity Remote MAC Noise Monitor Stations � Sta.# Address Township 1 Xerxes Ave. & 41 st. St. Minneapolis 2 Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis 3 West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis 4 Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis 5 12th Ave. &58th St. Minneapolis 6 25th Ave. & 57th St. Minneapolis 8 Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis 7 Wentwo�th Ave. & 64th St. 18 75th Dt. & 17th Ave. 20 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 9 Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 10 Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 11 Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 12 Alton St. & Rockwoad Ave. DNL Absolute DNL ��. � � . 61.9 0.154882 64.8 0.301995 66.6 0.457088 68.2 0.660693 � 74.3 2.691535 78.1 6.456542 63.5 0.223872 Avg. = 0.304655 64.83808 Richfield 64.6 0.288403 Richfield 72.9 1.949845 Richfield 57.8 0.060256 Avg. = 0.766168 68.84324 St. Paul 56.9 0.048978 St. Paul 63.6 0.229087 St. Paul 58.3 0.067608 St. Paul 51.8 0.015136 Avg. = 0.090202 59.55217 13 Southeast end of Mohican Court Mendata Heights 15 Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights 23 End of Kenndon Ave. , Mendota Heights 17 84th St. & 4th Ave. 19 16th Ave. & 84th St. 21 Barbara Ave. & 67th St :_ 22 Anne Marie Trail : •• .. : •. . • 62.5 0.177828 65.3 0.338844 73.1 2.041738 Avg. = 0.852803 69.30849 66.4 0.436516 68.2 0.660693 Avg. = 0.548605 67.39259 Residents RRN � � Inver Grove Heights 56.7 0.046774 Inver Grove Heights 60 0.1 Avg. = 0.0?3387 58.65618 14 1 st. St. & McKee St. Eagan 68.7 0.74131 16 Avalon Ave. & Vilan Lane Eagan 68 0.630957 24 Chapel Lane & Wren Lane Eagan 65 0.316228 Avg. = 0.562832 67.50379 " = microwatts/ sq. meter "" = HNTB residence count inside.65DNL. Multiple = 3 singles. '�" _"Relative Residential Noise" _(Avg. DNL) x(residence count} 5750 372.8 1599 110.1 68 4.7 1631 109.9 148 10.0 -� � l�I �'ES �F 'I' LY 27, 1999 SA.0 -_ .. MEET�TG . MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND �BATEMENT COUNCIJ� GENERAL MEETIl�1� July 27,1999 7:30 p.m. 6040 28"' Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order. Roll Call The meetin� was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance: Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Lance Staricha Jamie Verbrugge Will Eginton Bob Johnson Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder Dick Saunders Leo Kurtz Mike Cramer Glenn Stranc� Barret Lane Dean Lindberg Mark Salmen Marks Hinds Mannv Camilon John Halla T.J. Horsaoer Advisors Chad Leqve Shane VanderVoort Scott Skramstad Jason Giesen Carl Rydeen V isitors Gene Franchett Mendota Heights Eagan Eagan Inver Grove Heights 1WiBAA l�ilea�dota Heights Pwbendota Heights Mtnneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis li�ir�neapolis IViinneapolis Minneapolis NWA Rechfield St. Louis Park St. Paul S�n Country 1VIAC MAC MAC MAC Tower Dakota County 2. Approval of Minutes Two conections were made to the June 22, 1999 MASAC Meeting minutes. On page 4, last paragraph, second to the last line, the word "manor" should read "manner" and on page 7, third paraaraph, last line, "with our without" should read "with or without". The minutes were then appraved as corrected. Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Receipt of Communications Two communications were received and copies pravided. -r Kevin Black sent an email response to the receipt of his MASAC mailin� via email, statin� it worked great and the format would save him file space and the MAC paper. �- An individual from North Branch, about 60 �iles away from the airport, wrote that he has aircraft flying over his residence at an altitude of 2000 feet. The correspondence was forwarded to Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, for a response. 4. Julv 8 1999 Run-up Pad & NWA En�ine Test Cell Tour Report — Mark Salmen, NWA Mr. Salmen gave a report on the Run-up Pad & En�ine Test Cell Tour that took place on ( July 8, 1999. The tour began in the Engine RehabiIitation Plant where the group was able to vieiv some of the physical differences between Stage II and Stage III aircraft engines. The next stop was the Engine Test Cell area where an engine was being run up allowin� the group to witness the procedure from both within the observation booth and outside the test cell. The final stop was the Run-up Pad where the group had the opportunity to �-et a close look at the Run-up Pad and discuss some of the options which may be available as far as a potential ground run-up enclosure. Chairman Mertensotto noted letters of appreciation have been sent to the individuals who coordinated and conducted the tour thanking them for a job well done. . Julv 9. ] 999 Operations Committee Report — Mark Salmen Mr. Salmen briefed members on the July 9, 1999 Operations Committee Meeting. a- Reti�iewed the Run-up Pad & NWA Engine Test Cell Tour. �- RNiT Site and Part I50 Update Review. -r Discussed the proposed revisions to the `Technical Advisors Report and Corridor Report. The first draft for .the revisions was_completed and the discussion will continue at the next MASAC Operations Committee Meeting before the revisions �ti�ill be brought to the full MASAC Body for approval. The next MASAC Operations Committee Meeting will be Friday August 13, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the large MASAC Conference Trailer. �, Re��ie«� Non-Simultaneous Crossin2 in the Conidor Follow-up Analvsis 2. A_pproval of Minutes Two corrections were made to the June 22, 1999 MASAC Meeting minutes. On page 4, last paragraph, second to the last line, the word "manor" should read "manner" and on page 7, third paragraph, last line, "with our withouY' should read "with or without". The minutes were then approved as corrected. Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Receipt of Communications ?wo communications were received and copies provided. �r Kevin Black sent an email response to the receipt of his MASAC maiIing via email, statin� it worked great and the format would save him file space and the MAC paper. �- An individual from North Branch, about 60 miles away from the airport, wrote that he has aircraft flying over his residence at an altitude of 2000 feet. The conespondence was forwarded to Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, for a response. 4. Julv 8. 1999 Run-up Pad & NWA Ensine Test Cell Tour Report — Mark Salmen, NWA Mr. Salmen gave a report on the Run-up Pad & Engine Test Cell Tour that took place on � } July 8, I 999. The tour began in the Engine Rehabilitation Plant where the group was able " to view some of the physical differences between Stage II and Stage III aircraft engines. The next stop was the Engine Test Cell area where an engine was being run up allowing the �-oup to wimess the procedure from both within the observation booth and outside the test cell. The final stop was the Run-up Pad where the group had the opportunity to Qet a close look at the Run-up Pad and discuss some of the options which may be available as far as a potentia! ground run-up enclosure. Chairman Mertensotto noted letters of appreciation have been sent to the individuals who coordinated and conducted the tour thanking them for a job wel] done. lulv 9. 1999 O�erations Committee Report — Mark Salmen 1vlr. Salmen briefed members on the July 9, 1999 Operations Committee Meetin�. �- Reviewed the Run-up Pad & NWA Engine Test Cell Tour. a- RMT Site and Part 150 Update Review. �- Discussed the proposed revisions to the Technical Advisors Report and Corridor Report. The first draft for the revisions was comp.leted and the discussion will continue at the next MASAC Operations Committee Meeting before the revisions will be brought to the fu}1 MASAC Body for approval. The next MASAC Operations Committee Meeting witl be Friday August 13, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the large MASAC Conference Trailer. Review Non-Simultaneous Crossina in the Corridor Fol]ow-up Analvsis Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, conducted a presentation on the Follow-up Analysis for Non-Simultaneous Crossing in the Corridor Procedure. In a review of where the initial analysis left off Mr. Leqve explained the FAA has been making adjustments to improve the use of this procedure requesting MAC staff to keep them informed with regard to the status of procedure use. It was decided to conduct a follow-up analysis using the same criteria spanning the six-month period of time from Septernber 1998 to February 1999 to assess the improvement. Details of this follow-up analysis included: Scope of t6e Analvsis: -r Data Sample Time Periods � Six month sample period — September 1998 to February 1999 � Daily hours of concentration — 2300 to 0600 � Weekend hours of concentration — Saturday I500 to Sunday 1300 a- When Did Crossing Occur ° Deterrnine when carrier jet operations crossed when departing 12L and 12R durin� the above time period. �- Operations Feasibility Variables � Nighttime one local controller assumption (2300-0600) ° Assess the existence of one local controller during the above weekend period. � T'ime between departures (2 minute separation feasibility) ° FAA Input � Weather Analvsis Coni�osition for Crossing in the Corridor: -� � �r � -� �r Section 1: Section 2: Analvsis Section 3: Section 4: Section �: Section 6: Background Crossing Operations Analysis and One Local Controller Existence Time Between Departure Analysis FAA Operational Variables Weather Findings Analvsis Findin�s �- During the time period from 2300 to 0600: ° There were 843 carrier jet departures from runways 12L and 12R. � There were 481 or 57.1% carrier jet departure operations which performed the crossinQ procedure when departing runways 12L and 12R. � Prevalent times between departure operations were in the 0 to 2 minute range with 17.9% overall, 1 hour to 7 hour range was 16.4% and 7 hour to 24 hour ran�e was 16.3%. - a- Duririg the weekend time period from Saturday IS00 to Sunday 1300: ° There were 4172 carrier jet deparlures from runways 12L and 12R. ( ° There were 1133 or 27.2% carrier jet departure operations which performed the � crossing procedure when departing runways 12L and 12R. ° During the 572 hours of analyzed weekend time, one local controller was on duty for 432.5 hours or 75.6% of the time. � During those 432.� hours of one local controller, there were 1890 carrier jet departure operations with 825 or 43.7% of those operations performing the crossing procedure. ° Prevalent times between departure operations were in the 0 to 2 minute range with 57.5% overall. The 2 to 4 minute range was 20.9% overall. � One of the single biggest impediments to the procedure in this time period was the separation time between departure operations. a- The weather for the period was variable with thunderstorms prevailing during September 1998 and mid October 1998. 'Snow storms, and freezin� rain on January 2, 12 and 14, 1999 impacted MSP operations. Overall Results of the Analvsis a- Crossing operations during the time period from 2300 to 0600: � There was an overall increase of 21.0% in the use of the crossing procedure. a- Crossing operatio»s during the time period from Saturday 1 S00 to Sunday 1300: � There was an overall increase of 10.0% in the use of the crossing procedure. a- Crossing operations during the time period from Saturday ISDO to Sunday 1300 reflecting one local controller: ° There was an overall inerease of 14.4% in the use of the crossing procedure. Jill Smith, Mendota Heiahts, asked for clarification on the prevalent time periods between departure operations. Mr. Leqve explained each aircraft was looked at individually and at the airport environment around it stating if the aircraft departed at a certain time and another aircraft on the runway departed within 0 to 2 minutes of that time, it would be was considered an operation that occurred within the 0 to 2 minute timeframe generatina a percentage of overall operations. Ms. Smith stated while a greater compliance rnay be able to be accomplished with the situations that are eligible, with the increase in traffic at the airport and the decreased in time between departures, the procedure will peak at some point in terrns of effectiveness. Mr. Leqve replied that the use of the procedure is contingent upon the capaciry and the usage of the airport and the FAA has stated there needs to be a certain degree of separation between aircraft and if tl�at degree of separation is not there, the procedure cannot be performed due to safety reasons. The aoal is to provide, with cooperation from the FAA, as much information as possible to the FAA making sure they are optimizin� the procedure whenever all the different variables allow. Cl�airman Mertensotto pointed out the analysis was geared towards the cooperation of the FAA personnel in the tower on weekends and durina the niahttime to utilize the crossing procedure when there is only one local controller because that is when it is possible. When there are two local controllers, the crossing procedure is not possible due to the I 5- de�ree separation requirement and increased coordination efforts. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, stated when talking about separation in regard to the crossin� procedure, the 15-degree separation to keep aircraft apart, comes to mind. He lj asked that if the closeness of the aircraft (one right after another) in the 0 to 2 minute range is caused by one aircraft being slower than the aircraft behind it, is the crossing procedure prohibited due to this closeness? Mr. Leqve stated that he was correct, both situations can interfere with the ability to perform the procedure for safety reasons. Chairman Mertensotto requested the minutes to reflect that what the report indicates is that MAC staff is getting the cooperation from the FAA personnel in the tower during non-simultaneous departure operations to utilize the crossing procedure whenever conditions permit and to provide MAC staff with the information needed for their analyses. He referenced page one of the report where it stated "the proposal was driven by the desire to contain operations as much as possible in the center of the corridor when aircraft are departing in a non-sirnultaneous manner from runways 12L and 12R". The report also indicates the numerous variables the FAA needs to take into account when doing the crossing procedure during non-simultaneous procedures. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, inquired why both analyses were conducted during winter months instead of during summer months when prevailing winds cause more usage of runways 12L and 12R. Mr. Leqve explained the main determining factor was that the MASAC Operations Commiitee determined what the frst timeframe was going to be (October 1997 to March 1998). In order to provide an accurate comparison, a similar timeframe needed to be used for the second analysis. Even though the number of operations may have been slightly lower during the timeframe of the analyses, the percentages can still be conelated. Mr. Eginton then refened to pa�e 47 referring to the Runway 12L and 12R Departure Crossina Analysis Comparison for the weekend hours noting the first analysis reflected 3734 departure operations and the second analysis reflected 4172 inquiring if the increase in operations indicated a trend. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, stated there may be have been additionai weeks or nights that runways 12L and 12R were utilized durin� the second analvsis due to wind or other conditions, but it is not an indication of a trend. Car! Rvdeen, FAA, stated the use of the procedure is a matter of familiarization to what expectations are. He was unsure if the use of the procedure could be increased more than the second analysis revealed but felt maintaining that level of use would not be an problem since the controllers are now aware of the expectations of the MASAC Committee for the use of the crossing procedure, which is a key factor. 6. Part 1�0 Studv Update Rot• Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, directed the members attention to the second memorandum in the MASAC packet containing a chronological list of events that have taken place to date with the Part 150 Study Update, which allows..individuals to see what }�as already been done throughout the process and where it is today. The focus is on a coupie of very important and time consumin� issues right now: 1) As a result of the comments that are included in the packet of the Part 150 Scoping Comments, the communities requested MAC staff to try to make the contours as realistic as possible. The end result will be the production of two contours usin� two � -- different development methods and to utilize the traditional method as the base line � to start from to help determine any inaccuracies that may occur in the new method. � The traditional Method, used over the past 4-5 years, takes the information associated with a given flight track directly out of ANOMS giving a percentage of use, fleet mix, altitudes, etc. based on assumptions, enter this percentage into the model and the tracks are modeled to similate what the flight tracks were out of ANOMS. � MAC staff, along with HNTB staff, is now working to reprogram the input scripting file for INM to be able to accept every flight track directly from ANOMS. Every fliaht track will come through as it's own flight track with it's very own profile and altitude just as it was when it flew over the communities, providing a more accurate contour. 2) All the information needed to begin the Base Case Land Use Analysis should be in to MAC staff by July 30, 1999 targeting the last week of August to visit with communities making sure the land use information MAC staff has is correct. It is anticipated a Public Meeting will be scheduled for late September to present the Base Case Contours. Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked how the land use information was going to be used. Mr. Fuhrmann explained the Part 150 Program looks at vazious ways to mitigate noise including flight procedures, flight techniques, land use controls, etc. MAC staff wants to look at how the existing land is currently being used to help locate noise sensitive areas not indicated on the map. � } Chairman Mertensotto indicated the information goes along with the boundary block method which looks at the entire biock instead af just one or two houses in any given block. . Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, stated he has heard various claims about the possibility of generatina noise contour maps on a daily basis inquiring if MAC staff has any inforrr►ation regarding that ability and if that is the second method to be used. Mr. Fuhrmann stated there are airports that have the capability of using input streams from somethinQ other than INM to produce contours used for certain tracking procedures but they still need to use INM to generate the contours submitted to the FAA for approval. MAC staff is looking at being able to write scripts that will allow the INM to automatically take ANOMS flight track information, which has each individual X, Y and Z point as well as the time of day distribution, feeding the header information into a standard stream for INM. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked if MAC is using the ANOMS data to plot actual noise levels for incorporation into the INM model instead of using the FAR Part 36 noise levels. Mr. Fuhrmann explained the intent is to verify the RMT noise monitor levels and compare them to the noise database tables in INM to verify the information making sure what is beina heard on the ground is what is being used in the model. Jill Smith. Mendota Heights, asked how long is the period of time used for the input for fliQht tracking information. Mr. Fuhrmann explained that for the actual run, a series of averaQe days of all flights from ANOMS will be used, anticipating the computer may take up to h�o weeks to generate the contour. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, inquired about individual aircraft and what the range � of noise levels are between the various aircraft. Mr. Fuhrmann stated the actual difference due to atmospheric conditions is fairly tight. The biggest range comes from the aircraft weight and size and the aircraft engine. Mr. Eginton asked since it wouldn't be possible to know what engine is in every aircraft, does MAC staff use a standard weight. Mr. Fuhrmann explained MAC staff actually goes to the based airlines to find out what engines they have on each aircraft. RMT Site Location Update Chad Leqve, Technicai Advisor, updated members on the RMT Site Locations stating the project is nearing completion. The following items were discussed: �- All sites are ready for pole installation. a- Railings, pole mounting brackets and pavers have been installed at Ericsson Elementary School. a- The pole installations will begin July 27, 1999 and are planned to be completed no later than August 4, 1999. -r Larson Davis will be on site August 5& 6, 1999 to instafl all of the monitoring hardware at all the sites. a- Project completion date is scheduled for August 6, 1999. �- Acceptance testing is scheduled to begin around August 20, 1999. Report of the Low FreQuencv Noise Policv Committee Meetinss — Dick Saunders � Mr. Saunders briefed members on the two Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee � MeetinQs. The first meeting was held June 23, 1999. The primary conclusions included: - �- Nineteen homes in Minneapolis and Richfield, some with high frequency sound insulation and some without, were looked at by the Technic�l Panel in an attempt to compare the impact of low frequency noise on each of the categories of homes. The findings revealed very little difFerence between the performance at low frequencies of either the treated or the untreated homes while there is a much improved performance from mid to high frequencies in treated homes. As a group, the untreated and treated homes are nearly identical at low frequencies in terms of the amount of sound that can be attenuated. �- Reviewed the results of the measurements of noise levels in the absence of aircraft noise both inside and outside of homes in Richfield, Minneapolis and Bloomington to determine the range of outdoor noise Ievels. It was found that the ambient levels of lo�v frequency noise in the cities around MSP are similar to the ambient levels of low frequency noise found in other urban residential areas. �- Reviewed the results of the Social Survey taken during the month of May 1999 in approximately 459 homes. Most of the homes were located north of the cross-town HiQ.h.h�vay. 62.inMinneapolis, which is at a d.istance equivalent.to.the distance the new North/South Runway will be from homes in Richfield. Two-thirds of the people interviewed had their homes insulated under the Part 150 noise insulation proaram. The results are as follows � RattlinQ noises were heard several times during the day in approximately 43% of the insulated homes and 47% of the non-insulated homes. � Rattling windows were heard in approximately 88% of insulated homes and 70% � of the non-insulated homes. The July 22, 1999 meeting items included: -r The three technical experts went to Washington, D.C. to update the FAA's Tom Conner, a member of the o�ce of Environment and Energy to discuss the progress of the study to date. They explained the rational behind the low frequency noise descriptor using the maximum LF sum of the 25 — 80 hz range and requested a copy of the new INM version 6 which is currently in a pre-release beta version. Mr. Conner expressed concerns over using solely INM data to calculate low frequency contours and suggested the team go back out into the field and conduct field tests before he would be satisfied with the accuracy of the findings. The feeling is the data will be more accurate by actually going out and testing the low frequency noise emissions from aircraft as they take off. The need for this continued testing has resulted in a delay to the conclusion of their study by about 6 weeks. The original meeting planned for August 11, 1999 was changed to September 29 1999. a- The Social Survey provided some preliminary contours but none of the graphic material was included prohibiting the details from being presented on some of the preliminary indications of low frequency noise contours. 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meetina Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, gave a report on the items discussed at the MAC Commission meeting. The two main items of concern for the MASAC body were: -r The majority of the meetinD was spent discussing the Land Swap Proposal for the Mall of America. The Mall of America currently owns the Kelly Farm area just East of the mall and MAC owns the Met Center property straight North of the mall. As part of the,development of the North/South Runway (17/35), areas are being cleared that are beyond the runway called the Runway Protection Zone as well as the areas in the runway transition areas that have certain height restrictions associated with them. The Kelly Farm properties are in direct alignment with the extended centerline of Runway 17. As aircraft are departinc they will pass through some of the height restrictive areas. In order for the MAC to regulate some of the factors associated �vith the development of the Kelly Farm property, it was proposed the two properties be exchanaed so the Mall of American will have access and control of the old Met Center property and the MAC would take control of the Kelly Farm property. After extensive consideration and debate, the proposal to exchange the two properties was passed. Part of the proposal gave the Mall of American the right of first purchase back on the Kelly Farm property but MAC wiil retain the easements which will enable MAC to establish height restrictions on the property. �- As part of the proposal in the State Legislature to have some preschools within the l 996 LDN 6� Contour included for sound insulation programs, MAC will take a look at a pilot project approved at the meetin� to insulate the House of Prayer School located in Richfeld. Recommendations regarding types_af.insulation and treatments that work best for that type of facility will be applied to other potential preschools within the contour as part of the Part 150 Program. The CIP will be adjusted to insulate this pilot school and to provide the engineering work necessary to complete . the project. If the schools are part of a church complex or religious building, only the areas in which the students are spending the majority of their time as they are going throuah the preschool curriculum will be incorporated into this potential noise mitiaation measure. Certain curricular activities will be required at least three times �' a week with an approved agenda for the school to qualify as a preschool facility. ] 0. Technical Advisor's Report Shane VanderVoort, Technical Advisor, briefed members on the executive summary report highlighting: �- MSP May Fleet Mix percentages reflected an increase of 2.7% from May which is on track for the Y2K phase-out. � The Hushkitted DC9, Airbus 320, Boeing 757 and Boeing 727 represent the bulk of the aircraft operations at MSP in June. D- The complaint summary indicated an increase in complaints from May to June of 299 which is consistent with last years numbers. � Minneapolis had the majority of the complaints and the hijhest concentration for the nature of the complaints was "excessive noise". � Operations for the month of June showed an increase in departure traffic off Runway 22 from May. There was a 26.5% increase in the use of the crosswind runway. �- Overall Corridor operations decreased sliahtly due to the increased operations on Runway 22. y A- All operations runway use reflected 51.6% of total arrivals and 37.8% of total departures occurring in the corridor. D Niahttime operations were. comprised of 49.9% of total arrivals and 37.7% of total departures occurring in the corridor reflectinD a 2.9% increase in arrivals and 15.9% decrease in departures. � �- Monthly DNL levels were consistant with the runway use for the month with the �_, hiQher DNL levels concentrated off the ends of the parallel runways and the departure �end of Runway 22. St. Paul RMT's represented some the lowest DNL values at the airport. Leo Kurtz, Minneapolis, asked why general aviation has increased dramatically from 1998 to 1999 for the use of the airport. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, stated the bi�gest impact noticed at MSP for an increase in general aviation is an external national event. John Halla, St. Paul, inquired about a general breakdown for nighttime flights between late evenin� fliahts versus the early morning flights. Mr. Fuhrmann explained durin� the latter part of June into early July there were timeframes when both parallels were closed due to the paintin� of the North Parallel Runway, light replacements, general maintenance, etc. When both parallels are closed the only remaining runway is 4/22, which results in more traffic over St. Paul. In the revised Technical Advisor's Report, it is being proposed to include a Top 15 Actual Nighttime Operators by Type Chart showinQ a breakdown of operators by hour. He also esplained that approximately 70% - 80% of the total nighttime operations occur between 223D.hours.and.midnight and from 0500-0600 hours. During the core nighttime hours from midnight to 0500, the number of operations is reduced. From 0300 to 0500, operations are typically cargo operators coming in such as Fed Ex, UPS, Airborne Express, etc. and from 0540 to 0600 operations are usuaily overnight flights coming in frorn the West Coast having departed around midniQht, with the time zone and a favorable wind condition, these operators sometimes arrive prior to their scheduled arrival time of around 0600. � - Chairman Mertensotto added to the MAC Commission meeting review that four new � commissioners have been appointed. Mr. Fuhrmann stated the four new commissioners included Bert McKasy, Nancy Speer, Paul Weske and Roger Hale who were sworn in last Tuesday. 11. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council There were no persons wishing to address the Council. 12. Items Not on the Asenda Chairman Mertensotto asked if the MASAC Communications Advisory Board has had their first meeting yet. Mr. Fuhrmann stated notices are in the process of being sent out to inform members that the first meeting has been scheduled for August 10, 1999 at 3 p.m. at which time members can discuss details about how often, what time and where they wil] meet. 13. Adjournment The next full MASAC meeting will be August 24, 1999. Chairman Mertensotto -_�- -- adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Shelly Ludwig, MASAC Secretary C. � � G 1 1 ♦. , •. . ' � i� � � ; � ' .. , . ', ; , � � , .., � ;' ,�' `� '' � .; ( ; C MINUTES MA.SAC COMNIICTNICATIONS ADVISORY BOAII�.I� August 10,1999 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Metropolitan Room, and called to order at 3:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Members• Mike Cramer Minneapolis Dick Saunders Minneapolis Neil Clark Minneapolis Dean Lindberg Minneapolis Mark Hinds Richfield John Halla St. Paul Advisorv• Roy Fuhrmann MAC Chad Leqve MAC Shane VanderVoort MAC Wendy Burt MAC Melissa Scovronski MAC Shelly Ludwa� MAC AGENDA Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor opened the meeting by outlining the agenda and the expectations for the first meeting of the MASAC Communications Advisory Board. During a brief discussion on the len�th of time it will take the committee to reach a conclusion, how often to meet and the time of day that ��ould be best to meet, it �vas decided the committee should meet every two weeks on Tuesdays at 3:30 p.m. for the first two-three months and monthly thereafter ending up with a meeting once or twice a year for refinements. REVI�'W AND ESTABLISH THE ROLE AND SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES Mr. Fuhrmann reviewed the role and scope of responsibility for the MASAC Communications Advisory Board stating MAC would like the committee to help lay out the format in which the information is to be distributed and the types of information to be included. As an example, when the public notice for Part 150 is generated, it was discussed to include more information than just a public notice. REVIEW OFMAC GOMMUNITYaUTREACHPROGRAM Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer, explained the Public Information o�ce has the responsibility to provide information to the media and to the public including the neighboring communities around the airport using a variety of public retations tactics to accomplish this including public notices or talking directly to media personnel. MAC and MASAC have anticipated the outcome from the MASAC Communications Advisory Board will be helping to determine which topics are of priority interest to the general public and the best ways to distribute the information. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked what is the best way to reach the most people in the shortest amount of �" time? Ms. Burt explained the media is the best way to reach people but it is difficult to ensure the accuracy of the information being distributed. ' Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, gave an overview of the recent enhancements to the existinQ MAC Environment Department Website. In the Noise Department section of the Website, an interactive page linked to customized modules has been added allowing individuals to request information tailored to their query criteria or area of interest. Data including the number of Stage II, Stage III or Hushkitted operations in a given timeframe, daytime hours, nighttime hours, carrier jet operations, etc. is available and limited only to the data in the database. In the Noise section, the Top 10 reports at each RMT site on a daily or monthly basis, events above 65, 80, 90 and 100, and daily RMT reports givin� the daily LDN and LEQ are also available interactively. Mark Hinds, Richfield, stated to help brid?e the gap betw-een individuals without a PC in their homes and the information available on the internet, the City of Richfield formed a partnership with the Hennepin County Library system to provide dedicated public access terminals limited to specific Websites which the City of Richfield feels are sites that provide useful public information. He felt it wouldn't be a problem to add the MAC Website to the list of sites available on those dedicated public access terminals. Melissa Scovronski, MAC PIO, added that most ]ibraries have public acce�s terminals available for the general public and suggested informing the public about the availability of these terminals and the MAC Website address. Wendy Burt, MAC PIO, stated enhancinD the Website is one of the goals that MAC has the ability to accomplish in 1999; the other is to reach out to the surrounding communities requesting information about any local newsletters that MAC could provide information for publication. It �vas decided to include a form in the next MASAC mailing askin� representatives to provide the name of any newsletters �,_ generated within the communities, the frequency of distribution, availability of space, the deadline for receiving information to be included, a contact person and any cost incurred. She also asked representatives of the MASAC Communication Advisory Board to provide as much information about the ideas brought up at the meetings as possible to evaluate the effectiveness of information dissemination and the cost both in dollars and MAC staff time. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, e:cpressed concerns about including the Minnesota Legislature as an entity to send information to. Mr. Fuhrmann explained the MASAC Year in Review includina �oals and accomplishments, is already beina sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate. Mark Hinds, Richfield and Mr. Fuhrmann felt it was important to inform the representatives and have the issues MASAC and the communities would like to see addressed, on record. Ms. Burt noted including the leaislature in information dissemination would let them know there is a body looking into the issues and concerns of tlle communities. The MASAC Communications Adyisory Board has the ability to review this information to determine if it is appropriate information to be forwarded to the leQislative representatives. Mark Hinds, Richfield, sug�ested a Question and Answer page on the Website listing the most frequently asked questions and the answers to those questions. Ms. Burt stated that is already in pro�ress with the Website enhancements. C' John Halla, St. Paul, asked if the MAC Website is linked to other general information Websites for an overall view of the issues. Ms. Burt indicated the MAC Website is linked to other Websites and asked Mr. Halla to research the Websites he feels would be appropriate for MAC to link to, for review by MAC Staff. ' Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, brought up the idea of Internet bulleting boards and/or chat rooms to add to the MAC Website in the future. Ms. Burt explained MAC doesn't have the staff to man a chat room at this point. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, sugcested having the questions with the answers information, to be added to the Website, reviewed by MASAC prior to posting them on the Website. It was recommended each city provide MAC with the top 10 topics they feel the communities want to see and hear about to be incorporated into one list to be reviewed by the MASAC Communications Advisory Board taking the top 3 items as priority for the remainder of 1999. This information can be forwarded to Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary, via email at sludwiarmspmac.or�, fax to 612-725-6310 or regular mail to MAC Environment Departrnent, 6301 34th Ave S., Minneapolis, MN 55450. To ics and Issues to Communicate throuQh the Remainder of 1999 a.- Part 1 SD Udate �� Progress of the Residential Sound Insulation Pro�ram �- Runway Use Updates (currently available on the Internet) �.- Noise Complaint and Information Line ..- Construction Pro�ress �•- Status of StaQe III Compliance � Federal Phase Out � MAC Ordinance '.- Meetina Notices and Agendas .•- Lo�v Frequency Noise Policy Committee Efforts �•- Nighttime Operations ..� Completion of the � Additiona] RMT Sites � North/South Rum��a}� Use ' ) � Close-in and Far-out Departure Pofiles � Volume of Tra�c at MSP . • 7� � Minneapolis Procedure � GPS � Ground Noise Straight-out Departure ESTABLISH FUTLTRE MEETING DATES, TIMES AND FREpUENCY The next meeting of the MASAC Communications Advisory Boazd will be August 31, 1999 at 3:30 p.m. � A second meeting was scheduled for September 14, 1999 also at 3:30 p.m. OTHER ITEMS Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, mentioned that three Public Meetings are in the process of bein� scheduled for the Part 150 Program in which information relating to LDN could be incorporated. The first meeting will be held at the Radisson South in BloominD on on September 28, 1999, Holiday Inn in Burnsviile on September 29, 1999 and the Holiday Inn in Eagan on September 30, 1999. All meetings begin at 5 p.m. and will run until 8 p.m. , .-..� �1�' �2 � t (. `i: �Z The meeting was adjourned at 433 p.m. j�`''��`� `�� y� ' A�-----�--�.� � � tl L. � "Li>' �'� V RespectfuIly submitted: C c�., �,,�` }� Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary � ;/��5� i v �s� .E.��` ��TeUtQ.ui r / � �� 1S C� 1 I f, � v � G �� 9 O "S � _ i� t� A� O D � R �D rQ a � :3 �'G O �"h d y � G O � • � � � Continue to use the existing Run-Up Pad Facilities. � Search for alternative Run-Up Pad locations to use during unfavorable wind conditions and �,, future ai�eld construction projects. ' � Conduct an evaluation of the proposed benefits for modifying the existing Run-Up Pad. � Evaluate the potential benefits of an additional Ground Run-Up Enclosure Facility. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked about the deadline to include any potential allocations in the 2000 budaet. Mr. Fuhrmann stated if the analysis was completed by March 2000 that would allow enouQh time to present the results and recommendations to MASAC for approval to include the expense in the CTP for 2001. Bob Johnson, MBAA, expressed concerns about MAC Staff time constraints with the Part 150 Pro�ram in progress. Mr. Fuhrmann explained there would be a need to utilize consultants to complete the process in a timely mannor. KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA AEIGHTS MOVED, AND JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON SECONDED TO MOVE FORW�i2D WTTII `THE �'VORK PROGRAM AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DAILYDNL TREND ANALYSIS Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, presented a Daily DNL Trend based on data taken from January 1998 through December 1998 showing both the decreases in daily DNL and the increases in daily DNL. A Daily DNL Values by RMT chart showing the changes in DNL throu�hout the period, which revealed ,. the fact that the DNL levels vary relative to the time of year the data is derived from. The general �. �, consensus from members was a lonaer timeframe spanning years versus months is more representative and provides a better picture of the DNL trend. The membership found the analysis interesting and stated such analysis would be helpful on an as needed basis. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, informed members a City Staff Workshop for the Part 150 Base Case Analysis is scheduled for September 9, 1999 at 2 p.m. in the MAC Large Conference Trailer. The next MASAC Operations Meeting is Friday, September l0, 1999 in the MAC Large Conference Trailer at 10:0 a.m. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon. Respectfully submitted: Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary ' l N � � c� Q c �: F ' � o c��' ,.� E " ca .� a� ..a � � o � �.G., c� �' L..', � � �- z � �- � �� , �N �� r � � � � � � O Qi ..^. �-+ u (� � � �' � L:7 � � �-- c oU -��" o � � � � c � '`'' O �� O 0 � C '� r v V � � C �, r- � � � C/J t�n.l � � = � ""� '� C J `" U L � �1 •� � O N .= � G � ;.r U _ v: � j U 'J — .= Vi J � � J ` , G^ � l �, . _ �r c �. J � G ` � � =� J � J � r �� r � J :� � � � � � � � �:, .�. � � c� ^ �" � C� •� � C M . O `:+ �V �ir eV J�' � ^ � � �- � - �� r -� � � = � � � � _ �- � � � f C s � � °� � ,�; M N .-� 00 N N � � o 0 � M ei' N � � � ~ � r� �n � M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O �/'� O O U1 � M M�--a �O O O 00 c}' ['� l� O� M^' N N•-^ ^� N M M 6F} b9 69 b9 6�3 f{-3 64 6�4 d � � o U��.d �� '�O,o�-oo�n�n� L' � � ,� N N N � �� 69654�?bq64E�3{�4GF} � �h � �w/ � � F�'+ g�j N N N N� N N N � � p O O O O O O O O � � "� w � � � .�' � �i .�+ w F' G� M O� M N t� N CT et � y M d- .�i d' O c!' �--� O G1 Q � N�n � O o0 O� �n O a L --" 'n C 'Q '� � � J � s- N M �T' v'� �D t� oo O� E�" � O� O� G1 O� O� O� O� O� o � rn� rn� rn� rn rn� � . . � � �. . � �. � . � �, ��; Date: On whose behalf are you requesting: Name: Yourself Address: City Council Mayor Citizen Phone: Organization Other Is this a one-iime request: Yes or No Beginning Ending If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) �'=round Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contaurs Part 150 Qther PLEASE WRITE O UT YO UR REQ UEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOL UTIONS. Over Please � Please indicate the 1998 MASAC objectives supported by this this request: ❑ To provide information to the MAC in their efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to construction to the surroz�nding communiiies. ❑ Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and mak•e any necessary changes to the retevant procedures. ❑ Review the .4NOAfS svstem and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote monitorrng towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities. ❑ Reqa�est.4ir Traffic Control personnel to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conducted. ❑ Look at prol�iding incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factorv-made Stage III aircraft. ❑ Iiai�estigate hox� GPS and other NAI�'Aids could help alleviate aircraft noise. ❑ Rel�iew the N.4DPs and compliance. ❑ Contina�e discussia� of Part 1 SO contour generation. Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Mi�zneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to :(612) 725-6310. F Request # Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Approved B�•: Approval Date: Or Written Request'? Data Availabiliri�: Monitoring Siari Date: Monitoring Stop Date: Analvsis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Completion Date: C Q MASAC Members cha;.�„a,,: Charles Menensotto (Mendota Heights) Firtt Vice Chairman: J�n NeLso� (Bloomington) MASAC Oparafinns Cnmmiaee Chairntan Ql1lI S�'COnlI VIC[ CIiQf!'in(717: Merk Sslmen (NWA) Aisbnrne Ecpress: B� sa�� ALPA: Rou Johnson City ojBloomington: Pe[rona I.ee v�,a w-a�ox Citv ojBurnsviUe: ct�« v� c�,;�a« Cirv ajEagan: .t�;� v��„�� L,ance scar;cha Ciry ojlnver Grove Neighu: charles Egincon Ciry of Mendora Heighrs: J�15mit6 Kevin Batc6elder City of Minneapolis: Barret Lane Dean Lindberg J« Lee Glenn Strand s�,a,$ cd.-;n xoy Milce Cramer Cirv ojRichfield Kristal Stokes v8.� w��a�� Citv oJSt Louis Park Robcrt Andrews Ciry ojSr. Paul: John Iia13a City of Swrfish LaAe: Gienda Spiotta Delra Airlines Inc.: t.�,�r c«t� DHL Airways: Brian Simoason Federaf Express: Jahn Schussler MAC Smff.• Dick Ke;n' MBAA: Robert P. Johnwn Mesaba Northwest Airlirrk: Phil Burke Narthwest Airlines: Jeunifer Sayre sc�� x�� Nancy sc«,ac Sr. Pau! Chamber ojCommerce: Rolf Middletoo Sun Counrry Airlines: C:or+don Graves United Airlines lnc.: Kevin Black United ParcelServicc• Michae! Gryer U.S. Airwavs lnc: Larry Yandle MASAC Advisors Merrnpoliran Airports Commicsion: Roy Fuhrnsenn Metrnpnlitan Airports Commission: Commissioner Altoo Gasper Federal Aviarian Adminisrration: Rou Glaub Cindy Gmne Air Transpnnation Assnciatinn: Paul McCGrsw MN Air Natinna! Gua�: Major Roy J. Shetke U.S. Air Fnrce Resen•e: Captain David J. Gerken Secreran•: Shelly Ludwig Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, intemational, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in [his state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in. that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport azea land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold- Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regularions, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the saine; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason -0f their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinata and 5hane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician questions or comments may be directed to: MAC Aviadon Noise and Satellite Programs Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 6040 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis MN, 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6328, Fax: (612) 725-6310 MAC Environment Depaztment Home Page: www.macavsat.ag The Airport 24hour Noise Haline is 726-941 L Compiaints to the haline do not resuit in changes in airpcxt adivity, but provide a public sounding board and airport informa[ion oudet. The haline is staffed during business hours. Mondati• — Frulay. C Table of Contents July 1999 Complaint Summary 1 July 1999 Complaint Map 2 MSP Airport Reference Diagram 3 July 1999 All Hour Runway Zlse 4 July 1999 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 5 July 1999 MSP Top 1 S Airport Origin/Destination Analysis 6 July 1999 Nighttime Runway Use 7 July 1999 Top 1 S Nighttime Operators by Type 8 July 1999 Top 1 S Nighttime Operator's Stage 1l�Iix 9 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 10 July 1999 Total and Average Daity Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 11 July 1999 Average Aircraft Event Lmax and Leq per RMT 12 July 1999 Monthly DNL Values for Aircraft, Community and Total Events per RMT 13 July 1999 Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT � j 14-21 C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report MSP Complaints by City July 1999 Nature of MSP Complaints 1�Tature of 1VISP Complaints ^�k1.U.� .' .:G. _:4F"ia3. '�F' � .� �� A Product of the i�tetropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � F.a�essive Noise � Early/Late ❑ Low Flying � Structural Dis turb ance ❑ Helicopter � Ground Noise F� Fngine Run-up � Frequency �� 1� N1cLr��ulii:u� i\ir�raft ��un�l /lhalrmr►il ('��un�:il (Ni�\Sn(')�I'�chniral i��iviwr'ti kc��rt ,�uly 1999 'I'otal I�ISt' All Elour IY�arnvay Usc All Arrivals Jet Arrivals �1 Departures Jet Dep�urtures Nature of Operations ❑ Rwy 4� I2wy 12L � 12wy 12I2 � Rwy 22 ❑ Rwy 3UL ■ Rwy 30R ( �.rrivall _ Coimt. All ' _��'�'Y._..__lDeparture -----_OverBi�;l�i_ArC�.a____�__..._Ol�rati��ns__ Perc:ent i 4 An• So. Richlieki/I31cx>minTton 106 0.4�/� ' I2I, � Arr So. iVlinnea lis/No. IZichtic;ki Ei038 28•�0�, i-- 1`'� _ Ai�- So. Nlinn�a lis/No. IZichticki 4729 22.1%� � 2? �1n� St. I'auUHiahland I'ark S37 i 2.5`% � i..__ b ' ___ 3�i,_i_. ni�� Ila�an/Mendota Hei hts ._ _.. 4'`�6 �_ (�).8`%�- � 30IZ � A1�- I;agan/M�ndc>ta Heights � 5788 ' 27 0%' � _ ._. _ , . _.. _ _ _. _... _ _....__ .. ..._. . _..._._ _. . _ _ . __ _ -_ _ _ _------ � '�'r}tal.�,,ti'ivals 214�� lt?O.f?�'/o �___ - � 4 �� Ucp ' S[. PauUHigl�lanci I'ark (1 1 �(?.S°/r� - - - - . ---- �-- -- - _� _ _�. .._ -- ; --- �� '� t_L Uc� j I;agan/1Vlcnd��ta Hcibhts 54?R ?5 �°/,� ------=-- . _ ___ _.__ _ _ _- � _----- I�IZ l��p I;agan/Nl�ncic�ta Hci�ht5 Ih7 � 0.�)`%� ?' l�� ; So.lZicl�tic(c1/Bkx�ilun�t�>n � lUO35 � �7.7�%• __ . - -- -- - ---- , _ ---- --s---- , .. __ - -- 3U1, l��P Sc�. Nlinncapc�lis/N�>. 1Zichl�icict I 5�1 ?.y`%� ---- � -- —�.__--- - - --- �t)1Z -- 1)��i': Su. Ntinncn �l�.iy/Nu. RichCic?ci � 46�):3 ??.3`%• _..---- — -Crf trzl �:)i� }�:�ii ��rc�s ------ 2 I 1} �; � 1(){) {) �/n '� �'�� . ------- , "� :� �:� � �, ��.d � � .T '9�«tal ()� r�tit�ns_ �__._..---..__ . . C��w�t Jet _ Ope�,ations Percent _ 70 _ ;__0.5�%__ 4-�g62 � 31.3�'Ic 2y29 I 18.8`% 422 2.7% 2583 16.6%� �C�6 -- - - 30.1 �/<� . .._ --- --- . . __...._.. _._ . 1;,�� j 1U0.O% -- - 74 .__ _- _O=��% - 393� ' ?5.7�%� i_ _ �� ._.. - - 0.1 `%• � � _ 7hQ3 _ __ _..5O.y`%�_ j � . ._. . I `�? _ 1.3�%� ' _ _ _-- — -� � 3311 ? 1.6�%• ' � ..1 �34�§ -- 1 t?().{) �/c 1 ��-----/1�;, ,� �,� K�� ,,��, ��d�,�� Na , ...-�llll��__...._lr � 1i'��1iI�I�d4'lul7 .� A I'rcxlurt ��I' U�c N1cU�c>��litan Air��rts ('t�mmissic�n ;\NUNiS 1'r�7�_rtun Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition ` FAR Part 361'al:e - ''�' ``e o�frruiseLev�i > Aiu�c:raftI}escri tic�n ' ` Sta e- C�aurit' P�rcent B742 110.0 Boein 7�7-200 3 1$4 0.6% B741 109.4 Boein 747-100 3 81 0.3% B743 10�.� Boeina 747-300 3 59 0.2% DC$5 10�5 McDonnell Douolas DC8-500 2 6 0.0% DC$6 105.5 McDonnell Dou las DC$-600 2 56 0.2% DC10 103.0 McDonnell Dou las DC10 3 1061 3.4% B722 102.4 Boein 727-200 2 1470 4.8% B744 101.6 Boein 7471400 3 6 0.0% DC8Q 1005 McDonnell Dou las DC8 (Modified St . 3) 3 185 0.6% B721 98.5 Boein 727-100 2 64 0.2% DC9 98.1 McDonnell Dou las DC9 2 1218 3.9% B732 97.7 Boein 737-200 2. 686 2.2% MDil 9�.8 McDonnellDou las DCIl 3 7 0.0% B767 95.7 Boein 767-200/300 3 6 0.0% B72Q 94.5 Boein 727 (Mod�ed St . 3) 3 3246 lOS% DC87 94.5 McDonnell Dou las I7C8-700 3 86 03% B777 943 Boein 777 3 0 0.0% A306 94.0 Airbus Industries A300B4600 3 59 0.2% A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 0 0.0% B73 92.1 Boein 737 (Modified St�. 3) 3 111 0.4% MD80 91.5 McDonnell Dou las DC9-80 3 1996 6.5% B752 91.4 Boein 757-200 3 3210 10.4% DC9Q 91.0 McDonnell Dou las DC9 (Modified St4. 3) 3 8148 26.4% B734 88.9 Boein 737-400 3 66 0.2% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 4773 15.4% B735 87.7 Boein 737-500 3 234 0.8% B738 87.7 Boein 737-800 3 4 0.0% A319 87.� Airbus Industries A319 3 42 0.2% B733 87.5 Boein 737-300 3 1117 3.6% B737 87.5 Boeina 737-700 3 9 0.0% BA46 84.9 British Aeros ace 146 3 1337 4.3% CARJ 81.8 Canadair 650 3 397 13% E14� 81.8 Embraer 145 3 ti9 0.8% F100 81.8 Fokker 100 3 709 2.3% F70 80.1 Fol:ker 70 3 4 0.0% ;� _ ` T�itais . : #��G �4��i:(i% . . _ �_; �tDUA2�.`: �@I'C811i:. Sta�e II 3a0O 11 3 Cc Sta�e III 11690 37.9°l0 Sta�e III Nlanufactured 1�706 �0.3% TotalSta�eIll ?739C 88.7°% Note: Stage III represent airaaft modified to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This Includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircrafr operational flight conFgurations. . The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft rype during [ake-off ineasured in EPM, dBA �' (Effective Perceived Noise Level). � . EPNL is the level of the ti me inteo al of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise leve! oP an aircrah 8yover measured in A-weiQhted decibels. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba[ement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 Top 15 Origin Airports fo� MSP 1000 � 900 0 '� 800 � 700 � O 600 � 500 �� 400 �, 300 � � 200 C � 100 0 1 1�� otiti ,� �,5 ,�b �,�1 ��,� ��S ��o �� .�- ��q�� ,� ��1� o`��+��4 �� S � 4, o�~a� 9� �4 ��' � �4 �� 5�� 'ti �4G�� 4G�� v �� Airport Note: Origin Airport is the aicport from which the air¢aft last departed pnor to amvmg az m�r. July 1999 Top 15 Destination Airports for 1V�SP 1000 900 � 800 �, . � 700 � � � � 600 A � 500 .� � 400 � � 300 0 � 200 100 0 , a�4�``�y do� �y �,y �� 1 ��g �� ,ys o2�pi� ��ti�+ ��qo� �y5 N "�' � � � L�� 9�� 5�� 1a �$G��a �� o ,� �o y� G'�4�a �� G�4��o- �� L�I.lI�30i't Note: Destinauon Airporc is the 6rst airporc that the aircrafr is proceeding to after departing MSP. ( A Praiuct of the Metropoliran Airports Commission ANOMS Program � a 0 '� � w a O � 0 c. � .� � O z Metropolican Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 19991VCSP Nighttirr�e Runway Use 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m. All Arrivals Jet ArrivaLs All Departures Jet Departures Nature of Operations ❑Rwy4�Rwy12L�Rwy12R�Rwy22�Rwy30L�Rwy30R A.Product of the i�tetropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Operators by Type Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 93.9% of the total niclittime operations. 8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram f� �.. Metropolitan Aircraft 5ound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m � 2�'� �� G�� ,�� 9� �C�� `� s��.�'� ��,v �,5 �� Airiine � Stage 2 O Stage 3� Manufactured Stage 31 July 1999 Nightiirr� F1eet Stage Mix for Top 1S Airlines � 10:30 m. to 6:00 a.m � .rt � � �..?,` ? .} _ t-' y .. r'Si -7 } � � '}i�+j: �f �(.i.a�Wli44{i,LRAt�� J �� y �1�.._ : � y�, / :., i . ... .; : )� � � i . r . � � . . -'Airiine ' -�..�Sta ��e 3, . .� ° . _ -To.ta� �. ;�-5 ae=2.. ::� e:3.'... - AAL 0 0 73 73 ABX 10 36 0 46 AWE 0 0 48 48 COA 0 0 45 45 COM 0 0 52 52 DAL 9 17 18 44 FDX 2 0 78 80 KHp 29 1 0 30 I*iWA 115 490 893 1498 RYN 50 38 0 88 SCX 18 104 12 134 TWA 18 15 � I 34 UAL 20 14 35 69 UPS 1 51 0 62 V GD 58 � 0 0 58 �l'of.a.l i34� 7'i�i �2�� 2;�i,�� A Praluct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 Me[ropotitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council {MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Ayerage Total Ii�� . NlontI�ly : : R.l1�IT N��se':: Noise < �> Ig3 -Events . Ev�nfs'' 24 263 8147 23 229 7100 22 126 3899 21 38 1190 20 116 3600 19 �288 8928 18 301 9326 17 200 6201 16 214 6631 15 116 3611 14 302 9364 13 74 2305 12 5 170 11 5 156 10 22 678 9 19 597 8 79 2464 7 29 888 6 369 11446 5 285 8831 4 278 8612 3 213 6605 2 221 6849 1 l 236 7321 � N M N N N � N 0 N � ., � � � � � � � � � � � � � N � � � a � July 1999 Average Daily Ai�rcraft Events by I�M'I' o so r� rso a� a� a� �So Q�b �so S�b Number of Noise �+ents A Praduct of the ivletropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 11 12 24 _-2� 22 21 2C 19 18 17 T16 15 14 �13 �12 .11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 Average Aircraft Event Lmax and Leq 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ciBA Noise Le�els a�g [�q Ave Lmaz Nole: Laq is the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual time-vazying sound level. Lmax is the greatest sound level measured on a sound level meter, during a designated dme interval or event. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOi�IS Pro;ram 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 A 13 E� �" 12 � 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 � 1 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba[ement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 1999 l�oa��hly DI�iL Values for r�a¢�¢�f�, �o�munity and T�ta� 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 9)IVY� Noise Value 0 Affcraft DNL ❑Comm. DNL �Totat DNL Note: DNL is the cumulatice measure of noise exposure during a twenty four hour day. (A 10 dB penalty is added to noise events occurring between 10:00 p.rn. and 7:00 a.m to account for increased aanoyance.) A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cocrunission ANOMS Program 13 C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report T�p 'Ten L�a�dest A��af� Nogse Ev�nts for Il�SP (RMT S ite# 1) Xerxes Ave. & 41S` St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 7/17/9915:03:10 SCX715 B722 D 30R 93.5 �7/27/99 8:36:28 Unknown Unknown A 12R 93.2 �7/17/99 9:54:55 NWA611 B722 D 30R 92.7 7/24/9915:10:56 SCX715 B722 D 30R 91.8 7/26/9915:41:06, CCP343 B72Q D 30R 91.0 7/31/99 20:29:10 SCX711 B722 D 30R 89.9 7/06/9912:32:36 NWA1543 B72Q D 30R 89.6 7/11/99 21:02:20 NWA1273 B722 D 30R 8$.8 7/31/99 21:13:05 NWA1267 B722 D 30R 88.3 7/14l9917:57:08 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 88A (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43`d St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) TvDe Denarture 7/17/9915:02:56 SCX715 B722 D 30R 99.4 7/02/9919:22:44 SCX711 B722 A 12R 96.1 i `i 7/22/9916:52:09 Unknown B722 A 12L 94.9 7/09/9912:05:32 NWA1543 B722 D 30R 92.5 7/26/9915:40:50 CCP343 B72Q D 30R 92.3 �7/11/99 9:54:02 � NWA671 8722 D 30R 92.0 7/14/9916:12:34 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 91.7 7/Oi/99 21:24:50 NWA1267 B722 D 30R 91.5 7/Ol/99 21:03:02 NWA1273 B72Q D 30R 91.5 7/11/99 21:01:54 NWA1273 B722 D 30R 91.2 (RMT Site#3) West Elmwood St. &z Belmont Ave. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 7/07/9914:5-1-;37 SCX715 B722 D 30R 99.9 7/31/9919:55:18 DAL1683 B722 D 30R 97.1 7/09/99 21:10:15 NWA615 B722 D 30R 95.1 7/26/9919:55:20 DAL1683 B722 D 30R 94.3 7/OS/9910:56:50 TWA591 DC9 A 12R 94.2 7/06/9915:19:14 CCP345 B72Q D 30R 93.9 7/21/9912:18:45 NWA1262 DC9Q A 12R 93.7 7/20/9918:31:59 NWA449 B722 A 12R 93.2 7/17/9915:02:40 SCX715 B722 D 30R 93.0 �7I17/99 9:54:10 NWA611 B722 D 30R 92.7 14 A Product of the iV[etropolitan Airports Commission AN0�1S Program Metropolitan Aircrafr Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'T�� '�e�n Loucles� A��c�-a�t 1�loise Events fo� l�l[SP (RMT Site#4) Oakland Ave. & 49`� St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/OS/9916:11:35 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 101.4 07/O1/9912:27:28 MES3373 SF34 A 12R 99.8 07/ 17/99 15:02:38 SCX715 B722 D 30R 99.7 07/14/9916:12:09 DAL1624 B�22 D 30R 99.1 07/26/9916:11:02 DAL1624 B722 D 30R 98.3 07/22/9916:52:39 Unknown B722 A 12L 97.6 ,�, -: 07/23/9919:59:45 DAL1683 B722 D 30R 97.0 07/16/9916:06:24 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 95.8 07/30/99 21:26:54 DAL16$3 B722 D 30R 95.4 07/06/9912:31:38 NWA1543 B72Q D 30R 95.2 (RMT Site#5) 12`� Ave. & 58�' St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Tvne Deoarture 07/21/9912:17:20 NWA1259 B722 A 12R 108.2 07/30/99 20:11:49 NWA1252 B72Q D 30L 102.2 ' ) 07/OS/9918:59:05 SCX785 B72Q D 30R 101.7 07/10/99 7:08:58 SCX710 B722 D 30L 100.7 07/09/9918:38:40 , NWA1076 B722 D 30L 100.6 07/21/9917:40:03 NWA678 B722 A 12R 1003 07/26/99 9:57:12 UAL1133 B722 D 30R 993 07/09/99 21:23:54 NWA575 B722 D 30R 99.1 07/08/99 23:35:26 SCX411 B72Q D 30R 99.0 07/31/99 9:53:59 NWA671 B722 D 30R 98.9 (RMT Site#6) 25�' Ave. & 57�' St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Tvoe Devarture 07/28/99 11:25:57 07/14/99 21:14:18 07/24/99 8:00:48 07/29/99 9:47:55 07/23/99 21:13:06 07/ 14/99 9:57:12 07/i 1/99 11:32:30 07/30/99 21:36:33 07/ 18/99 11:30:52 07/17/99 8:04:28 NWA1271 NWA 1545 SCX749 NWA611 NWA125� '� NWA611 NWA560 NWA5�7 NWA446 SCX749 B722 B722 B722 B722 $72Q B722 B722 B722 B722 B722 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 30R 12L 30R 109.7 109.3 109.3 109.2 109.1 109.1 109.0 109.0 108.8 108.8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba�ement Council (i�.ASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'Top "�"en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IVISP (RMT Site#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64"' St. Richfield Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/26/99 9:57:34 UAL1133 B722 D 30R 97.4 07J31/9915:11:31 UAL1155 B722 D 30R 96.5 07/31/99I0:47:40 UAL1133 B722 D 30R 94.5 07J09/99 9:44:22 AMT8139 B72Q D 30R 93.4 07/31/9919:41:06 NWA678 B722 D 30R 92.9 07/09/99 21:24:18 i�1WA575 B722 D 30R 92.5 07/16/9914:34:48 UAL1155 B72Q D 30R 91.9 07/24/9911:43:27 NWA673 B722 D 30R 91.2 07/27/99 21:25:12 NWA56 B742 D 22 9d.5 07/30/9919:51:48 NWA1112 B72Q D 30R 90.1 (RMT Site#8) Longfellow Ave. & 43`d St. Minneapolis Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/26/99 8:40:19 UAL690 B722 D 30R 98.5 07/06/99 7:10:10 SCX710 B722 D 30R 98.1 07/17/99 8:05:00 SCX749 B722 D 30R 97.5 07/27/99 23:10:10 KHA709 B72Q D 30R 96.3 07/24/99 8:01:20 SCX749 B722 D 30R 95.7 07/06/99 7:51:17' SCX749 B722 D 30R 95.4 07/17/9910:59:13 5CX743 B72Q D 30R 95.0 07/14/99 7:53:21 SCX749 B72Q D 30R 94.7 07/16/99 7:55:38 MES3171 SF34 D 30R 94.5 07/27/99 23:14:33 KHA2772 B722 D 30R 94.3 (RMT Site#9) ' Saratoga St. � Hartford Ave. St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrivall Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/17/9916:31:59 DAL1624 B722 D 04 101.6 07/17/9915:07:06 NWA19 B742 D 04 97.7 07/10/9915:06:59 NWA580 B72Q D 04 97.3 07/19/9915:16:10 NWA19 B742 D 04 97.1 07/17/99 21:29:41 NWA56 B742 D 04 96.0 07/16/99 21:50:26 NWA56 B741 D 04 9�.2 07/20/99 16:09:06 NWA 19 B742 D 04 93.2 07/09/9918:�6:14 NWA98 DC10 D 04 92.5 07/17/9918:47:41 NWA44 DC10 D 04 92.5 07/10/9915:42:20 KLM664 B743 D 04 92.3 16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOi�tS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Louclesi �.ircraft Noise Events for 1VISP (RMT S ite# 10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival! Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/17/9915:06:39 NWA19 B742 D 04 105.1 07/19/99 15:15:42 NWA 19 B742 D 04 103.2 07/26/9912:18:15 NWA23 B742 D 04 102.7 07/17/9916:31:30 DAL1624 B722 D 04 102.7 07/16/99 21:49:58 NWA56 B741 D 04 102.5 07/19/9912:06:03 NWA23 B742 D 04 102.3 07/20/99 16:08:40 NWA 19 B742 D 04 102.0 07/17/9911:52:38 NWA23 B742 D 04 101.3 07/17/9911:36:19 CCP345 B72Q D 04 100.7 07/18/9915:10:17 NWA19 B742 D 04 100.7 (RMT Site# 11 } Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/26/9915:1'7:10 NWA19 B742 D 04 98.5 07/18/99 21:48:41 NWA615 , B72Q D 04 98.2 i;_ 07/09/99 22:28:19 NWA1545 B72Q D 04 96.5 07/10/9915:45:51 NWA688 DC9Q D 04 95.0 07/10/9915:29:10 NWA19 B742 D 04 " 94.9 07/17/9911:52:56 NWA23 B742 D 04 93.2 07/17/9912:57:44 NWA1543 B72Q D 04 92.7 07/30/99 20:06:43 NWA44 DC 10 D Q4 91.9 07/16/9919:t9:19 NWA98 DC10 D 04 91.4 07/04/99 23:33:07 UAL1�63 B732 A 22 91.3 (RMT S ite# 12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/20/9915:19:59 NWA574 B72Q D 04 94.7 07/17/9919:46:16 NWA678 B72Q D 04 91.9 07/29/99 19:15:12 NWA 1545 B722 A 30R 91.8 07/19/9910:23:50 NWA1515 B72Q D 04 89.8 07/18/9911:31:59 NWA446 B722 A 12L 88.9 07/20/99 18:05:54 NWA 1272 B72Q A 22 „, 87.4 07/18/99 23:38:38 VGD1418 B732 D 04 87.4 07/22/99 6:08:10 DAL2034 MD80 D 04 87.3 07/30/99 14:15:43 TWA 130 B722 A 12L $7. I 07/27/99 0:21:51 RYN710 B72Q D 04 85.9 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 17 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report '�"op �'ea� I..oud�s� Aircraft IVoise Ev�a�ts for Ii�SP (RMT Site#13) Southeast End Of Mohican Court Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/03/9913:24:48 NWA1543 B72Q D 12L 95.6 07/30/9915:50:27 SCX791 B722 D 12L 94.8 07/15/99 9:53:08 NWA1515 B72Q D 12L 94.4 07/22/9919:20:51 NWA678 B722 D 12L 93.3 07/15/99 9:50:53 NVJA620 B722 D 12L 93.1 07/03/99 13:07:32 NWA 1271 B722 D 12L 92.5 07/03/99 21:04:44 NWA615 B72Q D 12L 92.5 07/03/9913:17:24 NWA1259 B722 D 12L 92.2 07/02/99 20:02:04 DAL1683 B722 D 12L 922 07/03/99 20:59:34 NWA1267 B722 D 12L 91.9 (RMT Site#14) ls` St. & Mckee St. Eagan Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/26/9915:26:20 Unknown B722 D 30R 100.0 07/17/99 20:59:56 NWA449 B722 D 12L 98.7 � 1 07/17/9919:31:43 NWA1028 B722 D 12L 98.6 07/Ol/9911:06:08 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 98.1 07/19/9910:08:02 AMT8139 B72Q D 12L 98.1 07/12/99 13:54:09 � NWA446 B722 D 12L 98.0 07/O1/9913:12:25 NWA612 B722 D 12L 97.7 07/21/9917:00:59 NWA688 B722 D 12L 97.4 07/21/9913:40:05 NWA1259 B722 D 12L 97.0 07/17/9917:02:29 NWA563 B72Q D 12L 96.2 (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. � Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/03/9914:48:27 SCX715 B72Q D 12L 97.9 07/08/99 8:55:00 NWA99 8722 D 12L 97.4 07/O1/9914:54:16 NWA1470 B72Q D 12L 94.2 07/15/99 9:50:38 NWA620 B722 D 12L 93.6 07/13/99 21:06:52 NWA575 B72Q D 12L 92.7 07/12/99 22:40:20 NWA548 B72Q D 12L 92.3 07/30/9915:50:05 SCX791 B722 D 12L 92.0 07/28/99 20:58:01 DAL1683 B722 D 12L 91.9 07/OS/9911:20:02 NWA1228 B72Q D 12L 91.8 07/03/99 I 1:38:08 NWA 1228 B722 D 12L 91.8 18 A Product of the ivfetropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �. C� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'Top 'I'e�a Louc�es� Air�raft I�loise Events for IYISP ( RMT S ite# 16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/22/99 6:16:38 SCX611 B722 D 12R 96.9 •. 07/17/9911:55:11 TWA591 DC9 A 30L 94.0 07/24/9915:25:49 CCI394 B722 A 30R 92.2 07/28/99 8:53:�7 KHA1771 B727 A 30L 92.1 07/21/9911:18:00 NWA1228 B722 D 12L 91.5 07/09/99 20:46:26 NWA378 B752 A 30L 90.9 07/06/9919:10:41 NWA818 DC9 A 30L 90.8 07/26/9911:47:51 NWA743 B722 A 30L 90.6 07/OS/9919:41:31 NWA1260 DC9Q A 30L 90.6 07/16/9912:14:02 NWA622 DC9Q A 30L 90.4 (RMT Site#17) 84�' St. & 4�' Ave. Bloomington Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/13/9913:23:45 NWA1196 MD80 D 22 111.9 07/20/9917:18:05 SCX791 B'722 D 22 102.6 07/31/99 9:48:37 NWA611 B722 D 22 102.3 ' 1 07/09/9911:44:49 NWA627 B722 D 22 102.0 07/07/99 21:25:35 NWA575 B722 D 22 102.0 07/02/99 21:14:59 , NWA575 B722 D 22 101.8 07/09/9910:35:41 NWA101 B722 D 22 101.7 07/31/9916:10:24 SCX791 B722 D 22 101.4 07/23/9912:27:59 Unknown B722 D 22 101.2 07/23/99 20:14:05 NWA1272 B722 D 22 101.2 (RMT Site#18) 75�' St. & 17�' Ave R.ichf'ield Date/ Time Fiight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/18/9911:20:28 DAL150'7 B722 D 22 107.1 07/14/99 9:46:38 NWA1515 B722 D 22 106.5 07/19/99 21:18:53 NWA575 B722 D 22 105.9 07/02/99 21:26:57 SCX711 B722 D 22 105.6 07/09/99 13: 01: 33 NWA 1 S 15 B722 D 22 105.5 07/20/9918:27:20 NWA563 B72Q D 22 105.1 07/02/9919:20:19 N�VA678N B722 D 22 105.0 0�127I99 1 1:16:07 D AL 1507 B722 D 22 104.9 07/23/9910:�9:13 NWA1515 B722 D 22 104.4 07/27/99 9:12:31 DAL1702 B722 D 22 104.� A Product of [he i�fetropolitan Airports Commission AN0IYIS Program 19 C� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'I'op 'Ten I.ou��st A,ircrait Noise Even�s for 1l�ISP (RMT S ite# 19) 16�' Ave. & 84�' St. Bloomington Date/ Time F(ight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/20/99 10:04:04 DAL1702 B722 D 22 •, 106.0 07/21 /99 15:08:04 SCX715 B722 D 22 105.7 07/08/99 7:06:09 SCX461 B722 D 22 104.1 07/Ol/9913:29:24 NWA599 DC9 D 22 103.5 07/Ol/9915:40:47 SCX791 B722 D 22 103.1 07/12/9911:27:45 DAL1507 B722 D 22 102.9 07/28/9917:38:36 DAL505 B722 D 22 102.9 07/30/99 9:52:13 NWA1515 B722 D 22 102.7 07/12/9911:38:20 NWA627 B722 D 22 102.5 07/02/9918:38:23 NWA1076 B722 D 22 1023 (RMT S ite#20) 75�' St. & 3`d Ave. Richfield Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Tvve Denarture 07/09/9913:01:55 NWA1515 B722 D 22 102.0 07/14/99 9:47:02 NWA1515 B722 D 22 101.4 `� 07/O1/9915:33:29 DAL1731 B72Q D 22 99.1 - 07/09/9914:25:35 SCX715 B72Q D 22 96.8 07/24/9911:47:03 NWA1427 DC9 D 22 96.5 07/06/99 13:59:51 ' NWA1064 DC9 D 22 96.1 07/27/99 23:21:34 NWA575 B72Q D 22 95.2 07/23/9911:38:16 DAL1507 B72Q D 22 95.1 07/23/9915:31:30 NWA1282 B72Q D 22 94.9 07/23/9917:58:16 NWA1112 B72Q D 22 94.8 (RMT Site#21) Bar.bara Ave. & 67`i' St. Inver Grove Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 0�/08/99 7:27:06 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 87.4 0�/ 13/99 16:10: I 4 DAL 1624 B722 D 12L 86.6 07/15/9912:15:40 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 86.4 07/2Q/99 7:09:�6 SCX325 B722 D 12L 85.2 07/19/9915:29:53 CCP343 B72Q D 12L $4.9 07/03/9915:38:37 SCX791 B722 D 12L 84.9 07/23/99 7:17:09 CCP101 B72Q D 12L 84.7 07/22/9919:21:33 NWA678 B722 D 12L 84.5 07/05/99 11:55:38 N6�IA 1047 B'i22 D 12L 83.8 07/18/9916:50:22 DAL1624 B722 D 12L 83.8 20 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program (;. C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top 'Tera I,oudest A�rcrafi l`loise Events for M�P (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrivall Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/08/9911:46:20 DAL1507 B722 D 12L 86.6 07/02/9917:42:59 DAL505 B722 D 12L 85.6 07/Ol/99 12:26:57 AMT8417 B722 D' 12L 85.5 07/22/99 22:33:11 KHA1772 B727 D 12L 85.2 07/11/9917:16:05 NWA1278 DC9Q A 30R 83.6 07/12/99 7:09:07 SCX325 B722 D 12L 83.5 07/O1/9911:06:57 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 83.5 07/06/9913:09:50 UAL1148 B733 A 30R 83.4 07/18/99 8:18:30 SCX227 B722 D 12L 83.3 07/26/9919:13:24 NWA575 B722 A 30R 83.1 (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/12/9914:28:38 SCX715 B722 D I2L 104.4 07/18/99 9:49:19 NWA611 B722 D 12L 104.1 07/15/9918:19:52 SCX791 B722 D 12L 102.7 07/22/9919:20:19 NWA678 B722 D 12L 101.9 07/03/99 20:59:09 NWA1267 B722 D 12L 101.8 07/03/9915:37:20 SCX791 B722 D 12L 101.7 07/12/9916:08:35 DAL1624 B722 D 12L 101.4 07/05/99 9:17:14 ` NWA726 DC9Q D 12L 1013 07/03/9913:16:54 NWA1259 B722 D 12L 101.3 07/03/9913:24:19 NWA1543 B72Q D 12L 101:2 (RMT Site#24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan i Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) Type Departure 07/12/9913:54:21 NWA446 B722 D 12L 91.7 07/17/9919:32:04 NWA1028 B722 D 12L 40.9 07/01/9912:26:26 AMT8417 B722 D 12L 90.7 07/17/99 21:00:11 NWA449 B722 D 12L 90.1 07/22/99 7:15:01 SCX710 B72Q D 12L $9.5 07/18/99 7:15:04 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 89.5 07/20/99 22:04:21 NWA56 B742 D 12L 89.5 07/18/99 7:14:14 CCP101 B72Q D 12L 89.4 07/19/9910:10:14 NWA101 B72Q D 12L 88.8 07/O1/9911:06:26 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 88.8 ,July 1999 Top Ten SummarY: The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for July 1999 were comprised of 88.8% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 with 82.1% of the highest Lmax events. Due to the nature of operations on the crosswind runway, (4/22) RMT's 9, 10, 11 and 12 in St. Paul are an exception. The predominant top ten aircraft type over St. Paul was the Boeing 747 with 45.0% of the highest Lmax events. Note: Unknown fie(ds are due ro data unavailability in FAA flight vack data. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 21 �' } ts I � ( �j� �� a t�� d �': „ � �; � a � s: � ��, i' s: + t� f �'' � �� s � � 1x �i` -!� ' �, ,. • • • �o ..,:�:� o. ..�_ � ; �,� � �.�.:.,:;. M�,..�, � .4�. . �..�,wF�� Nletropolitan �irports Commission Top 15 R.unway 12L and 12R Departure Destinations fo� July �999 , �, , -�, -. ,, QRD Chicago - O'Hare l�q.� 270 6.8�0 DTW Detroit lOS° �a`� �.?9c EWR Newark 106° 143 3.69c BOS Boston Logan 970 12� 3.2�0 CLE Cleveland 109� 127 3.290 . NIKE Mil�vaukee 114° 113 2.990 PHL Philadelphia 111° 111 2.890 LGA New York - La Guardia 105° 10'� 2.690 DCA Washin�ton - National 1 l�� 101 2.69c FAR F3rgo 31�° 98 2.59'c YYZ Toronto g5a 97 2.59� SEA Seattle 275� 90 2.390 PIT Pittsburgh 113° g9 2.2�� ANC Anchorage �9�� 73 1.890 PDX Portland �72� 62 1.69c Ivlonthly Ea�an/Nlendota Heijl�ts Departure Corridor :�naiysis Pa�e � MEETING NOTICE MAS�r� 06�ERAT10(�S COIVIMITTEE The Operations Committee will meet Fridav, August 13, 1999 — 10:00 a.m. at the General Offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Large Trailer 6040 28�' Avenue South, Minneapalis. If you are unable to attend, please notify the commitiee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of your designated alternate. � k , ;�. OLD BUSINESS Airport Construction Update � RMT Site Update Part 150 Update Progress Review Finalize the Draft Technical Advisor Repo�t and Corridor Report NEW BUSINESS Graund Run-up Enclosure (GRE) MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne John Nelson, Bloomington Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Dick Keinz, MAC cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Mark Hinds, Richfield John Alabach, NWA Tom Worum, NWA Advisory: Keith Thompson, FAA Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Jason Giesen, MAC MASAC OPEI.A.TIONS COMMITTEE �'• 1 :`I To: MASAC Operations Committee F�20NI: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Construction Update DATE: August 4, 1999 NIASAC The reconstruction of the south parallel runway is in the twelfth week of construction. 1fie contractor is now finished with the concrete paving on the runway and adjoining taxiways. They are currently focusing on the in-field areas and connectors between the taxiways and the runways. The work is also progressing on the runway grooving to increase traction and braking action. Bituminous paving work will commence next week on the 35 foot wide shoulder that will be adjacent to al] pavement. The electrical contractor is working on pulling of cabling and the installation of lighting fixtures for the in- runway lights as well as the bases for the airfield signage lights for the runways and associated taxiways. The construction of the blast fence along post road is nearing completion. The fencing has been delivered to the site for fabrication'and the erection of the fence and completion of this portion of the project will be within the next couple of weeks. The painters will be on site witrun the next two weeks to comptete marking of all runway surfaces. The weather has been extremely cooperative over the past few weeks and completion of the reconstructiori project is scheduled for September 7, 1999. Additionally, other significant construction events at MSP are anticipated to occur as follows: -July 29 to August 3 Outoound roadway detours for short periods overni�ht between 11:30 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. •August 17-24 Parking Helix #1 opens and Helix #4 closes •SeFtember 25 Open Renta] Counters in core building on levels 2 and 3 •October 5 Open Outbound roadway and exit plaza •November 12 Outbound roadway bypass for Rental Auto Center exit and ramp �I�lovember 22 Open return to terminal bridge and inbound roadway At the August 13, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, MAC staff will provide an additional update on the South Paralle] Runway Reconstruction Project. IF you have any questions, please contact me at 72�-6326. MASAC OPEI.ATIONS COM11iIITTEE 1l�IEIVI(>R�,l�TI)IJIVI NI�,s�.c TO: NIASAC Operations Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Update August 4, 1999 The installation of the five new RMTs is nearin� the final staQes. The poles at all the sites are ready for noise monitoring equipment installation. On August 4-6; 1999 Larson Davis will be on site to install all of the noise monitoring equipment at each of the sites, thus completion of the project is scheduled for August 6, 1999. Following completion of the noise monitoring equipment installation; the system inte�-ation work will begin. It is anticipated this process will be completed with the final acceptance testing on August 20, C � ) 1999. At the August 13, 19,99 MASAC Operations meeting, MAC stafF will provide additional information on the status of the RMT installations. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328. 1��9.5AC OPEI.ATIONS CC)MMITTEE � ' � 1 `I T�: MASAC Operations Committee FROM; Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Sj.TB,JECT: Part 150 Study Progress Review DATE: August 4, 1999 NIA.SAC The Part 150 Study Update activities are now concentrated on development of the base case and existing MSP conditions. Staff and HNTB are focusing on the development of the 1999 Base Case Noise Contour and the existing land use in each community. Staff is systematically corrjparing the land use information received from each community with the . associated county data for completeness of data records and individual lot parcel boundaries. Each parcel will then be reviewed with city staff representatives from each community during the last week of August, 1999. Although this is an extremely time consuming task, the base case land use and associated zoning by community will be the basis for many of the compatible land use recommendations and potential noise mitigation measures that will be developed in future tasks. The contour development will utilize actual aircraft tracking information obtained from the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System for the most recent twelve month period. HNTB and MAC staff are using aircraft arrival and departure paths and elevations from all operations to generate a contour that will most accurately represent the cunent conditions. Staff anticipates being able to present to the MASAC Operations Committee, the above mentioned information for review at the regularly scheduled September 10, 1999 meeting. Additionally, we are scheduling three workshop meetings for September 28, 29 and 30, to disseminate this information to the general public. At these meetings, the public will be abte to review the existina land use, the cunent base case noise contours, the purpose and need for the Part 150 Study Update, and the Part 150 process. MAC staff will provide an update on any other issues related to the progress of the Part 150 Study Update at the August 13, 1999 regularly scheduled MASAC Operations Committee meeting. If you have any questions, p(ease contact me at 725-6326. MASAC OPE.RATIONS COMMITTEE �; � ' � � TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Technical Advisor's Report & Comdor Report Draft Revisions August 4, 1999 NIASAC At the July 9, 1999 MASAC Opecations Committee meeting drafi copies of new Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports were presented and an in-depth discussion ensued providina ideas and suggestions regarding modifications to the presented drafts. Prior to the conclusion of the discussion it was decided that the comments received would be incorporated into updated drafts of both the reports and the resultant.documents would be sent to the membership with an accompanying memo outlining the i�ncorporated comments and ideas. The ideas and comments which were incorporated are as follows: Technical Advisor's Report Drafr Revisions �} Page 2: Added the Monthly Noise Complaint Map. �}- Pan,e 5: Added a column containing FAR Part 36 EPNL dBA departure noise values and sorted the information by Part 36 noise levels in descending order. In addition, a note is provided at the bottom of the page oudining stage III hushkitted Part 36 stage III criteria compliance, information on the usaae of the Part 36 values used in the table and a EPNL dBA definition. �- Page 6: Added definitions of origin and destination to the respective charts. �}- Pag.es 7. 8. 9: Added 10:30-06:00 co all the titles. '�- PaQe 8•• Changed the title to "Top I S Actua! Nightrime Operators by Type." '�- Pa�e 10: Added RMT symbols, city names and a legend to the "Remote Monitoring Tower Site Gocations" map. '�- Pages 14-21: Added RMT addresses to each top ten report table. In addition, an overall top ten summary was added outlinina the percentage composition for the predominate nature ot' operation (i.e. arrival/departure) and the per- centage composition for the predominate aircraft type as wel( as specific information on unique operations (i.e. B747 operations over St. Paul). 1tilASAC Ecz�an/�t�lendota Heights Departiare Corridor Report Draft Revisinns � '� Paees l-=�: Added [he gate used for the speci6c corridor side being analy2ed. In addition the name of the gate in the flight track picture corresponds with the name of the gate in the title of the respective penetration gate analysis. '�- Internet Considerations: It was noted that when this report is published on the intemet links will be provided from the document to more speci6c detailed definitions of the information provided. Please review the updated repoRs and prepare final comments for the August 13, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. It is anticipated that at this meetina a final draft will be solidified. This would result in the presentation of the reformatted July 1999 Technical Advisor's Report and July 1999 Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Report to MASAC for approval at the August 24, 1999 MASAC meetin�. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328. Page 3 MASAC OPEI.ATIONS COM.MITTEE To: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: � '' � 1 MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrznann, Technical Advisor Ground Run-Up PacUEnclosure Enhancements August 4, 1999 Over the past year, the MASAC Operations Committee.has conducted extensive research of ground noise from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. As part of this research, MASAC directed MAC staff to conduct a Ground Noise Monitoring Study to evaluate the sources of ground noise in communities adjacent to MSP. This study resulted in additional questions about the MSP Run-Up pad and its regular use. During the next six months, MAC staff met with airline representatives and through the MASAC Operations Committee revised the Run-Up Pad Field Rule to reflect the.current nighttime hours and the operational use requirements of the facility. MASAC Operations Committee members requested a special meeting to learn more about the Ground Run-Up Enclosure at the Chicago O'Hare International Airport. On April 30, 1999, a special Operations Committee meeting was Held to allow Mr. Ted Woosley of Landrum and Brown, to share his knowledge of GREs around the world. As a result of this meeting, members requested a tour of the existing Run-Up Pad and the NWA Engine Test Cell facility to gain a better understanding of the unique operations that occur at each site. The tour took place on July 8, 1999: Committee members asked questions concerning potential acoustical modifications to the existing MSP run-up pad which may provide some attenuation of the run-. up noise generated at the current run-up pad, or the possibility of a separate GRE in conjunction with the existing facility. To date, the proposed benefits from the construction of a GRE have not been fully identified or quantified. The Operations Committee has seen and heard the benefits associated with the facility at the Chicago O' Hare Airport, however there has not been an in depth study to quantify the usefulness or benefits at MSP. Staff suggests the following outline as a possible method to proceed with the evaluation of the benefits of a GRE at MSP: �i�- Review existing documents associated with Run-up activity. Inventory data and conduct interviews with users, airport enaineers and affected � �/ c '��ct��-c�- {�ia.�-, r� vi E�-' �5(�c;z , C�� parties. � �..�. �,�..0 , MS r� Z t o � Develop a run-up noise measurement program to moni[or actual run-up activity. �L �,.e- -(.-,;j�: �t ,�p Q G {-�-�a � w-�c,tic S'�ri �".«} : (.'c• t SL [/''4 � Analyze the collected data. `""("� �1 Develop Integrated Noise Model and NOISEMAP noise contours oP run-ups. �iF- Fvaluate various alternatives for existing Run-up Pad acoustical enhancements. �� -Le cc ��.-- .. , �( �- Develop recommendations and summary report. e��-� �--{-��-< ' te.ry �� (�� v" e x� 5 E" �� wY ��- '�.� .s i .�. 4� r`-�c G S � k �ti {-- t�t. � ct C o v S 1'� ��`-� ✓L',c'c4 ��-�-,.,,� ��c� � F4��c?�-��=-5 (`�.�� —��. �s. ��-� L� � �::.. �-:_� C u KG�rcti.5 If a[ this point, a GRE facility is determined feasible and beneficial, additional analysis and � implementation procedures will be identified to develop a specifications packa;e, site evaluation and development criteria, construction and acceptance testing procedures. At the August 13, 1999 Operations Committee Meeting, staff will provide a compiete briefin� on the above mentioned items and expand on the associated outcomes of each task. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. MINUTES MA.SAC OPERATIONS CONIlVIITTEE July 9,1999 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission MASAC Small Conference Trailer, and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Members• Mark Salmen, Chairman Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Duane Hudson Mayor Charles Mertensotto Jamie Verbrugge Kevin Batchelder Advisorv Roy Fuhrmann -- . Chad Leqve � ) Shane VanderVoort Jason Giesen Glen Orcutt Mark Ryan Visitors• Mark Hinds Glenn Strand NWA Minneapolis T�IBAA Bloomington Mendota Hei;hts Eagan - Mendota. Heights MAC MA.0 MAC MA.0 FAA MAC R.ichfield Minneapolis Chairman Salmen briefed members on the Run-up Pad & NWA Engine Test Cell Tour that took place on July 8, 1999 stating he felt it went very well and was very informative. Mr. Salmen opened the meeting up for questions about the tour asking members to call the Aviation Noise Department with any questions that may arise throughout the month to ensure any response or presentation is added to the ne:�t agenda. Dick Saunders, Nlinneapolis, asked how o$en do FAA representatives inspect the facility. Chairman Salmen e;cplained that alona with the regularly scheduled inspections, they could show up anytime unannounced. He went on to state, not all inspections take place on-site, when a plane lands at another airport, FAA representatives could be �vaiting to do a spot maintenance inspection of the plane almost instantly. 1 � �� Y , ��.'�..' � Chairman Salmen asked for additions or conections to the June 11,1999 MASAC Operations Meeting Minutes. Kevin Batchetder, Mendota Heights, indicated on pa�e 4, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, the "corridors ability" should read the "corridors inability". Mr. Batchelder also indicated n the third line from the bottom of the same paragraph, where it reads "they are still using FAA operations", it should read "they aze still using head-to-head operations". Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted in his comment on page 7, he wanted to add that he discussed his viewpoint for the need to develop a philosophy among all the airport users about dispersion verses concentration and what the best overall approach would be for noise abatement procedures. The minutes of the June 1 l, 1999 MASAC Operations meeting were then approved as corrected. _ - AIRPORT CONSTR UCTION UPDATE Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, informed members tha� the airport construction. is proceeding on course with a total of 15 days lost due to weather. Began the construction of the first lane of the 8lanes and this week they have started with the third lane. When the lanes are completed, they will fill in between anticipating it will take a total of approximately 6 weeks for the 8 lanes to be completed. The underground utility lines are being finished up at this time and there is some construction adjacent to Runway 4/22 for under�-ound utilities. � Mark Hinds, Richfield, asked if they were still on schedule with the days lost to weather. Mr. Fuhrmann e:�plained they were able to adjust some of the work schedules to catch up. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights asked if there is construction activity ongoing with the North/South � Runway at this time. Mr. Fuhrmann stated cunent activity would include some continued clearing of trees and shrubbery as well a`s some additional graciing. The rest of the trees have been taken out in the last 3-4 weeks near the MNDOT Maintenance Faciliiy. There are still a few trees left to be removed in those areas and there is some initial grade work that will be completed yet this year. Mr. Batchelder asked if the MNDOT building is under construction. Mr. Fuhrmann informed him that the MNDOT building is complete and an open house should be coming up soon. � MASAC COMMITNICATIONS PROPOSAL — Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer (PIO) Wendy Burt briefed members on the Communications Proposal developed as a result of the May 14, 1999 MA.SAC Operations Meeting. The proposal highlighted communication goals, key audiences, 1999 tactics, year 2000 tactics and an estimated cumulative budget of $99,290 (see attachment): 1999 ➢ NIAC tVebsite — enl�anced, more user friendly format providin� more information $5,000 ➢ City Newsletter — provide cities/communities with information for eYisting netivsletters �4,090 2000 � C., .� � Direct Nlail — flyers or postcards indicating resources and information about MASAC $40,.000 ➢ MASAC Community Newsletter — published quarterly by MAC Staff $21,000 ➢ Community NewspaperAdvertisement — periodic adds about meetings and programs $25,200 .� Publicity — periodic MASAC program news releases $9,000 Mrs. Burt explained MAC Staff needs to take into consideration where to budget for these tactics and how to establish a process of collecting and distributing the information giving examples of topics and information previously released to the public and possible topics for future release. JOHN NELSON, BLOOM7IVGTON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE COMVi IITNICATION PROPOSAL .AND TO PRESENT IT TO THE FULL MASAC BODY FOIt RE'VIEW, SECONDED BY DICK SAUNDER,S, MIl�I1VEAPOLIS. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Melissa Scrovonski, 1�TAC, will attend the next MASAC Nleeting, June 22, 1999, to help answer questions re�arding the proposal from the Public Relations Department perspective. At this time, the minutes of the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting were approved as presented. EAGAN/MENDOTA HEXGH?'S CORRIDOR DEPABTURE PROCEDURES- Kim73ughes, HNTB Mrs. Hughes presented an MSP Part 150 Update Siudy brief highlighting the EaganlMendota Heights Corridor and associated procedures. The presentation included the original corridor assumptions and history, operational use of the corridor, c�mpliance, limitations and noise abatement measures to be considered: � The corridor was first analyzed in 1969. i In 199�, MAC completed the 1994 baseline contour, submitting "crossing" proposal data compared to the baseline, 2 proposals were initially considered: ` �C Proposal l: Whenever. possible under non-simultaneous depart�ire conditions, maintain 105 degree ground track on departures off Runway 12R and 118 degree b ound track on departures off Runway 12L. C Proposal Z: Whenever possible, under simuitaneous depariure conditions, establish a northern boundary of 095 degree from Runway 12L departure end and rnaintain a southern boundary along.the soutll edge of the Runway 30L localizer. ➢ Proposal 1—"Crossrng in the Corridor Procedure" was approved by the FAA through a finding 3 of no significant impact (FONSI) and proposa( 2 was removed due to the FAA's uncertainty about the feasibility for efFciency reasons. _ ➢ Analyses of corridor use and compliance with the boundaries revealed the use of the corridor has increased and compliance has been consistent since implementation. ➢ SINIMOD analysis found nanowing the boundaries of the corridor would, for peak hour tra�c, result in si�ificant delays directly impacting the capacity at MSP. The findings supported the FAA's initial hesitancy in 1996 relative to narrowing the corridor from an e�ciency perspective. ➢ Maps indicated shifting the corridor to the north or south would adversely impact residential properties in either direction. ➢ Noise abatement procedures to be considered include: Q Re-analyze close-in and distant depar-ture procedures in the corridor with consideration of Hush-kitted aircraft perFormance. � . Q Validate effectiveness of cunent distant depariure procedure usage in corridor. Q Investigate utilization of new technology to increase corridor edge compliance. � Q Research the development of standard departures based on existing navaids and the possible application of FMS and GPS technologies. Q Evaluate variables related to increasing operations on Runway 4-22. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, expressed concerns about corridor compliance, the magnetic shift relative to the corridor and land use compatibility. Cindy Greene, FA.A, stated air tra�c has no ability to maintain the proposed 095. The FAA has done what they've always said they could da and the 095-degree document is flawed by implyin� air tra�c is doing something wrong when it says they are north of something they never said they would stay tivithin. Mrs. Greene stated use of the 90 degree heading will increase next month and even more ne:ct year. Compliance isn't the issue; it's the increasing number of aircraft flyin� the 90-degree heading. Ms. Greene suggested the 095-degree document.should show exactly what the corridor is (090-de�ree north boundary) and how well air trafFic is doing what they are asked to do. � Mr. Batchelder, commented that this points out the corridors ability to accommodate the increasin� traffic and land use compatibility. He suggested an analysis looking at the three mile cone and land use around the three mile cone on both sides of the corridor, taking into consideration land use 2-3 miles downstream from the 3 mile conidor end, which is heavily residential: The other issue Mr. Batchelder C� discussed was the lack of relief in the corr'rdor because of the litigation which has resulted in a reduction in Runway 4-22 departure operations relative to die estimated 20%. Mr. Batchelder suggested an adjustnnent to the runway use system will need to be made to account for the new runway and asked why they are still using FAA operations when there are other options available. He explained he didn't understand the need to continually bring planes in on runways 30L and 30R late at night when planes are departing on runways 12L and 12R (head-to-head), implyina there had to be other options. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, stated the corridor and boundary issues affect his community as well. Looking at where the planes actually leave the ground and make their 15-degree turn to the north off of the north parallel runways at locations further back on the airport grounds puts the aircraft further into Mendota Heights and further to the north. Leaving the ground even 1000 feet sooner and applying the 15-de�ree angle over a 6 mile run, makes quite a bit of �ound track difference. In regards to the original corridor assumptions, the two parallel runways do not meet the FAA's safety standards for separation supporting centerline operations on both runways. Inver Grove Heights, after completing their own destination stud3�; believe the north diversion is part of the problem. More than 50% of all the ultimate destinatians are south of the runway centerlines, which they now turn north of. The feeling is, hardly a single plane would naturally fly over their communiiy if it was not for the 15-degree separation requirement and the centerline requirement for the south parallel durin� simultaneous operations. Mr. Eginton went onto state the assumptions when the corridor was initially set up. He stated there was no impact beyond 3 miles where the comdor ended which was based on the number of flights at that time. Due to no impact in the community, residents were not allowed to vote on issues. Tl�e number of flights taking place is much higher now, having a tremendous impact on the community. He asked for clarification that the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridar is a noise distribution mechanism not an abatement procedure, and that it re-distributes noise from one place to another. He requested a study of distance from the runways verses noise generation for various planes to determine exactly when the noise from overflights is no longer an impact and asked to generate operational procedures that ma�imize the use of the noise absorptive areas. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, asked for clarification of the request to refine the corridor boundaries referring to the 090, requesting proposal for the refinement. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, explained what was meant by refinement and referred to looking at land uses from an abatement prospective, with respect to where the most compatible land uses are further out than just the 3 mile cone. Mr. Batchelder mention the analysis of distant departures verses close-in depariures being based on a greater good for the �eater whole instead of treating the worst first as it has been in the past eYplaining all analyses need to be cor.sistent. Mayor Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked when the use of tracks instead of headings was implemented. Chairman Salmen referenced proposal 1 implemented in 1995 which stated b ound tracks �vere to be used wlienever possible under non-simultaneous departure conditions. Neii Crark, Minneapolis, asked Mrs. Hughes to eYplain delays betrveen aircraft and how that relates to diversion. Mrs. Hughes e:cplained air trafFc has to maintain certain separations between aircraft,�under simultaneous conditions. She stated as a result of consistently departing aircraft off the parallels making the distance bet�veen the aircraft smaller in concert with t�vo streams on two separate nmways resulting in the need for headinQ diver�ence off one runway. 5 John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mrs. Hughes if the dual track noise contours to the southeast ex�end � beyond the land use area known as the Eagan Mendota Heights conidor and if that contour was the LDN 65 or 60 and if any homes had been insulated beyond the 3-mile cone? Comments from members reflected only homes within the LDN 65 had been insulated as part of the Part 150 Program. Mr. Nelson clarified the followina points which members had brought up and were not incorporated in the conidor brief: S Conduct a review on the analysis of the Noise Abatement Depariure Profiles (NADP) in the corridor. � �. Assess the hush-kitted component in the determination of departure procedures in the corridor. � Validate if the distant departure procedure is applicable in the corridor. Review the consistency of the methods and philosophy used with reaard to various analyses-�►d the departure procedures off the parallel-runways in the conidor. ➢ Better conidor edge compliance with the use of the GPS navaids, when available, for standard departures, and stated we need to address the issues Mr. Batchelder expressed . Q The magnetic shift in the corridor. Q Land uses further downstream from the end of the 3-mile cone. Q The 15-degree separation requirement on centerline departures. Q Investigate GPS Standard Instrument Departures off Runway 17/35 using the river corridor ➢ Land use in an e:�tended cone. Mr. Nelson su�gested submitting the LDN 65 as the proposal and resolve the issues between the 65 and . 60 by taking it up rvith the MAC. The misapprehension is that the FA.A. won't fund out to 60. Mr. Nelson clarified a suggestion from Mr. Eginton regarding a distance verses impact study. Mr. Eginton stated beyond three miles it is almost impossible to generate a contour because the model puts such a small wei�hting on each event at that distance from the airport, yet Inver Grove Heights generates 5 times as many complaints monthly on average as Eagan. He asked if there are 400-500 overflights on a specific a otmd track, vo�hy can't a coxtour be generated 5 miles out. . Chairman Salmen gave the floor back to Kim Hughes, HNTB to finish her presentation including 15 slides shorving the results of a destination analysis. The analysis highlighted flight track and proctuced the top 15 destinations for the month of Nlarch ofF 12L & 12R and the top 5 destinations for each specific destination airport headin; range (85-125, 45-165, 45-270, 270-165) from March of 1999. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, e�plained the difFerence in the number of expected and actual flight operations. ANONIS takes the intended fli�ht schedule published by OAG, matchin; the flight numbers to the actual aircraft operations at the airport. Changes in flight numbers between the time of the publication of the � intended flight schedule and the actual aircraft operations makes it impossible to tie the published data at 100% to the ANOMS data reflecting an 85.5% match rate. ➢ 57% of departures off Runways 12L & 12R went to destinations on headings between 045 and 165 degrees from MSP. ➢ 9 of the top 15 destinations are east of MSP, which is 28% of departures off Runways 12L & 12R. . ➢ The top 15 destinations included 9 to the southeast, 5 to the southwest and 1 to the northwest. ➢ Departures on location headings from 45-degrees to 165-deb ees = 4,142 or 56.7% of total departures. ➢ Deparlures on location headings from 45-degrees to 270-degrees = 931 or 12.7% of total departures. , ➢ Departures on location headings from 85-degrees to 125-degrees = 2,714 or 37.1% of total departures. � . : Departures on location� headinas from 165-degrees to 270-deb ees = 2,320 or 31.7% of total depariures. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, stated diverting 50% of the planes north to bring them back south didn't seem reasonable to communities under those flight tracks. Compass headings to all major cities to the east and south reflect only a couple headings north of the centerlines of the parallel runways. The community was willing to take the noise from those flights but didn't understand why flights to New Orleans would be diverted over their community on a 95-degree heading. Cindy Greene, FAA explained in order to run the volume of trafFc that we ha�e going fo the eastern destinations, multiple variables need to be determined in the initial routing for on-course heading assignments. . Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, expressed concerns that MSP has out�own the comdor established 25 years ago and the assumptions marle at that time are no longer valid. Mr. Eginton reqiiested lookin� at the 'rmpact of each flight, the 90 degrees of airspace that is a no fly zone and whether or not the corridor did what it was estab(ished to do without impacting something beyond the original scope of impact. Inver Grove Heights is looking for operations changes to allow relief or�an explicit statement that the corridor is a noise re-distribution mechanism, which for the b eater good, chanses noise from one area to another. Todd Rusher, Inver Grove Heights requested a three dimensional analysis for noise incorporating altit��de. Chairman Salmen e;cplained this request has already been made along with a request to re- evaluate the noise abatement departure profiles, which should cover Mr. Rusher's request. 7 � :; Lance Staricha, Eagan, stated a lot of theories have been e:cpressed at this meeting which he could �` contest or comment on but didn't. He esplained Eagan is not an:cious for changes in the corridor and they hope the issues will be approached reasonably. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, stated airplanes should be concentrated in areas that are land compatible verses spreadin� that impact around and increasing numbe�of people who are most highly impacted. Kim Hughes, HNTB, stated at this point, the plan is to evaluate departure procedures and altitude analysis. Chairman Salmen stated the northern boundary needs to be evaluated and determine if the mab etic . chan�e has had an impact. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, brought up the issue of the impact of the corridor beyond the 3-mile cone and future impacts being imposed on other people through increased traffic and operational configurations. CONSTR UCTION UPDATE — Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Mr. Fuhrmann explained the construction project is in the 9th week and is currently at a 35% completion rate. Underb ound storm and electrical work is 90% complete and excavated soils nearly 75% complete. Concrete work will begin by the end of ne:ct week. Ten days were lost due to weather and the anticipated completion date remains Labor Day. , � PART 1 SD UPDATE — Roy Fuhrmann, Teclznical Advisor . - . Mr. Fuhrmann briefly updated members on the progress of the Part 150 Study. The timetable remains the same for the mid 2000 submittal. Letters have been mailed to various communities establishing a contact person and requesting the most recent land use from the contacted communities. Responses were requested by July 12, 1999. . Chairman Saimen asked members to review the hard copy of the presentation by Kim Hughes, HNTB and forward comments not covered in today's meeting to Shelly Ludwi�, Committee Secretary via mail at 6040 28tii Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax to 612-725-6310. The neYt MA.SAC Operations Meeting will be heId in the small trailer July 9, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. Respectfiilly submitted: Shelly Ludwi�, Committee Secretary 0 �